Senate Passed Schiavo Bill by Voice Vote

[TomClash]

so not one Democratic Senator requested a quorum call??

[LSparkle]

1. It looked to me on C-Span like it was only Frist and Santorum

Any news on which Dems voted for this charade?

[Emboldened Chimp]

2. There were no dems there, correct?

[janx]

6. Harkin was there. He voted for it. The other two senators were

Frist and Santorum.

[robbedvoter]

3. "You don't favor death, do ya?" ("You don't hate kids, do you?" South Park

Just as they are afraid to vote against war, they are afraid of this. For the seemingly opposite reason.

[TomClash]

12. That's exactly what I don't get

[ElectroPrincess]

4. I couldn't be more disgusted with our "gutless wonder"

Democratic Senators. We do NOT have two parties - only one corporate loving entity with a mix of personalities.

[LittleClarkie]

10. I'd agree with you if there were more of them actually there

I think the Pubs pulled a Sneaky Pete.

[peacetalksforall]

5. Last night during the house circus...someone said that there were two

R Senators and one D Senator - Harkin. Therefore, R's had a 2/3 win.

[Fleshdancer]

7. according to Atrios, there wasn't a quorum. Is this legal?

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/

I was just about to post about this but then I hit refresh and suddenly your thread popped up. This is very fishy to me.

Actually, Atrios links to this site for more info:

http://upyernoz.blogspot.com/2005/03/quorum.html
From this site:

As rude pundit noted, the "unanimous" senate vote last night approving the terri schiavo bill was cast when exactly three senators were in the room.

over in the comments of his loaded mouth tas notes that Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the constitution states:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.(emphasis added)

[janx]

8. I wondered the same thing.

The Senate wasn't even supposed to vote until today, but since the House got involved in some protesting Dems, something happened and a grand total of THREE senators voted yesterday.

?

[Fleshdancer]

9. Here's a scary thought:

"of course, if it is valid, think of the fun we could have! if the president just gets a single senator and a single representative to sneak into the halls of congress in the dead of night, the three of them can unanimously pass any crazy thing they want!"

This was the sarcastic statement on the same site that questions the legality of it. I think this blogger is on to something. At the very least, we need to make a big stink about this.

http://upyernoz.blogspot.com/2005/03/quorum.html

[janx]

15. Warpy mentioned this in another thread. You could have

three crackpots in the Senate and pass a bill with no problem? Something is definitely not right here. Apparently Reid phoned from Jerusalem or some darned thing; I don't know what that was about, but I've been reeling from this all day. I didn't think our government was that messed up, really.

[Fleshdancer]

16. Reid phoned from Jerusalem?

To do what? Vote for it? Vote against it? This just keeps getting more confusing. What the hell is going on with the Senate?

There are days when I think we Democrats are going to fight and eventually win the battles. Then, there are days like today when I feel I'm fighting for a Party that no longer exists. How could the Democratic Senators allow this to happen? Did they know what was going on and when? Had one person stood up and requested a quorum call, this sucker wouldn't have passed. I know we have some Senators who have the guts, so wtf?

OK. I'm going to fish around on google and see if I can answer any of my questions because I'm frustrated as hell right now.

[janx]

17. I don't know. I posted a thread about this earlier today because

I was frustrated too.

[Mass]

19. Vote for it

He said so in his statement on March 17th.

Except for Levin and Wyden who said they opposed before the vote, the only statement I found was Kennedy, who said he thought Congress should not have intervened. So those are three Senators who opposed the vote but did not do anything.

http://kennedy.senate.gov/index_high.html

Reid, Conrad, and Harkin are on record for the vote. I dont know of any other statements.

[Fleshdancer]

21. so they're on the record for it but they weren't there to vote for it?

the only reason why I ask is because this news article says there were no Democrats there (I linked to it down thread):

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, in the Middle East, consulted by phone with Frist. Frist offered assurances that if the Senate met, Republicans would conduct no business other than passage of the Schiavo bill. Reid agreed - and in an unusual occurrence, not a single Democrat was in attendance when the bill passed by a voice vote at mid-afternoon on Sunday.

_________________

Reid is the minority leader. If he's out of town, wouldn't he at least want another Democrat there?

[Mass]

22. I thought Harkin was there

He was at the press conference with Frist and Santorum after the vote. Except for him, you are right, nobody was there.

Anyway, they were all in Washington during the previous vote and nobody asked for a roll call either. I guess nobody was ready to stand for this one.

[TomClash]

11. A Senator on the floor needs to request a quorum call

In the Senate a quorum is presumed

[Fleshdancer]

13. I'm curious as to why a Democrat didn't request a quorum call then

the idea that 3 Senators can pass something by themselves makes me very uneasy.

[TomClash]

14. You're absolutely right

It should make you uneasy. It's undemocratic.

[Fleshdancer]

18. According to this, there were NO Democrats present:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1994&dept_id=226374&newsid=14192469&PAG=461&rfi=9

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, in the Middle East, consulted by phone with Frist. Frist offered assurances that if the Senate met, Republicans would conduct no business other than passage of the Schiavo bill. Reid agreed - and in an unusual occurrence, not a single Democrat was in attendance when the bill passed by a voice vote at mid-afternoon
on Sunday.

:grr: :grr: :grr:

WTF?

[janx]

20. I could have sworn I read something about Harkin and even

saw him in the Senate. It was ridiculous. It has had me shaking all day. My Dem senator is on the Middle East trip--but where were all of the others?

[Fleshdancer]

23. They make too much $$$ to half ass this stuff

If anyone of us just decided to not show up at work we'd be fired.

I read in another article (I'll look for it in a sec and link to it) that historians say this is unprecedented to pass such controversial legislation without a quorum present. It also brought up the "what if" scenario of other Americans not understanding why their Senator or Rep. doesn't create a bill to save their family member.

Ah, I found it:
Schiavo's Impact On Congress
Some Say Congress Has Opened Door It Can Never Close
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/politicsnational_story_080203859.html

[janx]

24. The Senate Dems NEVER should have fallen for this

compromise. They should have rejected getting involved. This whole thing is very frightening.

[trayfoot]

25. Here's a Post article that claims there were just 3

Excerpt:

The Senate, operating under unanimous-consent rules, passed the legislation yesterday afternoon with no debate and with only three members present. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a renowned heart surgeon, said Congress cannot force a U.S. judge to order that Schiavo's feeding tube be reinserted while the new federal case goes forward. However, he said, "I would expect that a federal judge would grant a stay under these circumstances, because Terri would need to live in order for the court to consider the case."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51402-2005Mar20.html

[trayfoot]

26. Here's another citing that Harken was there

Excerpt:

"At a Senate session held Saturday, to clear the way for a vote the following day, only two Republicans and one Democrat were in attendance, with Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, a prominent liberal, working to facilitate passage of the bill. The Senate adopted the bill Sunday by unanimous consent—making every Senate Democrat responsible for its passage. While several House Democrats objected individually to passage of the bill, forcing the unusual post-midnight session, the House Democratic leadership tacitly endorsed the bill."

I've lost the cite - but this came from the socialist website. Okay, found it:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/schi-m21.shtml