Sold out by the Spineless Democrats, yet again

[Sandpiper]

Senate Democrats told us today that political cover is more important to them than violating express provisions of the Constitution.

Terri Schiavo's Bill of Attainder passes unanimously.

[candy331]

1. How many senators voted? n/t

[Walt Starr]

2. Voice vote, ergo, you must assume every Senator agreed with it

It was via unanimous consent.

I've given my last cent to any Democratic Senator for their campaigns.

[cornermouse]

3. We really do need to try to recruit people to run against them

in the primaries.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. every democrat present

my guess is that the 'not voting' was quite high.

[Walt Starr]

24. Not voting = consent on a unanimous consent request n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Oh I agree

This is just chickenshit behavior. They can dodge either way.

[seabeyond]

30. i dont, i think we have to at least hear what happened

shit, we dont know. we are just so ready to yell at a dem. i dont know if they didnt slide this thru with all repugs, if any dems even made it, if any dems were even called. i dont know. do you. give me more information since you have already concluded the dems are chicken shit. i want the facts before i attack my party. seems like something simple i can do anyway, to get facts

[janx]

33. Those are my thoughts as well.

The right wing is going crazy, sliding in all of this unconstitutional BS, sometimes in the dead of night.

How do we even know that Senate Dems even knew they were supposed to be there?

[Warren Stupidity]

43. given the rules and traditions ...

see the other posts here on quorums, it would seem prudent to always have at least one senator on duty from the opposition party whenever the senate is in session.

But I've tried to find out who was present when the unanimous consent vote was held and I cannot find one iota of data on this. Very frustrating. This appears to be one big CYA.

[TrustingDog]

25. we only have so many teeth....

how many have been knocked out about now by our own great saviours?

fuck 'em all. hope the last thing all the traitors of every stripe see is their friggin feet swinging in the wind. methaphorically speaking, of course.

[iwantmycountryback]

64. I'm pretty sure that's not how it works

But yeah, since it seems you'd rather bash Democrats than Republicans in general, have fun with that.

[napi21]

4. My guess is that they felt they would have gaines NOTHING by

fighting this. I think this will go to Fed Court and be struck down as unconstitutional the same as the one in Fl was. I think the Dems are effectively saying, go for it AH's and you'll see what you're trying to do won't work.

The saddest part of this is that everybody involved suffers. Her parents are being given false hope, her husband is being belittled and tourtured, and most of all Terri is being flaunted across the media worldwide. I can only hope the Pubs [ushing this will suffer the consequesces.

[Walt Starr]

17. Meanwhile they tubefuck Shiavo's belly

The tu goes in, the tube comes out, the tube goes in, the tube comes out, the tube goes in, the tube goes out........

[globalvillage]

20. Too sad.

I told my brother today that if the family did to me what's being done to Terri, that when I did die, I would rain down fire on them all.
Allow the poor woman some dignity! Hell, she's all over TV with her hospital gown pulled up so the gawkers can see her feeding tube, for crying out loud.
I don't know who is more evil in this case, the media or the "Christian" right.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Gee our 'party' it seems

NEVER thinks there is anything to be gained by fighting. I am pissed shitless by this.

[ruggerson]

5. Umm.. do a little investigating

there were barely any senators there. it passed by "voice vote" with very sparse attendance.

[salin]

6. they had to atleast have quorum

I would be interested in knowing which senate dems were present.

[pscot]

9. I think that rule only applies

if someone presents requests a quorum call.

[salin]

11. I thought that quorum had to be present

in order to do formal business (like vote).

[Sandpiper]

14. No legislation can be passed without a quorum

Floor debates can take place without a quorum unless a Senator suggests the absence of quorum and a quorum call is issued.

[salin]

16. ergo for this voice to happen - there had to be a quorum

right?

[Sandpiper]

23. Right

The Constitution requires legislation to passed by a majority vote.

This cannot take place without a quorum.

[sandnsea]

39. Wrong

"The Senate presumes at all times under all circumstances that a quorum is present unless and until the absence of a quorum is suggested or demonstrated. In fact, this presumption allows almost all Senate floor business -- including voice votes -- to be transacted with fewer than 51 Senators present. Only when a Senator "suggests the absence of a quorum" does the presiding officer direct the Clerk from the office of the Secretary of the Senate to call the roll."

