What exactly happened in the Senate with the Charlie Kirk Day resolution

[lapucelle]

I've posted a version of this at least a dozen times in the past few days in an effort to push back against the inaccurate "the Senate voted unanimously to commemorate a racist troll with a special day" rage bait that has appeared everywhere, including on DU.

-------------------------------------------

Here's what happened on the Senate floor:

Rick Scott asked for unanimous consent to proceed with the consideration of his Charlie Kirk Day resolution. No one objected, so consideration of the resolution proceeded.

Why didn't a Democrat object and force a vote on the motion? Here's a possible answer: It could well have been that there wasn't a single Democrat on the Senate floor. What leads to that conclusion? The record shows that it is likely that a quorum wasn't present.

That means that either all of the Democrats and some of the Republicans were not in the chamber or that some Democrats and some Republicans were not there. Either way, at least 51 senators appear to have skipped the shit show.

Senate rules presume a quorum in legislative session. In other words, "we do have a quorum" is the default setting.

The roll gets called only if a senator makes a motion "suggesting the absence of quorum". That motion leads to a roll call as the initial step to a quorum call to the absent senators.

If a motion to rescind the quorum call (i.e. stop the roll call to see if at least 51 senators are there) is passed by unanimous consent, the issue of whether or not there's a quorum goes back to its default setting, i.e. the presumption that a quorum is present.

-----------------------------------

What makes it likely to surmise that there was no quorum?

- Scott (R) ("notwithstanding rule XXII" ) was careful not to invoke cloture.

- At the end of his ridiculous speech, Tuberville (R), suggested the absence of a quorum, and a roll call was ordered and initiated

- The roll call was stopped when Lankford (R) asked for unanimous consent for the quorum call to be rescinded.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The resolution itself was "approved" by a voice vote of those present in the chamber.

Who do we know with certainty was actually there? Only the three Republicans on the record.

----------------------------------------------------------------

From the Congressional Record:

Mr. SCOTT of Florida: Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 403, which was submitted earlier today.

snip=======================

Mr. Tuberville: I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. LANKFORD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.MORENO): Without objection, it is so ordered.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/96-452

------------------------------------------------------------

I can't find a procedural reason for Tuberville to have suggested the absence of a quorum (triggering a roll call) other than the fact that the question and partial roll call would become part of the congressional record.

Could it be that MAGA Senators wanted to be able to hold the absence over the heads of Republicans who did not comply? After all, if an additional 48 Republican senators (out of the total of 53) had been on floor, there would have been a quorum. Republicans didn't need a single Democrat to have been present for there to have been a quorum of 51 senators and a roll call vote with everyone's position on the record.

MAGA senators have their party's noncompliance receipts in the form of the congressional record.