Comments on: I object http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/i-object/ Tracking Minnesota Politics Since 2005 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:08:34 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/i-object/#comment-46546 Anonymous Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:25:29 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7146#comment-46546 Thank you for the great analysis. It's too bad that you need to explain this and that Rosenberg doesn't present all the details. Thank you for the great analysis. It's too bad that you need to explain this and that Rosenberg doesn't present all the details.

]]> By: Won't Be Silenced http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/i-object/#comment-46542 Won't Be Silenced Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:41:34 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7146#comment-46542 I think you have a comprehension problem, I said Pelosi was NOT on the floor and in charge. Therefore, I agree with you Pelosi didn't wield the gavel throughout the entire process. Do you have any substantive comment on the Michelle Bachmann video? I think you have a comprehension problem, I said Pelosi was NOT on the floor and in charge. Therefore, I agree with you Pelosi didn't wield the gavel throughout the entire process. Do you have any substantive comment on the Michelle Bachmann video?

]]> By: Sean2 http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/i-object/#comment-46530 Sean2 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:27:36 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7146#comment-46530 The women who were given the floor were attempted to make unanimous consent requests. These requests are usually made in this fashion: "I request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks." The Democrats were out of order in making the requests by inserting debate. Paraphrasing, the one female said 'Because this bill does more for women, I ask unanimous consent ...' That is not a proper unanimous consent request. Further, any representative has the right to object to a unanimous consent request. The Republicans were all in order to object. Further, the Republicans have every right to ask for a parliamentary inquiry, and Dingell should have honored that request. If anything, the Democrats were in violation of the rules, not the Republicans. The women who were given the floor were attempted to make unanimous consent requests. These requests are usually made in this fashion: "I request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks." The Democrats were out of order in making the requests by inserting debate. Paraphrasing, the one female said 'Because this bill does more for women, I ask unanimous consent …' That is not a proper unanimous consent request.

Further, any representative has the right to object to a unanimous consent request. The Republicans were all in order to object. Further, the Republicans have every right to ask for a parliamentary inquiry, and Dingell should have honored that request.

If anything, the Democrats were in violation of the rules, not the Republicans.

]]> By: lojasmo http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/i-object/#comment-46527 lojasmo Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:40:57 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7146#comment-46527 Wow. You don't understand the meaning of the term "filibuster" either? Crazy, man! Furthermore, Pelosi didn't wield the gavel throughout the entire process. This signifies that you completely failed to pay attention, making your observations entirely meaningless....as your observations invariably are. Dingbat. Wow. You don't understand the meaning of the term "filibuster" either? Crazy, man!

Furthermore, Pelosi didn't wield the gavel throughout the entire process. This signifies that you completely failed to pay attention, making your observations entirely meaningless….as your observations invariably are.

Dingbat.

]]> By: Won't Be Silenced http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/i-object/#comment-46524 Won't Be Silenced Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:18:49 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7146#comment-46524 A bit more inforamtion about the context of this video. The Democrats earlier in the day did not have enough votes to pass the health care bill. As a stalling mechanism, all women Democratic representative were sent out to the floor to speak one by one and delay the proceedings. There was absolutely no substance to their remarks but just a procedural way to filibuster until enough Democratic arms could be twisted so Pelosi could get more than 218. That is why the Republican caucus was objecting. Also, note Pelosi was not on the floor and in charge, again signifying the uselessness of the procedural move for any real debate. A bit more inforamtion about the context of this video. The Democrats earlier in the day did not have enough votes to pass the health care bill. As a stalling mechanism, all women Democratic representative were sent out to the floor to speak one by one and delay the proceedings. There was absolutely no substance to their remarks but just a procedural way to filibuster until enough Democratic arms could be twisted so Pelosi could get more than 218.

That is why the Republican caucus was objecting. Also, note Pelosi was not on the floor and in charge, again signifying the uselessness of the procedural move for any real debate.

]]> By: Jim http://mnpublius.com/2009/11/i-object/#comment-46519 Jim Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:07:55 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=7146#comment-46519 Clearly this was a stunt meant to show (if it had not handled well by the chair -- which was it, and very effectively), that Republicans were denied a voice in the debate. The Democrats did not fall for it. Republicans play hardball that is meant to speak to 3rd graders, never forget that. Clearly this was a stunt meant to show (if it had not handled well by the chair — which was it, and very effectively), that Republicans were denied a voice in the debate. The Democrats did not fall for it. Republicans play hardball that is meant to speak to 3rd graders, never forget that.

]]>