Here is why Harry Reid voted "No" on S.649

[JohnC]

So I just did some investigating on who voted for and against S.649.

 

It turns out, Sen. Harry Reid voted against S.649. I couldn't figure out why. So I looked and even if every Democrat voted yes, they would have still been short 1 vote from passing the bill, which means they'd needed 1 Republican to flip to their side.

 

So according to what I read, by Sen. Harry Reid voting No (against) the bill allows him to bring S.649 back up later!

 

then I went to his Facebook page and it conformed exactly what I had found out!

 

See post https://www.facebook.com/SenatorReid

 

Many of you have inquired as to why I voted against the Manchin-Toomey background checks legislation, even though I fully support it. Good question. I voted no for procedural reasons so that I can retain the right to bring it up for a vote in the near future. For an explanation of this rather odd Senate rule, please read this article:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/17/why-is-harry-reid-always-voting-against-his-own-plans/

 

 

 

 

They are very slick folks. Just know this, the battle is not over. It will be back soon!

 

 

[Randall53]

So I just did some investigating on who voted for and against S.649.

 

It turns out, Sen. Harry Reid voted against S.649. I couldn't figure out why. So I looked and even if every Democrat voted yes, they would have still been short 1 vote from passing the bill, which means they'd needed 1 Republican to flip to their side.

 

So according to what I read, by Sen. Harry Reid voting No (against) the bill allows him to bring S.649 back up later!

 

then I went to his Facebook page and it conformed exactly what I had found out!

 

See post https://www.facebook.com/SenatorReid

 

 

 

 

They are very slick folks. Just know this, the battle is not over. It will be back soon!

 

Apparently there is no set number of times this can be done.....which means it's possible to keep beating the dead horse until it starts breathing again....No wonder we are so screwed up in Washington.  No never means no and yes never means yes.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They can always reincarnate any piece of legislation they want, but it still would have had to pass the House,

intact. It wouldn't have.

 

I'm confident we will see the House go blue and get a bill in 2014 and/or an EO. This ain't over and the One

in the White House is mad as Hell right now.

[JohnC]

This is from that WP link in the first post:

 

Forty U.S. senators voted to block a final vote on Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be defense secretary. Of those, 39 were Republicans opposed to the nomination, at least for the moment. The other was Harry Reid. It wasn’t that Reid opposed Hagel — far from it. Reid denounced the filibuster as “one of the saddest spectacles I have witnessed in my twenty-seven years in the Senate.”

 

So what gives? In articles like the one I wrote on the Hagel filibuster, the short explanation we give is that Reid voted no “for procedural reasons” or because a no vote “allows him to bring another cloture vote in the future.” But why does it do that? Why is the majority leader required to vote no if a bill is to be taken up again after a failed cloture vote?

 

As Sarah Binder, a Senate rules expert at George Washington University, told me, it’s not that the majority leader has to vote no. It’s that somebody on the winning side of the cloture vote — in this case, the side voting against cloture — has to file a “motion to reconsider” if the matter is to be taken up again. “I suppose the broader parliamentary principle here is that it would be somewhat unfair to give someone on the losing side of a question a second bite at the apple,” Binder explains. So the rules provide for senators whose opinion has changed to motion for another vote, whereas those whose opinion stays the same don’t get to keep filing to reconsider.

 

Reid, and other majority leaders before him, have developed a clever workaround: Just change your vote at the last minute if it looks as though you’re going to lose, then move to reconsider. In theory, any supporter of the bill or nomination in question could do the same, but traditionally it’s been the majority leader.

 

[RED333]

Thanks for answer John, just goes to show ya we do live in a country that likes 2nd chances.

[gregintenn]

Scumbag!

[jb980]

Wow. 27 years in the senate. I wish that wasn't possible.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm wondering if that's really really a "rule" or just "protocol".

 

At any rate, if absolutely a necessary thing, it was moot on Dingy Harry's part, as 4 other Dems also voted no before him, with the alphabetical roll call, so he may have just been hedging his bet with his electorate back home in case he runs yet again, can claim he didn't vote for the nasty ole thing.

 

On the other hand, I heard he did vote FOR the AWB and hi-cap mag amendment, but I so far can't find actual voting record on any of the other amendments. But main thing is, just like Obama himself, when Harry shows one hand, it's a feint, and you need to look for what the other is really doing.

 

At any rate, due to the special agreement of the 60 vote thing, this means it was officially a vote on filibuster too, and Schumer's original bill, and all the amendments, stay on the calendar through the end of the 113th Congress, do not have to be resubmitted though the committee process, and can indeed be brought back to the floor at any time.

 

- OS

Edited April 18, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That bill is dead until after the mid-term elections. They know the public sentiment is not on their side,

mattering not one bit about the trumped up opinion polls, which are just that. This country is turning

against the tyranny, slowly, but not strongly enough. They will probably cheat the Hell out of the House

elections, just like the last coronation process. The proof is there.

Edited April 18, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[mikegideon]

Tell you what... there's a serious crowd of butt hurt liberals out there right now. They're buying Obama's 90% BS. If Harry brings it up again, I expect he'll get the same results.

[Guest Cami]

Tell you what... there's a serious crowd of butt hurt liberals out there right now. They're buying Obama's 90% BS. If Harry brings it up again, I expect he'll get the same results.

 

I sure hope so!