What was the "Procedural Reason" Reid changed his vote?

ThomWV

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 11:27 AM
Original message

What was the "Procedural Reason" Reid changed his vote?

I noticed on the scroll on C-Span that Harry Reid had changed his vote to Nay on the bill to end the war against Iraq for procedural reasons. Anyone know what was going on there and how it works?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seemunkee

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 11:28 AM
Response to Original message

1. So he can bring it up again

And again and again(hopefully)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karlrschneider

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 11:29 AM
Response to Original message

2. AFAICT it's some obscure procedural rule reserving his right to

re-introduce it in the future. I think. But I don't 'get' it...
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bigtree

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 11:29 AM
Response to Original message

3. so he could bring up the bill later

if that's the course he chooses

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karlrschneider

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #3

5. What's the ratiolale, though? It seems exactly ass backward...

I realize that's the 'how' of it but I can't grasp the 'why'...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

alfredo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #5

6. In effect he voted to continue debate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ticapnews

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #5

7. It is procedural. It is called a "motion to recommit"

Only a member of the prevailing side can move to reintroduce the item in question. Reid is now officially on the prevailing side, so he is able to move the question again, which he will. In fact, he has already stated that there will be no further action on the Iraq Funding until such time as this Amendment proceeds to an up-or-down vote. If the GOP will not allow an up-or-down vote, there will simply be no funding for the war.

An excellent parliamentary move on his part.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dragonlady

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #7

8. Frist used to do this too n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karlrschneider

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #7

9. So it's the opposite of a trial where the losing side gets to appeal?

Do I have that right? Seems goofy.
:silly:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ticapnews

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. Yes, otherwise you would have endless revotes

It is the same way in most municipal governments. We had a vote at town meeting last month where only a member of the prevailing site could move to bring the issue up again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SoonerPride

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 11:29 AM
Response to Original message

4. It allows him to bring it up again. Make the repubes filibuster again and again.

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 11:30 AM by SoonerPride

They will have to talk until they fall down or allow a vote on the amendment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Apr 29th 2024, 04:57 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.