General Discussion

mfcorey1

(11,001 posts) Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:17 PM Apr 2013

Did Harry Reid vote against background checks? nt

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Did Harry Reid vote against background checks? nt (Original Post) mfcorey1 Apr 2013 OP

Yes, but it's some kind of procedural maneuver. femmocrat Apr 2013 #1

Thanks!! mfcorey1 Apr 2013 #5

He did, but it's a procedural thing so that it can be brought up later. X_Digger Apr 2013 #2

He changed his vote so he has the right to bring the bill back up again. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #3

Reid ALWAYS has to vote 'no' in order to bring the bill back to the floor in the future... Tx4obama Apr 2013 #4

Yes, so he could bring it back to the Floor in the future. Cha Apr 2013 #6

Procedural nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #7

So He Can Waste MORE Taxpayers' Time SoCalMusicLover Apr 2013 #8

femmocrat

(28,394 posts)

1. Yes, but it's some kind of procedural maneuver.

Reply to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:18 PM

Apr 2013

Arcane rules of the Senate.

mfcorey1

(11,001 posts)

5. Thanks!!

Reply to femmocrat (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:19 PM

Apr 2013

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)

2. He did, but it's a procedural thing so that it can be brought up later.

Reply to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:18 PM

Apr 2013

Some arcane rule or somesuch.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)

3. He changed his vote so he has the right to bring the bill back up again.

Reply to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:18 PM

Apr 2013

It's a common procedure in the Senate.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)

4. Reid ALWAYS has to vote 'no' in order to bring the bill back to the floor in the future...

Reply to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:18 PM

Apr 2013

... when there isn't enough votes for a bill the Dems want to pass - it is a goofy procedural rule.

Cha

(297,196 posts)

6. Yes, so he could bring it back to the Floor in the future.

Reply to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:20 PM

Apr 2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022694028

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

7. Procedural

Reply to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:25 PM

Apr 2013

That way he can bring it back

SoCalMusicLover

(3,194 posts)

8. So He Can Waste MORE Taxpayers' Time

Reply to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:46 PM

Apr 2013

This way he could perhaps bring it up again in the future, to waste more time only to see it filibustered again and again and again.

At least he has that handshake agreement with his good buddy and friend Mitch.

Reply to this discussion