General Discussion

karynnj

(61,024 posts)

11. I know they needed 50 to table it, but would they have needed 60 to add it?

Thu Mar 1, 2012, 01:20 PM

Mar 2012

Both Casey and his father were right to life Democrats. Here, I wonder if the problem is the inclusion of emergency contraception, which he likely equates to abortion. I looked at his site and there is no statement on this vote.

Does anyone know why this was a vote to table rather than a straight up/down vote on the amendment? Does tabling it do more than rejecting it - maybe in terms of ending all discussion on variants of it? If not, why take the vote that needs 50 against vs 41 against?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Senate Votes 51-48 To Kill Blunt Amendment (updated 2x) [View all] ProSense Mar 2012 OP

Way too close for comfort? Mass Mar 2012 #1

I know they needed 50 to table it, but would they have needed 60 to add it? karynnj Mar 2012 #11

It's close ProSense Mar 2012 #12

I can see why Snowe is retiring marlakay Mar 2012 #2

All but her... Mass Mar 2012 #4

She can finally vote like she wants to now. Nt marlakay Mar 2012 #5

I think Collins and also Manchin voted for it as cover... joeybee12 Mar 2012 #3

Too close for comfort. LiberalAndProud Mar 2012 #6

Granted, I thankful to Casey for defeating Santorum sadbear Mar 2012 #7

Dear Senators Nelson, Manchin and Casey gratuitous Mar 2012 #8

Getting rid of "moderate" Susan Collins should be our next priority. Dawson Leery Mar 2012 #9

Casey Robbins Mar 2012 #10

Exactly ProSense Mar 2012 #13