359

Republicans Have Absolutely Had It With Tommy Tuberville: “Xi Jinping Is Loving This” (newrepublic.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Senate Republicans are starting to turn on Tommy Tuberville over his blockade of military promotions.

The Senate brought 61 individual nominees to the floor for a vote Wednesday night. Tuberville objected to all of them, tanking each officer’s promotion. He has repeatedly insisted that his blockade, a protest of the Department of Defense’s abortion policy, does not harm military readiness.

But his Republican colleagues were finally sick of hearing it. “No offense, but that’s just ridiculous,” Senator Dan Sullivan said. “He knows it. We all know it.”

Sullivan revealed that the military expects Tuberville’s blockade to affect 89 percent of all general officer positions, across all branches.

“Xi Jinping is loving this. So is Putin,” Sullivan said, referring to the presidents of China and Russia. “How dumb can we be, man?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago

They could revoke his committee memberships and replace him with someone else at any time.

This still wouldn't stop the hold, any single senator can place a hold on any motion. Normally the work around would be to just call a vote to proceed, but because others are literally hundreds of promotions on hold, it wouldn't really be possible to hold individual votes on them all.

I think the GOP was hoping to not have to rock the boat of a trump loyalist, they've been trying to mend the schism between their radical and traditional members since Jan 6.

[-] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

I don't have the energy to pore through Senate rules and find out why this is a thing. But letting one of the Senate's biggest responsibilities be barred by a single Senator seems like a huge oversight.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

It was originally utilized as an emergency procedure to halt a motion that may negatively affect an individual senator's state. Giving the senator time to pause the motion until he has read through the bill.

If utilized for it's original purpose, it's not actually that problematic of a rule, as it doesn't usually really take much to motivate a motion to continue if the motion is really important.

The issue is that holds were never designed not to be utilized for several hundred motions at the same time. The Senate got rid of holds all together at some point in the 90s but reinstated it the year or so after. I'm guessing this is going to cause them to close this particular loophole by amending the rules.

Though I doubt they will get rid of it all together, as conservatives benefit from holds like this and the filibuster a lot more than progressives.

this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023

359 points (98.6% liked)

politics

31382 readers

2611 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News