The committee didn't report, instead the full Senate voted to discharge the committee of its responsibility to report. That discharge was the 53-47 procedural vote with Collins Murkowski Romney defecting from party line. This does not mean they will vote the same way for confirmation itself, which has not been voted yet, but it is telling. There is still hope the worst can be avoided but white hats had better have a good idea on this one because all our calls do not have the power to sway reprobate souls, only God does.
The full Senate has the power to take the matter back from the committee by procedural majority vote (51+) to discharge, even if the committee (by deadlock) chooses not to report it back.
"All reports of committees and motions to discharge a committee from the consideration of a subject, and all subjects from which a committee shall be discharged, shall lie over one day for consideration, unless by unanimous consent the Senate shall otherwise direct." The fact that motions by the full Senate to discharge are permitted, with the qualification of one-day layover unless waived, makes them valid. Presumably layover was waived by unanimous consent as delay would achieve nothing.
Parliamentarily, this is not used except in extreme cases, but deadlock would qualify. I was surprised to find that Dan Honemann, one of the editors of Robert's Rules Newly Revised 12th edition, is busy answering questions like this on the official forum: "If a committee has been instructed to report at a particular meeting, the chair at that meeting should call upon it to submit its report at the time designated in the standard order of business (assuming that this is the prescribed order of business). If the committee fails to submit a report at this time, as instructed, a motion to discharge it will be in order, and will require only a majority vote for its adoption." Presumably deadlock qualifies as a failure to submit/report at the designated time.
Thank you. I will read XVIi more closely to try to understand the limitations, if any, on this "Discharge" ability. Seems prone to abuse to me.
It also seems that it's use indicates a flaw in the Senate's ability to come to agreement about an issue, and as such, the contentious issue probably needs more time for the truth of the matter to become apparent.
The nomination did not violate the senate rule but the Senate did if the committee itself was a tied vote then it should not be brought before the entire Senate for a vote... as I understand it.
The full Senate held a procedural vote to discharge her nomination from the committee (basically a dismissal of the committee's responsibility on this nominee). So now they can hold a confirmation vote as the majority leader gets to decide to move the nominee forward unilaterally.
I read it was 53-47
Another violation of Senate Rules as they are not to vote until Congressional Record updates from Committee and it sits for at least 24 hours.
Please provide sauce.
Thank you for asking me to clarify. It is PROJECTED to be 47-53. Which ties right in with post https://qalerts.app/?q=%232626
The committee didn't report, instead the full Senate voted to discharge the committee of its responsibility to report. That discharge was the 53-47 procedural vote with Collins Murkowski Romney defecting from party line. This does not mean they will vote the same way for confirmation itself, which has not been voted yet, but it is telling. There is still hope the worst can be avoided but white hats had better have a good idea on this one because all our calls do not have the power to sway reprobate souls, only God does.
How was the full committee able to vote to discharge? Wasn't it in violation of Senate Rules?
The full Senate has the power to take the matter back from the committee by procedural majority vote (51+) to discharge, even if the committee (by deadlock) chooses not to report it back.
Please point me to the Senate Rule that supports this. I ask sincerely to help my understanding of the rules.
https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate
I found the validity of motion to discharge in XVII 4.(a).
In general parliamentary procedure, the whole always has power to retake a subject from the part.
Sorry to be so dense, but would you copy the text that you are citing for me? My old eyes just are not finding it.
"All reports of committees and motions to discharge a committee from the consideration of a subject, and all subjects from which a committee shall be discharged, shall lie over one day for consideration, unless by unanimous consent the Senate shall otherwise direct." The fact that motions by the full Senate to discharge are permitted, with the qualification of one-day layover unless waived, makes them valid. Presumably layover was waived by unanimous consent as delay would achieve nothing.
Parliamentarily, this is not used except in extreme cases, but deadlock would qualify. I was surprised to find that Dan Honemann, one of the editors of Robert's Rules Newly Revised 12th edition, is busy answering questions like this on the official forum: "If a committee has been instructed to report at a particular meeting, the chair at that meeting should call upon it to submit its report at the time designated in the standard order of business (assuming that this is the prescribed order of business). If the committee fails to submit a report at this time, as instructed, a motion to discharge it will be in order, and will require only a majority vote for its adoption." Presumably deadlock qualifies as a failure to submit/report at the designated time.
Thank you for the thorough explanation. Very helpful.
I expect the discharge to come up again.
Thank you. I will read XVIi more closely to try to understand the limitations, if any, on this "Discharge" ability. Seems prone to abuse to me.
It also seems that it's use indicates a flaw in the Senate's ability to come to agreement about an issue, and as such, the contentious issue probably needs more time for the truth of the matter to become apparent.
The nomination did not violate the senate rule but the Senate did if the committee itself was a tied vote then it should not be brought before the entire Senate for a vote... as I understand it.
The full Senate held a procedural vote to discharge her nomination from the committee (basically a dismissal of the committee's responsibility on this nominee). So now they can hold a confirmation vote as the majority leader gets to decide to move the nominee forward unilaterally.
u/#correct