memo on senatorial hold/Surgeon General

ms traditional · ‎03-09-2010

just to add to a point brought up earlier --- when a Senator puts a hold on a nomination, like in the case of the Surgeon General, the hold can be defeated by a successful cloture motion. the reason it hasn't come to a vote is because the nominee doesn't have the votes. there was a thread that made it sound like a hold was the end of the nomination. no. but you have to be able to muster the votes to overcome the hold. and in this case some suspects, er Senators, don't want to vote before the election, especially those in tight races. as Paul Harvey would have said, it's important to know "the rest of the story."

kittymomNC · ‎08-09-2012

The reason I pointed out the hold on the SG, was because there had been a comment on one thread that the D's could have confirmed the Surgeon General if they wanted to. I'm no expert on this, but since it apparently takes 60 votes for a cloture motion to pass, that would be impossible even if they were all in favor of it, because they don't have 60 D's.

In our one hundred member Senate, there must be sixty votes in favor of cloture for a cloture motion to pass and the Senate to move forward.

ms traditional · ‎03-09-2010

you're right - the D's were not going to vote as a block anyway especially with tight races in Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas. so it was a problem from day one. this has been on hold a year i think. we have an acting SG - but who sees him? or hears from him?

kittymomNC · ‎08-09-2012

On 10/29/2014 mstraditional said:
you're right - the D's were not going to vote as a block anyway especially with tight races in Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas. so it was a problem from day one. this has been on hold a year i think. we have an acting SG - but who sees him? or hears from him?

I don't even know who he is... ${#emotions_dlg.confused1}$ The hold was placed on this in February apparently.

hckynut · ‎03-10-2010

On 10/29/2014 mstraditional said:
just to add to a point brought up earlier --- when a Senator puts a hold on a nomination, like in the case of the Surgeon General, the hold can be defeated by a successful cloture motion. the reason it hasn't come to a vote is because the nominee doesn't have the votes. there was a thread that made it sound like a hold was the end of the nomination. no. but you have to be able to muster the votes to overcome the hold. and in this case some suspects, er Senators, don't want to vote before the election, especially those in tight races. as Paul Harvey would have said, it's important to know "the rest of the story."

More true words cannot be spoken on why nothing has been brought to a vote in the Senate for how long now? And here I thought we sent these people to dc to work for their constituents and not to always be campaigning to keep their jobs.

How foolish of me, and I am not referring to any 1 party. It is an affliction that seems to be prevalent to a majority on both parties that end up with a seat in Congress. Forget why they were sent there, but no, they want to make sure to keep their seat. What ever happened to the "for the people"?

hckynut(john)

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

On 10/29/2014 mstraditional said:
you're right - the D's were not going to vote as a block anyway especially with tight races in Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas. so it was a problem from day one. this has been on hold a year i think. we have an acting SG - but who sees him? or hears from him?

They can vote as a block - but since there aren't 60, the hold will stay in place.

An ACTING SG doesn't have the authority or power of a SG. Which is why the opposition has found holds so effective....many departments have had acting leaders now for years.

Winkk · ‎03-15-2010

On 10/29/2014 hckynut said:
On 10/29/2014 mstraditional said:
just to add to a point brought up earlier --- when a Senator puts a hold on a nomination, like in the case of the Surgeon General, the hold can be defeated by a successful cloture motion. the reason it hasn't come to a vote is because the nominee doesn't have the votes. there was a thread that made it sound like a hold was the end of the nomination. no. but you have to be able to muster the votes to overcome the hold. and in this case some suspects, er Senators, don't want to vote before the election, especially those in tight races. as Paul Harvey would have said, it's important to know "the rest of the story."

More true words cannot be spoken on why nothing has been brought to a vote in the Senate for how long now? And here I thought we sent these people to dc to work for their constituents and not to always be campaigning to keep their jobs.

How foolish of me, and I am not referring to any 1 party. It is an affliction that seems to be prevalent to a majority on both parties that end up with a seat in Congress. Forget why they were sent there, but no, they want to make sure to keep their seat. What ever happened to the "for the people"?

ITA. Politicians only need "the people" to get them into office after that they just do enough to be reelected the next term. There is no more for the people parties. Whatever they say when they are campaigning will not be followed through on once in office. And, they all put their spin on why it hasn't gotten done. I follow politics via the media, and I get thoroughly disgusted with some of it.

Deb1010again · ‎05-28-2013

We so desperately need a Surgeon General. Can you imagine (in a dream world) if Dr. Sanjay Gupta had taken the job? Or someone like him who is proactive, intelligent and articulate? I'm so disappointed we don't have one right now.

kittymomNC · ‎08-09-2012

On 10/30/2014 Deb1010again said:
We so desperately need a Surgeon General. Can you imagine (in a dream world) if Dr. Sanjay Gupta had taken the job? Or someone like him who is proactive, intelligent and articulate? I'm so disappointed we don't have one right now.

I guess getting themselves elected (to do nothing again?) will always trump what is for the good of the people! Sad.... ${#emotions_dlg.crying}$

chessylady · ‎05-01-2010

I read some months ago that the NRA did not like the nominees's views on gun control such as limiting assault rifles and were promising to target (no pun intended) any elected official who voted for him. Since it an election year, Democrats in purple states or contested districts would be hard pressed to go up against the NRA.