Discussion for article #235514
this concept that they need to make “deals” just to do the ordinary job of legislating stinks. trying to tie a bunch of totally divergent shit together is not governing it is weaseling. bring a piece of legislation up and vote it up or down. put your name on it. then the voters will know what you are all about. anything less is cowardly.
1 Like
So what is the bipartisan deal on the trafficking bill?
6 Likes
It could just be the arcane language. Historically, so the mythology goes, everything that reaches the floor of the Senate’s main chamber in plenary session does so by some general consensus, accommodation, compromise, understanding or deal. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything has changed hands or any legislative agenda or initiative is affected, beyond the matter at hand.
An individual senator, usually one unbounded by a caucus or committee leadership role, more often than not one who no history advancing a great abiding interest (such as Ted Kennedy had with extending health care to the poor), will start moving thru the body’s internal offices, schmoozing, massaging the egos, pressing the flesh, working to a consensus to get enough of them ambling and waddling like antiquated heffalumps towards the chambers, if on no other firm basis than It’s good to talk, catch up, discuss future deals. And not even McConnell is able to stop this; House caucus ‘discipline’ has no reasonable counterpart in the Senate.
- ‘So, what’s the deal?’
‘Well, eventually we’re gonna vote on Lynch. But first, a few of our fellow senators have speeches they want recorded. Then, we vote. No, I’m wrong: then we take lunch, we return around 8, then there’s a number of buildings that need re-naming to honor the Gipper, plus 10-15 minutes, maybe 40 of individual member video preening, then a pee break, coffee and cake in the alcoves, then we mingle, vote, mingle, and drift apart.’
- ‘Cool!’
Im still surprised the R wanted to keep Holder in his job longer than necessary.
1 Like
I’m guessing that despite their public statements they realize/believe he’s not doing anything any other Dem nominated AG would do.
2 Likes
Hello??? What’s the freaking details of the deal???
1 Like
From: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/usa-justice-lynch-idUSL1N0XI11F20150421
“The compromise on the bill would apply abortion restrictions
only to funds appropriated by Congress for healthcare and
medical services for victims and would not apply to funds used
for victims’ aid not related to healthcare, such as legal aid
and law enforcement, according to a Senate Republican aide who
spoke on condition of anonymity.”
2 Likes
The deal aims to address Democratic concerns that the legislation expands existing prohibitions on spending federal funds on abortions. Republicans had to be satisfied that those prohibitions were not curtailed.
And those positions were reconciled by this deal how?
edit:
My understanding was the whole conflict was over the Republican’s wanting to apply existing abortion restrictions on the use of monies appropriated by congress to the use of monies not appropriated by congress, but instead raised through fees/fines leveled against the traffickers. This compromise doesn’t seem to address that at all, so did the Republican’s cave or am I missing something?
I know. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. He’s the worst AG on the planet and running guns to mexico but shit, he’s less worse than abortion funding that’s already in place.