Obama appoints ebola czar

[BlindBoo]

After the NRA began publicly opposing Murthy’s nomination, several of Blunt’s Republican colleagues including Rand Paul, John Cornyn and John Barrasso said they too would move to block Murthy’s nomination, and Paul placed a hold on the nomination.

Lawmakers and health experts have expressed concern over the lack of a Surgeon General to craft a unified response to the ebola diagnoses, leading to confusion that has helped fuel public fear of the virus, fear that is largelyunfounded.

Blunt told Todd that he thinks we need a surgeon general. But asked if he would vote for Murthy’s confirmation, Blunt again refused to answer the question and blamed the administration.

After Blocking Surgeon General Nominee Republican Blames Obama For Surgeon General Vacancy ThinkProgress

This from your link.

Blunt blamed the vacancy on President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who has yet to put Murthy’s nomination to a full vote, and dismissed questions about the National Rifle Association’s efforts to block the nominee.

Did you see the R behind his name? You understand that stands for Republican, right?

Blunt cannot block the nomination, only oppose it. Did you see the D behind Reid's name? He is the ONLY one that can bring the nomination to a vote. As long as there is not a vote there is no nomination. Do you know why he won't bring it to a vote? He only needs 51 of his fellow Democrats to vote AYE.

Were that the truth I'd be glad, however and sadly, you are mistaken.

Actually it was a single Senator who put a hold on Murthy's nomination. So it never would have been voted on.

Sen. Paul Holds Surgeon General Nomination Rand Paul United States Senator

The Smoking Ebola Gun Rand Paul s Senate Hold Is Why The Nation Has No Surgeon General

This is what I expect from MSNBC.

This is what Rand Paul wrote.

Accordingly, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement or the waiver of any rule with respect to the nomination of Dr. Murthy.
I have to agree this is putting a hold on the nomination, and now the rest of the story as Paul Harvey used to say.

Here is how the Senate works:

4) The Judiciary Committee votes on whether to report the nominee to the full Senate. If the Committee does report the nominee, they can submit the nomination with a favorable recommendation, an unfavorable recommendation, or no recommendation at all. Senators who oppose the nomination can attempt to delay a nomination by using procedural tactics to prevent a committee vote.

5) The full Senate has the opportunity to debate the nomination. The Senate debates until a Senator asks for unanimous consent to end debate and move to a vote on the nominee. If unanimous consent is granted, the Senate votes on the nominee, with a majority vote required for confirmation. Any Senator can refuse to grant unanimous consent. This situation is known as a hold.

6) If any Senator objects to unanimous consent, then a cloture motion must be filed in order to end debate and move to a vote. Cloture motions for judicial and executive nominations require 51 votes to pass. If 51 Senators support cloture, the full Senate will vote on the nomination, with a majority required for confirmation. If fewer than 51 Senators support cloture, debate continues and a confirmation vote cannot occur. This is known as a filibuster. Prior to the November 2013 Senate rules change, all cloture motions required 60 votes to pass. Now, only cloture motions for legislation and nominees to the Supreme Court require 60 votes.

There are more than 51 Democrats in the US Senate. If this nomination has been submitted from the Democrat controlled Judiciary Committee, and I must admit I don't know if it has, why has Harry Reid not put it on the floor of the Senate for a cloture vote?

A senator can use a procedural move called a hold to prevent a motion from reaching a vote.

Which is exactly what Rand Paul did.

 

[TooTall]

This from your link.

Blunt blamed the vacancy on President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who has yet to put Murthy’s nomination to a full vote, and dismissed questions about the National Rifle Association’s efforts to block the nominee.

Did you see the R behind his name? You understand that stands for Republican, right?

Blunt cannot block the nomination, only oppose it. Did you see the D behind Reid's name? He is the ONLY one that can bring the nomination to a vote. As long as there is not a vote there is no nomination. Do you know why he won't bring it to a vote? He only needs 51 of his fellow Democrats to vote AYE.

Were that the truth I'd be glad, however and sadly, you are mistaken.

Actually it was a single Senator who put a hold on Murthy's nomination. So it never would have been voted on.

Sen. Paul Holds Surgeon General Nomination Rand Paul United States Senator

The Smoking Ebola Gun Rand Paul s Senate Hold Is Why The Nation Has No Surgeon General

This is what I expect from MSNBC.

This is what Rand Paul wrote.

Accordingly, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement or the waiver of any rule with respect to the nomination of Dr. Murthy.
I have to agree this is putting a hold on the nomination, and now the rest of the story as Paul Harvey used to say.

Here is how the Senate works:

4) The Judiciary Committee votes on whether to report the nominee to the full Senate. If the Committee does report the nominee, they can submit the nomination with a favorable recommendation, an unfavorable recommendation, or no recommendation at all. Senators who oppose the nomination can attempt to delay a nomination by using procedural tactics to prevent a committee vote.

5) The full Senate has the opportunity to debate the nomination. The Senate debates until a Senator asks for unanimous consent to end debate and move to a vote on the nominee. If unanimous consent is granted, the Senate votes on the nominee, with a majority vote required for confirmation. Any Senator can refuse to grant unanimous consent. This situation is known as a hold.

6) If any Senator objects to unanimous consent, then a cloture motion must be filed in order to end debate and move to a vote. Cloture motions for judicial and executive nominations require 51 votes to pass. If 51 Senators support cloture, the full Senate will vote on the nomination, with a majority required for confirmation. If fewer than 51 Senators support cloture, debate continues and a confirmation vote cannot occur. This is known as a filibuster. Prior to the November 2013 Senate rules change, all cloture motions required 60 votes to pass. Now, only cloture motions for legislation and nominees to the Supreme Court require 60 votes.

There are more than 51 Democrats in the US Senate. If this nomination has been submitted from the Democrat controlled Judiciary Committee, and I must admit I don't know if it has, why has Harry Reid not put it on the floor of the Senate for a cloture vote?

A senator can use a procedural move called a hold to prevent a motion from reaching a vote.

Which is exactly what Rand Paul did.

Read this very slowly.

Any Senator can refuse to grant unanimous consent. This situation is known as a hold.

6) If any Senator objects to unanimous consent, then a cloture motion must be filed in order to end debate and move to a vote. Cloture motions for judicial and executive nominations require 51 votes to pass. If 51 Senators support cloture, the full Senate will vote on the nomination, with a majority required for confirmation.

Rand Paul objected to unanimous consent, which results in debate. The next step is to file a cloture motion to end debate and move to a vote..

on edit. The use of unanimous consent in the House and the Senate means they ALL agree and there will be NOT be a vote. It saves a lot of time.

That is the way I learned it, but if you know it is not true, please tell me how it is done differently.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Hilarious, because Rand Paul A REAL DOCTOR got criticized by liberals for "causing panic" when he questioned Obama's policies on ebola, but Obama appoints someone who isn't a doctor.

Typical. Very typical.

 

[paulitician]

Hilarious, because Rand Paul A REAL DOCTOR got criticized by liberals for "causing panic" when he questioned Obama's policies on ebola, but Obama appoints someone who isn't a doctor.

Typical. Very typical.

He's piece of shit like his boss. He stole $Millions from Taxpayers in the Solyndra scandal. Fuck him.