It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

McConnell Delays Loretta Lynch Confirmation Until Senate Passes Anti-Abortion Bill

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
The Senate has delayed confirmation of Loretta Lynch for longer than any other Attorney General in over 30 years. So, last week, under pressure from both parties to get her confirmed, Mitch McConnell promised to bring the vote to the floor this week.

But McConnell said he wanted to pass the Sex Trafficking bill first, which had overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle, as it was pitched as a reintroduction of the same bill from the previous Congress. OK. Let's pass that. But over the weekend, some "add-ons" to the sex trafficking bill were discovered... which make the bill VERY unattractive to Democrats, who are now saying they won't pass it. .



But Democrats learned this week that the bill contains Hyde Amendment language -- a recurring rider that often gets attached to other legislation, and that restricts federal funding for abortion and other health care services.

Republicans argue that the rider has been in there all along, and that senators should have read the bill. Democrats counter that when Cornyn introduced the current version of the bill, he did not make clear all of the ways in which it differed from the earlier version. Rather, Democrats say, Cornyn pitched it as simply a reintroduction of the measure from the previous Congress, which did not have the abortion rider.

"A list was sent to certain members saying, 'Here are the changes from last year.' This provision was not listed among them," said Judiciary Committee member Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) Tuesday.


Source

So now, not only is Loretta Lynch's confirmation on hold, the Sex Trafficking bill is on hold as well. Because McConnell says it must pass before Lynch's confirmation is put to the floor for a vote.

The Senate GOP (whose brilliance has been just shining lately) have decided that if a young girl is being used as a sex slave and gets pregnant, she should be forced to carry the baby to term... Because you KNOW a slave isn't going to have the money to pay for an abortion herself, nor is she going to have access to birth control beforehand.

With this move, the Senate GOP are actually supporting the misery of sex slaves by forcing the victims to endure MORE emotional pain and suffering than they otherwise would.

I have never been crazy about Mitch McConnell, but this one takes the cake! These guys are playing a game that will be seen by the entire nation. And I hope people start to open their eyes.


edit on 3/16/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



+2 more 
posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
On the plus side, it's good to see Senators going back to the old tradition of reading bills before they pass them. I wish they had that philosophy for the past eight years.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Not only is it sad this was added, its sad that there aren't even interns tasks with reading entire bills as adjustments occur. This seems like not only it could have passed this way but also that it could have been added as a way to keep this bill from passing.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Ahhh, the old "lump superfluous conservative crap in with what should be a common sense bill" trick again.

Lovely. I thought we had our fill of that with the DHS debacle?

I guess not.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Firstly, it should be illegal to add on to a bill...

Each item should have separate passes or rejections...

They do this s# in the UK as well...


Forcing one side to vote on something they wouldn't have by adding it to something they can't reject is the opposite of democratic...
It's tyranny!!!



Secondly, to hold out on an AG vote just seems pathetic, unless there is a National Security issue at the time...

Can't understand this to be honest.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
This is one of the reason they should ban the add-on's to bills and have a page limit and format for all of them. Bills that go in to such detail that need 30 pages are most likely targeting out a group of people or excluding a group which is both wrong. Also if we set a page limit it would make them easier to review. Less of this didn't read the whole thing or skimmed over the key points.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yeah, they never cease to amaze me anymore.

I guess this just goes to show that they really do love Eric Holder after all.

Actually, I think it may be time to enact legislation demanding that all Bills be considered and voted on individually. No "Riders" of any kind allowed. Let each Bill pass or fail based on it's own merits.

Both parties do this to some degree and IMO it needs to stop.

F&S for the OP.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Being a Conservative that has complained about pork in bills since before Bush was our dear leader, I have to ask, are you only showing outrage because this new Congress is doing it? Not trying to be rude or imply anything about your beliefs, I just haven't seen you upset about pork in bills when the other side did it.

I have always said if a bill can't pass on its own merit, it should be scrapped. Debate the issue at hand, not issues that have nothing to do with the original bill.

This is why we can't move forward on any significant issues. We spend to much time pointing to the splinters in someone else's eyes while ignoring the logs in our own eyes. It's beyond sad!



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Good thing we have somebody that makes Democrats actually earn their keep.

Better than the renegade legislation we saw in 2009 and 2010.






posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I hate Riders, I don't care who is doing it. That whole process seems intentionally slothful.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9

To be honest, I only joined last October, so I did not have the chance to weigh in on riders during the majority democrat season.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9
Being a Conservative that has complained about pork in bills since before Bush was our dear leader, I have to ask, are you only showing outrage because this new Congress is doing it?


I don't like any pork in bills. I have starred every post in this thread that supports making it illegal. The reason I posted this thread is that I have been trying to start more threads lately, to add to the content of ATS. To be perfectly honest with you, I have never given pork much thought before, because my thinking is that's what they've done all along and that's what they're going to continue to do. I don't like it, have never agreed with it, but I'm nobody. It's the way government works these days. Dysfunctionally.



I have always said if a bill can't pass on its own merit, it should be scrapped. Debate the issue at hand, not issues that have nothing to do with the original bill.


I agree completely.

And no, I don't like this new Congress. They're worse than the last as regards obstructionism.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

As long as you don't hate "KawRiders" we're good. Kaw=Kawasaki.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Nice reply, Thanks for your honest answer. Openness and dialogue without the hyperbole might just get us on the same page and things could get done. *Shudders



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9
As long as you don't hate "KawRiders" we're good. Kaw=Kawasaki.


I couldn't do that! I'm married to one!

On topic, the next big push should be to get pork outlawed. But how to get Congress (who depends on it) to agree to make a bill against it? It's frustrating.

a reply to: KawRider9

It's the ONLY way to go. When discussions start deteriorating into hyperbole, I usually just leave the thread.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE introduce the line item veto! Then we can finally end this stupid game of attaching crappy riders to bills to create political strife.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE introduce the line item veto! Then we can finally end this stupid game of attaching crappy riders to bills to create political strife.


I thought that was declared unconstitutional ?




posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

McConnell is a moron in a sea of mendicants.

Problem 1 - they vote on these bills without reading them? It was all but admitted in the article that they didn't read it because they were told it was a reintroduction of a prior bill. ACA wasn't read either....just as an example. No wonder everything sucks so bad....how long have our representatives been passing legislation that they didn't read? Can they even comprehend it? Are they failing to read it because of choice, or necessity? Why don't they make their jobs easier by passing less convoluted legislation?

Problem 2 - "riders". It is how all the underhanded BS happens.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE introduce the line item veto! Then we can finally end this stupid game of attaching crappy riders to bills to create political strife.


I thought that was declared unconstitutional ?



So long as riders are legal, the line item veto needs to be allowed for.

Hiding legislation among all the pork stuffed into otherwise decent legislation is a travesty.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE introduce the line item veto! Then we can finally end this stupid game of attaching crappy riders to bills to create political strife.


I doubt that would solve the problem. All it really does is to give the person with the veto power the ability to pick and choose between which riders he/she likes and those that he/she doesn't.

Furthermore, riders aren't just used to get things passed. They're also used as excuses by congressional members to explain why they voted for something when they know they shouldn't have.

Get rid of riders altogether and those excuses go away, making it much easier to evaluate your congressman's voting record. Either he/she voted for something or they didn't, plain & simple.

I like plain & simple.
edit on 16-3-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join