Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)

11. The senatorial hold can be useful.

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:52 PM

Feb 2013

The last time it was used, one senator blocked passage of the new federal ban on synthetic drugs for months, until its sponsors agreed to remove mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. You won't like who that senator was, but it was a good thing.

In this case, Graham is shamefully playing pure politics.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

WTF? & This From A Guy Who Voted EVERY SINGLE TIME With BUSHCO!!! [View all] kpete Feb 2013 OP

Hey Lizzy I want to know why you refused to give the administration the security money they wanted . Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #1

Dead on. nt. OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #3

How can it be constitutional to put a "hold" on a president's nomination? awake Feb 2013 #2

Because the Constitution says each house makes its own rules. RudynJack Feb 2013 #7

The Senate has the right to give "advise and consent" awake Feb 2013 #8

And he who has no balls (Harry Reid) is loath to change so much as a single one of them. 1-Old-Man Feb 2013 #9

Tell him to go fuck off. libtodeath Feb 2013 #4

"Aaahh, but THAT's different" lpbk2713 Feb 2013 #5

that's a funny transcript hfojvt Feb 2013 #6

Another stupid senate rule Harry forgot to fix. Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #10

The senatorial hold can be useful. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #11

You mean to tell me.. Bigmack Feb 2013 #12