SENATE HEARING: Maxwell for Attorney General (Confirmed)

[President Tyrion]

Yeah, Shua's question was clearly a joke question, as was my own.

Actually it was not just a joke. I do not see why a question should be regarded as lacking substance just because it is phrased in a friendly manner.  I believe it is very helpful for the AG to have an office.  

Because we would have had to wait longer to open the vote had the question been determined to be substantial.

That's a ridiculous reason.  If we don't want questioning to delay a vote on a nominee then change the OSPR.

It's perfectly reasonable, procedurally. The questioning rule is in place to ensure that anyone who desires an answer to a question within a reasonable time before the confirmation vote can be assuaged. It's a pretty good analogue to the debating and UC rules for bills.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yeah, Shua's question was clearly a joke question, as was my own.

Actually it was not just a joke. I do not see why a question should be regarded as lacking substance just because it is phrased in a friendly manner.  I believe it is very helpful for the AG to have an office. 

Because we would have had to wait longer to open the vote had the question been determined to be substantial.

That's a ridiculous reason.  If we don't want questioning to delay a vote on a nominee then change the OSPR.

Actually, we don't, because we long ago established by precedents that off topic debate is not considered as debate under the rules.  This was the little secret I didn't have the heart to break to Franzl during his "food fillibuster" back in 2012. It was never even an issue thus.

I left the decision up to Matt since there was some uncertainty regarding your question.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yeah, Shua's question was clearly a joke question, as was my own.

Actually it was not just a joke. I do not see why a question should be regarded as lacking substance just because it is phrased in a friendly manner.  I believe it is very helpful for the AG to have an office.  

Because we would have had to wait longer to open the vote had the question been determined to be substantial.

That's a ridiculous reason.  If we don't want questioning to delay a vote on a nominee then change the OSPR.

It's perfectly reasonable, procedurally. The questioning rule is in place to ensure that anyone who desires an answer to a question within a reasonable time before the confirmation vote can be assuaged. It's a pretty good analogue to the debating and UC rules for bills.

And as I said we have a long history of ignoring non-substanative remakrs by Senators and all those by non-Senators of any kind when opening votes and typically I have aired on the side of caution and called UC to be safe, but things like "I support the bill" and all procedural related statements are not regarded as "debate on the merits  and if only such have appeared in the past 24 hours, then I have gon ahead and opened votes on legislation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am pretty sure this can be ended.

[Talleyrand]

Aye

[DC Al Fine]

Aye

[Sopranos Republican]

With a unanimous vote, the nominee has been confirmed.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah, Shua's question was clearly a joke question, as was my own.

Actually it was not just a joke. I do not see why a question should be regarded as lacking substance just because it is phrased in a friendly manner.  I believe it is very helpful for the AG to have an office. 

Because we would have had to wait longer to open the vote had the question been determined to be substantial.

That's a ridiculous reason.  If we don't want questioning to delay a vote on a nominee then change the OSPR.

Actually, we don't, because we long ago established by precedents that off topic debate is not considered as debate under the rules.  This was the little secret I didn't have the heart to break to Franzl during his "food fillibuster" back in 2012. It was never even an issue thus.

I left the decision up to Matt since there was some uncertainty regarding your question.

Of course you left it up to Matt since you we do not have a PPT (and you are coming close to making me regret my vote on that position), but you did decide to weigh in to question its substance.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Thanks for confirming him, friends

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yeah, Shua's question was clearly a joke question, as was my own.

Actually it was not just a joke. I do not see why a question should be regarded as lacking substance just because it is phrased in a friendly manner.  I believe it is very helpful for the AG to have an office. 

Because we would have had to wait longer to open the vote had the question been determined to be substantial.

That's a ridiculous reason.  If we don't want questioning to delay a vote on a nominee then change the OSPR.

Actually, we don't, because we long ago established by precedents that off topic debate is not considered as debate under the rules.  This was the little secret I didn't have the heart to break to Franzl during his "food fillibuster" back in 2012. It was never even an issue thus.

I left the decision up to Matt since there was some uncertainty regarding your question.

Of course you left it up to Matt since you we do not have a PPT (and you are coming close to making me regret my vote on that position), but you did decide to weigh in to question its substance.

I was wrong to state that as I did. I am under a lot of pressure right now in real life. I posted that on a Saturday morning following returning home the night before from the funeral of a close friend of mine who was probably going to be my stepfather by the end of this year.

For one thing, the PPT doesn't run nominatio nvotes any more, the VP does regardless of whether we have a PPT or not. Second, I have served in an advisory capacity to all Vice President's as I have since the days of Kalwejt and probably before that. What I meant was I let him decide his own opinion as opposed to making a recommendation one way or the other. I did state the procedural effect of such a decision, though. Which I also did in this thread.

