| ▲ | kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2 days ago |
| I know, I can't believe they refuse to pass the bill that would fund TSA. Wait a minute, I'm getting additional information....you're not gonna believe this, but Republicans have been voting for it. I wonder who the holdup is, then.... |
|
| ▲ | rpdillon 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yesterday morning, CNN: > In a remarkable 24 hours in Washington, House Republicans snubbed a bipartisan funding deal cut by their own Senate GOP counterparts and instead approved an entirely different plan — prolonging the Department of Homeland Security shutdown. > Then, they left town. It's obvious what's happening. https://lite.cnn.com/2026/03/27/politics/dhs-shutdown-fundin... |
| |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Not just bipartisan. That bill was unanimously passed in the Senate. | | |
| ▲ | Simulacra 2 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. It was also at 2 o'clock in the morning | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Simulacra 2 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Simulacra 2 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Spooky23 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In the Senate. You are correct. The Speaker of the House is a toady who is held in line in the house by a small cabal of super MAGA people. Given some of his unusual personal situations, (for one, he supposedly has no bank account or financial assets) there’s likely a blackmail situation. His supine nature is also probably the strategy for the “3rd term” loophole. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >Given some of his unusual personal situations, (for one, he supposedly has no bank account or financial assets) there’s likely a blackmail situation 1. source on the bank account claim? 2. I don't think you need to involve theories that he's being financially blackmailed, when it's pretty clear that Trump has a tight grip over the Republican party, and isn't afraid to attack or back primary challengers for Republicans that he doesn't agree with, eg. Thomas Massie. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | antiframe 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And this is why bills sound cover one topic and not a bundle of topics. "I heard it was X who blocked the bill that would actually make gas prices low (which also meant voting was eliminated)" |
|
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | bobmcnamara 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The party who controls all three branches of federal government? |