Now ain't that just the shit? Frist could have voted aye and if nobody called for a quorum call, that would be all it takes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/votes/senvotehelp.html

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Only if one fo the people present objects to the lack of a quorum

[salin]

19. Are you sure?

I think a quorum has to be present - or at least voting present (that is able to get to the floor in time to cast a vote in cases where the floor vote takes place over 20 minutes or so). The "quorum calls" are often slow down procedures in such votes - a delay tactic (so more arm twisting can happen) to force those preparing to vote to come to the floor.

I could be wrong - but that was my understanding a number of years ago when I worked on and around the Hill.

[Sandpiper]

21. A quorum is assumed to be present

Unless and until a Senator suggests absence of quorum.

[salin]

31. ah

so it is possible to pass law without quorum.

[Sandpiper]

34. No

For the actual passage of legislation, the constitution requires a majority.

[salin]

35. yet if quorum is "assumed" unless a vote is called

wouldn't it be possible in a voice vote (not individual voice vote - but the all ayes vote at once and all nays vote at once; I know that they do these in the House, not sure about in the senate) to have three under quorum - but assume quorum as long as noone calls for a quorum vote?

[Sandpiper]

37. Here's a more thorough explanation of quorum requirments

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/96-452.pdf

[salin]

41. as I read this, in the senate they stand per aye or nay and are counted

the side winning more votes announced, but the numbers on each side are not reported, nor is there a record of how any individual senator voted. But - in that process it would be determined whether or not there was a quorum.

That vague statement per presumption of quorum is what got me as a potential loophole. Also the division vote is different in the senate - in the house it is a voice vote (which is always sounds more like a yelling match voting for the favorite act which the barometer will chose in some bad fifties game show, than an act of voting in Congress.)

[Riding this Donkey]

72. They did have to have a quorum, and they needed and got 2/3

majority of the quorum.

They needed at least 218 reps there and 2/3 of them needed to vote in the affirmative to have it passed. It was not a voice vote, it was done electronically, like we have seen many times on C-Span.

I know you didn't ask all these questions, but posted below you so others could see because it looked like there might have been some confusion.

[Sandpiper]

7. There are times when silence is tantamount to consent

I should applaud those who didn't vote?

[globalvillage]

12. Wonder how much notice

there was of this vote, and how many Senators were already home for the Easter break?
It seems to me that the message of the "no vote" Senators was not yea or nay, but that they don't belong in this decision.
No vote record yet on senate website.

[Ronnie]

50. According to the Miami Herald

there were three present: Dr.(Ha!) Frist, Mel Martinez, and they didn't name the third. Or, at least, I couldn't find the name of the third.

[janx]

10. How many knew they were supposed to be there?

Last I heard (from House Dems), the Senate was not supposed to have met until TOMORROW.

The House has been making midnight deals--is that what Senate Republicans just did?

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. I'm not sure that this fits the definition of a Bill of Attainder

A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

[Sandpiper]

18. It singles out Michael Schiavo

For the mere fact that Congress disagrees with a State Court finding in his favor.

And in so doing, it usurps the authority of a state court and violates state sovereignty.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Wrong! The text of the bill does not even mention Michael Schiavo

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109ulTTB9::

[Walt Starr]

22. It punishes Michael Shiavo

It forcibly via an act of Congress takes away his rights as the legal guardian of his wife ex post facto.

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Wrong! It does not even mention guardian status

It only gives the parents legal standing to bring a suit in federal court.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109ulTTB9::

[Warren Stupidity]

28. It causes Terri Schiavo Cruel and Unusual Punishment

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. The bill simply gives her parents legal standing to sue in federal court

How is that cruel? :shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

71. Keeping her alive is cruel and unusual punishment.

Denying her legal guardian's right to address her right to die is an unconsitutional 'bill of attainder' that harms both Terri and Michael Schiavo.

Terri Schiavo, as the Florida courts have determined something like 19 times over the last 15 years, expressed a clear desire to not be kept alive in this sort of situation. Keeping her alive against her wishes is cruel and unusual punishment. It is cruel: a person having expressed a clear desire not to be kept living in this condition is forced to stay alive. It is unusual: this unconstitutional bill of attainder applies only to Terri Schiavo, it is by the simple facts not only unusual, it is perfectly unique.

