How did Lindsey Graham singlehandedly block the vote on the Mueller Report publication resolution?

[KidCharlemagne]

By what process did Lindsey Graham block the vote on the resolution to ensure the Mueller Report is made public? Also, could McConnell have blocked it from even going to the floor?

[Ravenman]

@KidCharlemagne

By what process did Lindsey Graham block the vote on the resolution to ensure the Mueller Report is made public? Also, could McConnell have blocked it from even going to the floor?

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/434124-graham-blocks-resolution-calling-for-mueller-report-to-be-made-public

Under Senate rules, any one senator can try to pass or set up a vote on a bill, resolution or nomination. But, in turn, any one senator can block their request.

So Schumer is recognized by the Presiding Officer and said, “I ask unanimous consent that this resolution be passed.” And Graham says, “I object.” That’s all there is to it.

McConnell could not have stopped Schumer from making his request, but any of the 99 other Senators could unilaterally stopped Schumer’s request.

[KidCharlemagne]

@Ravenman

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/434124-graham-blocks-resolution-calling-for-mueller-report-to-be-made-public

So Schumer is recognized by the Presiding Officer and said, “I ask unanimous consent that this resolution be passed.” And Graham says, “I object.” That’s all there is to it.

McConnell could not have stopped Schumer from making his request, but any of the 99 other Senators could unilaterally stopped Schumer’s request.

Ah I see he was essentially trying to skip the voting process altogether. Didn’t know that was an option.

[Ravenman]

This procedure is routinely used to illustrate the point that the other party opposes something.

I’m certain similar requests were made for things like getting rid of Obamacare, fixing ObamaCare, conforming certain judges, rejecting certain judges, passing the Democratic budget, passing the Republican budget, etc.

The novelty in this case is that the resolution proposed did actually pass the House unanimously (IIRC).

[bob_2]

We have something similar in Parliament.

Sir Christopher Chope provoked outrage after shouting “object” during a debate on anti-FGM legislation last week.

The private member’s bill on Friday, brought by crossbench peer Lord Berkley of Knighton, would have allowed the courts to make interim care orders under the Children Act, in cases where children are believed to be at risk of FGM. The bill had already cleared the House of Lords.

But parliamentary rules mean it only requires one MP to shout “object” to a private member’s bill which is listed for a second reading but not debated to block its progress.

The BBC’s parliamentary correspondent Mark D’Arcy said with a lot of private members’ bills in the queue for consideration in Parliament, this one was unlikely to become law unless the government got behind it or decided to attach it to another piece of legislation.

It only works with Private Member’s Bills and Sir Christopher has a bee in his bonnet about the idea of passing anything without a full debate.

[Heracles]

(I looked it up. FGM means “female genital mutilation”.)

[Falchion]

@Ravenman

So Schumer is recognized by the Presiding Officer and said, “I ask unanimous consent that this resolution be passed.” And Graham says, “I object.” That’s all there is to it.

My understanding was that the issue was scheduling related. I.e., that Schumer sought unanimous consent to set aside the procedural rules with respect to the resolution (presumably by having a vote earlier than Senate rules would allow, but I don’t know), but not to have the resolution passed.

I remember reading something once about examples of Senate Majority Leaders requesting unanimous consent for something and then objecting to their own request (in the same sentence) in order to control the calendar somehow. Obviously, I don’t recall the details.

[crucible]

one more example of how and why the congress is broken and should be scrapped in favor of an autocratic form of government. While we are at it, let’s scrap the judiciary as well.

What sort of political cover did the Republican congresspeople seek by voting for the resolution, knowing full well that Graham or some other knothead would prevent it from even coming to a vote in the senate? Time to wipe the Republican party off the map. When ever they gain power, they futz things up.

[Colibri]

@crucible

one more example of how and why the congress is broken and should be scrapped in favor of an autocratic form of government. While we are at it, let’s scrap the judiciary as well.

What sort of political cover did the Republican congresspeople seek by voting for the resolution, knowing full well that Graham or some other knothead would prevent it from even coming to a vote in the senate? Time to wipe the Republican party off the map. When ever they gain power, they futz things up.

Moderator Warning

crucible, you’ve been around long enough to know that political commentary of this kind is prohibited in General Questions. This is an official warning.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator