Why not come out against lynching?

[rjung]

It looks like the reason for the “20 missing Senators” screwup might have been because Bill Frist didn’t want a full vote:

The resolution was adopted under what is called “unanimous consent,” whereby it is adopted as long as no senator expresses opposition.

But the group that was the driving force behind the resolution had asked Frist for a formal procedure that would have required all 100 senators to vote. And the group had asked that the debate take place during “business hours” during the week, instead of Monday evening, when most senators were traveling back to the capital.

Frist declined both requests, the group’s chief counsel, Mark Planning, said Tuesday evening.

“It was very disappointing” that Frist handled the matter the way he did, Planning said. “Other groups have gotten roll call votes, so there was nothing new to this, nothing different that we were asking for.”

Bob Stevenson, Frist’s chief spokesman, said Tuesday evening the procedure the majority leader established was “requested by the sponsors.”

The chief sponsors of the resolution, Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and George Allen (R-Va.), disputed that assertion.

… Planning agreed that Landrieu and Allen “made every effort” to have the resolution debated during the day, when it would attract the most attention from the public, and with a formal roll call of the senators.

“We were very perplexed” that Frist would not agree to that, Planning said.

[Renob]

Again, there is absolutely no reason to have a roll call vote on a measure of this sort. Pretty much all meaningless resolutions like this get passed under unanimous consent agreements. The Senate really has very little time to get its legislative work done, and Frist would be an idiot to debate a non-binding resolution that no one opposes. Just pass it by unanimous consent like most other things in the Senate. This resolution was simply treated like pretty much every resolution that passes the Senate.

[Odesio]

@Evil Captor

The original anti-lynching laws were attempted in Congress because certain southern states were notoriously lax in prosecuting lynchers. “Everybody knowed who done it, but nobody done nothin’ about it.” At the state level. The idea was that if the states didn’t do their duty to prosecute lynchers, the feds could.

Sometimes even when brought to trial they couldn’t get a conviction. Those who lynched Emmet Till were tried but not convicted though it was pretty obvious they did it.

Marc

[DrDeth]

Two Twenty Senators? Who didn’t waste* MY* tax dollars and their very valuable time on something completely and utterly worthless? I’d like to shake their hands.

IMHO- their lack of co-sponsering doesn’t mean they are "pro-lynching’, it means they are “anti-tomfoolerey”.

[Magiver]

Did I oversleep and miss something? When was lynching ever legal in any State or Federal court at any time in the history of the country?

[tomndebb]

When was lynching ever legal in any State or Federal court at any time in the history of the country?

It was never legal in any state or territory. However, a number of states deliberately ignored the practice, failing to prosecute people for the crime even when newspapers printed photos identifying the perpetrators. (There were even a few occasions when lynchings were announced in the newspapers before the event.)

The point of the (never passed) Federal legislation was to make it a crime that could and would be investigated and prosecuted by a (theoretically) neutral higher authority which would actually take steps to end the practice.

[Liberal]

They still could take that step, of course, and repeal the Patriot Act.