Michael Schiavo's legal guardianship rights over Terri, his lawful wife, have been once again trampled by legislative fiat. This is an illegal taking and it is cruel beyond belief to Mr. Schiavo. Once again it is by the simple facts 'unusual' as the law singles out Mr. Schivao alone for this treatment.

[OneBlueSky]

27. I've given up on Congressional Democrats . . .

they're nothing but BushCo enablers whose loyalty lies with their corporate sponsors and not with the people the pretend to represent . . . at this point it really doesn't matter if you vote Democratic or Republican for House and Senate . . . the results are the same . . . seems Ralph Nader, despite all his flaws, was right on this one . . .

[BeFree]

36. Get a grip

If any body voted no, they would have been seen, and constantly reminded, referred too, and typified as, someone who voted to kill someone; an innocent someone.

The Iraqi war, now, now that was a vote to kill innocent someones. Let us constantly remind them of that vote.

[chaumont58]

38. The House Dems that had the press conference today.....

looked and sounded very, very good. Barney Frank, Jim Moran, Wexler and two others, I believe from Florida, made a lot of sense to me. This thing isn't over. Barney Franks doesn't believe it will pass constitutional muster. The repukes are going to shoot themselves in the foot over this.

[Pepperbelly]

32. I'm sorry but I have no desire to go to the mat on this one.

I really, really don't. I don't think there is close to a consensus anywhere on this subject.

[Toucano]

40. Political cover is important.

Or no one will be there to fight for issues that truly matter.

If the legislation is unconstitutional (which I also believe it is), it will be ruled so.

Let's not lose the whole war against the repubs over a battle we can't win anyway.

This is exactly why we have an idependent judiciary of appointed judges who can rule without regard to political cover.

[napi21]

42. I checked on the requirements for quorum votes in the Senate.

About Senate Quorum Calls
Unless there is a vacancy, the presence of 51 of the 100 Senators constitutes a quorum. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states, in part, that a "Majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business...." The Senate presumes at all times under all circumstances that a quorum is present unless and until the absence of a quorum is suggested or demonstrated. In fact, this presumption allows almost all Senate floor business -- including voice votes -- to be transacted with fewer than 51 Senators present. Only when a Senator "suggests the absence of a quorum" does the presiding officer direct the Clerk from the office of the Secretary of the Senate to call the roll.



http://thomas.loc.gov/home/votes/senvotehelp.html

[indepat]

44. Is it possible spineless Democrats are more despicable than the loyal

opposition?

[Cuban_Liberal]

46. It's not a bill of attainder.

I don't know where that meme got started.

:eyes:

[w4rma]

49. That's the word! And yes it is a bill of attainder.

The bill was all about overriding the trial judges in the state of Florida.

[Cuban_Liberal]

52. No, it's not a bill of attainder.

A bill of attainder imposes a punishment (criminal) on a person by a legislative act.

[w4rma]

54. The punishment is on Terri Schiavo. She has asked,

through her husband and her marriage contract and some of her friends (as witnesses), to not let her suffer in the state that she is in now. The Republican legislature has taken away her power to decide what should be done to her body. And the other part of "bills of attainer" is that they have to override the court system, and that, obviously, has been done.

[Cuban_Liberal]

55. That doesn't make it a bill of attainder.

Whatever else it may or may not be, it is not a bill of attainder, and no amount of hyperbole will alter that fact.

[w4rma]

56. Both the qualifications are met, therefore it is a bill of attainder. (nt)

[Cuban_Liberal]

58. No, they are NOT met.

Who is being placed in a jail or a penitentiary?

:wtf::eyes:

[w4rma]

59. You think being locked up is the only form of punisment that exists?

Any removal of rights is a punishment.

[Cuban_Liberal]

60. Rhetorical flourishes don't change the facts.

The bill was not a bill of attainder; look up the definition of the term, if you don't believe me.

[w4rma]

62. definition. qualifications.

