Chrissy Gardner

[Toots_mcgee]

It appears you are still the most politically uneducated poster in these parts so I assume you have no idea that Republicans in Congress blocked the #SAFEAct, which would have banned internet connectivity to voting systems and required robust manual audits to confirm electronic results?

Marsha Blackburn, GOP hair stylist turned U.S. Senator, blocked three different election reform bills herself long before the election took place. All were to make our elections more valid and secure.

But Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) opposed each of the requests. Under the Senate's rules, any one senator can ask for unanimous consent to pass a bill, but any one senator can object and block their requests.

 

[Toots_mcgee]

Tootsie:
Show where I have mentioned voting machines. If you can't read you'll always be wrong about what I think and say.
Since when can one person stop anything in Congress? Was a unanimous vote required?

you don’t know how our government works and you could have educated yourself with a simple google search. But hell that would take a little effort and reading. I am putting your ignorant, special needs arse back on ignore where you belong.

 

[3Rfan]

Tootsie:
Show where I have mentioned voting machines. If you can't read you'll always be wrong about what I think and say.
Since when can one person stop anything in Congress? Was a unanimous vote required?

Any ONE person in the senate can, and often does, STOP something in the senate and it's been done more than once in the last few days. You might pay a little more attention for just a couple of days to see what has been going on in the talks about the covid relief bill. It has nothing to do with winning or losing the vote on something, it hasn't gotten that far yet.

 

[SadButTrue]

The only way one person can stop anything is if it has to be unanimous.
One person can use a filibuster if others allow it but they can stop it by voting to end debate so "one person" isn't doing it if it continues.

In the United States Senate, a hold is a parliamentary procedure permitted by the Standing Rules of the United States Senate which allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor.

If the Senator provides notice privately to their party leadership of their intent (and the party leadership agrees), then the hold is known as a secret or anonymous hold. If the Senator objects on the Senate floor or the hold is publicly revealed, then the hold is more generally known as a Senatorial hold.

Sections 2 and 3 of Rule VII (Morning Business) of the Standing Rules of the Senate outline the procedure for bringing motions to the floor of the Senate. Under these rules, "no motion to proceed to the consideration of any bill...shall be entertained...unless by unanimous consent." In practice, this means that a senator may privately provide notice to his/her party leadership of intent to object to a motion. The leadership can more easily schedule business if they know in advance which unanimous consent requests are likely to receive objection.[1]

The original intent of these sections was to protect a senator's right to be consulted on legislation that affected the senator's state or in which a senator had a great interest. The ability to place a hold would allow that senator an opportunity to study the legislation and to reflect on its implications before moving forward with further debate and voting.[2]

According to Congressional Research Service research, holds were not common until the 1970s, when they became more common due to a less collegial atmosphere and an increasing use of unanimous consent to move business to the floor.[3]

Holds, like filibusters, can be defeated through a successful cloture motion. However, the time required to bring around a cloture vote often allows fewer than 40 senators to block unimportant legislation when the majority is not willing to force the vote. The countermeasure to excessive holds may be increased determination on the part of the leadership to bring up measures despite holds, but the delay involved in cloture votes constrains the leader's ability to do this.[4]

 

[3Rfan]

Notice the (if the party leadership agrees)!!!!!

It also is used when UNANIMOUS consent is required. Don't use unanimous consent processes and it can't be done.

It also indicates this is a delay not an block. THAT is why it is called a hold. One person can call for it but it eventually ends without support from others.

I didn't say they can block it forever but they sure as hell can put stop to it that day, then another person can do it again. It's already happened a few times in the last week by someone from both sides pf the aisle, this thing should have been done a long time ago. You are one hardheaded dude!