Negative. It was passed with unanimous consent, there was only maybe five people there. I think that's a big difference between "passed" which gives the connotation that people actually voted on it, "unanimous consent" of the present.
You make this sound like it was a democrat plot, it was not.
Thune, the republican senate majority leader, was the one that put up the unanimous consent motion.
There were more than just 5 people there. Though it was late at night.
You can't push something through unanimous consent if there's not a quorum. That requires at least 51% of each party to be present.
Now, it's possible they waited until some of the big objectors to the bill fell asleep or left. But, that doesn't really change the fact that Thune pushed this through.
I made no claim as to party, it's just how it was done. If anything it was the Republicans who are the majority. I wanted to clarify that it was by unanimous consent, not a recorded vote.
Fair enough. But I do still have to push back on the notion that it was just 5 people there. If that were the case, you could have expected one of the more lucid members to have done a quorum call.
Fair point. My understanding is that the Senate "assumes" a quorum unless someone suggests there is not. Since it was AFAIK around 2am... my guess is not and they all just wanted to get the heck out of there. Since no recorded vote we may never know. So I stand corrected on the number.
Your understanding is correct. The quorum call has a priority and can be done by any member.
The session has to start with a quorum and it's assumed that there is still a quorum since nobody has done a quorum call.
I have to assume that if someone actually objected to this, they would have done a quorum call before leaving the session. That or the few objectors simply left early not thinking this would go to 2am. Though, they could have always came back. They almost certainly would have had staffers there who'd inform them that something like this was coming up.
But what effects does it have on the legislative process? It sounds like at the very least, all the senators vaguely wanted it to be passed, but didn't want to be on the record for voting for it.
The danger of Steve Jobs hijacking his own private plane was obviously quite high! We can only thank the dutiful TSA officers for their brave service. I’m sure they risked their lives averting this danger. Have they been awarded any medals yet?
I may be in the minority but I liked the cheese grater, it was a machine I could upgrade and use as a powerful workstation. The trashcan really turned me off of the Mac Pro series. I think Apple really missed an opportunity here, but hope Springs eternal.
There is a line of reasoning out there that giving every system a different birthdate, and trying to fill it with as much false information as possible, is one way of balancing the scales. I'm not sure how useful it is, kind of like when a website asked for your age and you just put in whatever.
I read an outstanding quote in a Brad Thor novel that I think speaks volumes about how to make friends:
"Faith comes from trust, which comes from time, and experience"
With the Internet, and social media, it can feel like we have friends when we really don't. But what social media etc. has robbed from us is that before, we had to spend time with people, we had experience with them, and over time they led to trust, and friendship. That's how people made friends before. Now we don't put that much effort into friendships because we think we already have friends because we see them on Facebook.
My colleague refuses to update his iPhone so long as liquid glass exists. I've tried to encourage him to do so for the security updates, but he says that he's fully aware of the danger, but refuses to update because every time he does, Apple gives him something he doesn't want and takes away something he likes.
I've been doing this for a long time, it's amazing what ChatGPT can suss out with enough data. I like to feed it comments from message boards to try to uncover interesting business opportunities, or threads to follow for my own research.
My read is that it's all about the dollars. The court cannot force Congress to appropriate money, and so if there is no money appropriated to run VoA then the administration has no money from Congress to run it, and cannot be forced to restore it.
reply