A legislative act that imposes any punishment on a named or implied individual or group without a trial
- Bills of attainder are prohibited by Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder

"imposes any punishment on a named or implied individual"
The punishment is on Terri Schiavo. She has asked, through her husband and her marriage contract and some of her friends (as witnesses), to not let her suffer in the state that she is in now. The Republican legislature has taken away her power to decide what should be done to her body.

"without a trial"
The bill was all about overriding the trial judges in the state of Florida.

[Cuban_Liberal]

65. What the fuck ever.

Have it your way, even if you don't know shit from apple butter about the subject. I give up trying to be rational and factual!

:argh:

[w4rma]

66. Heh. I expected more from you than a temper tantrum. (nt)

[Cuban_Liberal]

67. What else is left?

It's like arguing with a stump. You are WRONG about the legislation being a bill of attainder, and I've explained why.

[w4rma]

68. No you haven't.

What else is left?

It's like arguing with a stump. You are WRONG about the legislation being a bill of attainder, and I've explained why.
-----
What explanation?
-----
It's not a bill of attainder.

I don't know where that meme got started.
-----
No explanation here.
-----
No, it's not a bill of attainder.

A bill of attainder imposes a punishment (criminal) on a person by a legislative act.
-----
I've responded to this concern:
"imposes any punishment on a named or implied individual"
The punishment is on Terri Schiavo. She has asked, through her husband and her marriage contract and some of her friends (as witnesses), to not let her suffer in the state that she is in now. The Republican legislature has taken away her power to decide what should be done to her body.
-----
That doesn't make it a bill of attainder.

Whatever else it may or may not be, it is not a bill of attainder, and no amount of hyperbole will alter that fact.
------
No explanation here, either.
------
No, they are NOT met.

Who is being placed in a jail or a penitentiary?
------
I've also responded to *this* concern:
You think being locked up is the only form of punisment that exists?

Any removal of rights is a punishment.
------
Rhetorical flourishes don't change the facts.

The bill was not a bill of attainder; look up the definition of the term, if you don't believe me.
------
No explanation here, either, but I looked the definition up again anyway:
A legislative act that imposes any punishment on a named or implied individual or group without a trial
- Bills of attainder are prohibited by Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder

"imposes any punishment on a named or implied individual"
The punishment is on Terri Schiavo. She has asked, through her husband and her marriage contract and some of her friends (as witnesses), to not let her suffer in the state that she is in now. The Republican legislature has taken away her power to decide what should be done to her body.

"without a trial"
The bill was all about overriding the trial judges in the state of Florida.
------
What the fuck ever.

Have it your way, even if you don't know shit from apple butter about the subject. I give up trying to be rational and factual!
------
Another post with no explanation.
------

[Cuban_Liberal]

70. "imposes any punishment on a named ..."

The legislation imposed no punishment on anyone, in any legally relevant sense of the word. What don't you get about the concept?

:wtf:

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. Some would say that denying food and water is punishment

[w4rma]

63. Removing her feeding tube was decided by multiple trials.

The "punishment" must be imposed by a branch other than the judicial branch for it to be a bill of attainder.

[KharmaTrain]

51. Letting The GOOPS Look Like Fools Is Selling Out?

The polls this morning and even hate radio can't deny the overwhelming opinion of how stupid this whole fiasco is and how stupid the Repugnican look.

Once people realize the facts in this story...and a vast majority do (don't be jaded by the dittoheads flooding the talk shows on Rove's dime) they realize the how dangerous and out of control the Repugnicans are and the waste of time and money involved.

Democrats had no say in this dog & pony show and those who played along had a free vote on this one. The vote was rigged before anyone took the floor (DeLay saw to that as usual) and once there was a quorum present, this stupid late night farce would be a done deal.

While I wish enough Democrats would have stayed away to prevent a quorum, why not help letting the GOOP burn their own house down...as the absolute hypocrisy and selfishness of this single-issue isn't lost on many who face similar family situations (a dying loved on), government intrusion into their lives and how many other problems these people should be working on rather than some non-issue.

[Melynn]

53. I'm trying to understand the Democrats and not vote for a third party

but the Senate Democrats keep making it more difficult. If it wasn't for Dean, I would just give up on the Democratic party.

[VTMechEngr]

57. Its called playing out the rope......

[gulfcoastliberal]

69. Resistance is futile...

They have been assimilated.