359
Republicans Have Absolutely Had It With Tommy Tuberville: “Xi Jinping Is Loving This”
(newrepublic.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
359 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19143 readers
2440 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If the Republican party was fed up with this. They could revoke his committee memberships and replace him with someone else at any time. So you have to ask yourself. Are they fed up really? Or is this all just performative. And is he doing exactly what they want.
This still wouldn't stop the hold, any single senator can place a hold on any motion. Normally the work around would be to just call a vote to proceed, but because others are literally hundreds of promotions on hold, it wouldn't really be possible to hold individual votes on them all.
I think the GOP was hoping to not have to rock the boat of a trump loyalist, they've been trying to mend the schism between their radical and traditional members since Jan 6.
I don't have the energy to pore through Senate rules and find out why this is a thing. But letting one of the Senate's biggest responsibilities be barred by a single Senator seems like a huge oversight.
It was originally utilized as an emergency procedure to halt a motion that may negatively affect an individual senator's state. Giving the senator time to pause the motion until he has read through the bill.
If utilized for it's original purpose, it's not actually that problematic of a rule, as it doesn't usually really take much to motivate a motion to continue if the motion is really important.
The issue is that holds were never designed not to be utilized for several hundred motions at the same time. The Senate got rid of holds all together at some point in the 90s but reinstated it the year or so after. I'm guessing this is going to cause them to close this particular loophole by amending the rules.
Though I doubt they will get rid of it all together, as conservatives benefit from holds like this and the filibuster a lot more than progressives.