I worded it something like this in the PM, "Depending on how shua's post is considered, a vote may be started on the AG Nominee".

Historically, I have usually aired on the side of caution more so then others who have occupied the post like BK (wrote the book on expediency driven loophole abuse) and bgwah (need I say more) and therefore I may have aired on the side of caution in a similar scenario. I even had a question of my own that I typed up but did not post because I didn't like the wording of it and then never got a chance to post it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah, Shua's question was clearly a joke question, as was my own.

Actually it was not just a joke. I do not see why a question should be regarded as lacking substance just because it is phrased in a friendly manner.  I believe it is very helpful for the AG to have an office. 

Because we would have had to wait longer to open the vote had the question been determined to be substantial.

That's a ridiculous reason.  If we don't want questioning to delay a vote on a nominee then change the OSPR.

Actually, we don't, because we long ago established by precedents that off topic debate is not considered as debate under the rules.  This was the little secret I didn't have the heart to break to Franzl during his "food fillibuster" back in 2012. It was never even an issue thus.

I left the decision up to Matt since there was some uncertainty regarding your question.

Of course you left it up to Matt since you we do not have a PPT (and you are coming close to making me regret my vote on that position), but you did decide to weigh in to question its substance.

I was wrong to state that as I did. I am under a lot of pressure right now in real life. I posted that on a Saturday morning following returning home the night before from the funeral of a close friend of mine who was probably going to be my stepfather by the end of this year.

For one thing, the PPT doesn't run nominatio nvotes any more, the VP does regardless of whether we have a PPT or not. Second, I have served in an advisory capacity to all Vice President's as I have since the days of Kalwejt and probably before that. What I meant was I let him decide his own opinion as opposed to making a recommendation one way or the other. I did state the procedural effect of such a decision, though. Which I also did in this thread.

I worded it something like this in the PM, "Depending on how shua's post is considered, a vote may be started on the AG Nominee".

Historically, I have usually aired on the side of caution more so then others who have occupied the post like BK (wrote the book on expediency driven loophole abuse) and bgwah (need I say more) and therefore I may have aired on the side of caution in a similar scenario. I even had a question of my own that I typed up but did not post because I didn't like the wording of it and then never got a chance to post it.

I'm not sure why it bothered me as much as it did, guess I was kinda stressed out with my own stuff too.
I'm very sorry to hear about your friend, Yankee.    Hope you and your family are getting through this ok.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yeah, Shua's question was clearly a joke question, as was my own.

Actually it was not just a joke. I do not see why a question should be regarded as lacking substance just because it is phrased in a friendly manner.  I believe it is very helpful for the AG to have an office. 

Because we would have had to wait longer to open the vote had the question been determined to be substantial.

That's a ridiculous reason.  If we don't want questioning to delay a vote on a nominee then change the OSPR.

Actually, we don't, because we long ago established by precedents that off topic debate is not considered as debate under the rules.  This was the little secret I didn't have the heart to break to Franzl during his "food fillibuster" back in 2012. It was never even an issue thus.

I left the decision up to Matt since there was some uncertainty regarding your question.

Of course you left it up to Matt since you we do not have a PPT (and you are coming close to making me regret my vote on that position), but you did decide to weigh in to question its substance.

I was wrong to state that as I did. I am under a lot of pressure right now in real life. I posted that on a Saturday morning following returning home the night before from the funeral of a close friend of mine who was probably going to be my stepfather by the end of this year.

For one thing, the PPT doesn't run nominatio nvotes any more, the VP does regardless of whether we have a PPT or not. Second, I have served in an advisory capacity to all Vice President's as I have since the days of Kalwejt and probably before that. What I meant was I let him decide his own opinion as opposed to making a recommendation one way or the other. I did state the procedural effect of such a decision, though. Which I also did in this thread.

I worded it something like this in the PM, "Depending on how shua's post is considered, a vote may be started on the AG Nominee".

Historically, I have usually aired on the side of caution more so then others who have occupied the post like BK (wrote the book on expediency driven loophole abuse) and bgwah (need I say more) and therefore I may have aired on the side of caution in a similar scenario. I even had a question of my own that I typed up but did not post because I didn't like the wording of it and then never got a chance to post it.

I'm not sure why it bothered me as much as it did, guess I was kinda stressed out with my own stuff too.
I'm very sorry to hear about your friend, Yankee.    Hope you and your family are getting through this ok.

I understand, you have always been passionate and we have tugged over this kind of thing in the past like when I moved to add the UC process. There has to be a balance and it has to be as fair as possible. My hope was that Maxwel would have gone ahead and answered your question even once the vote was started.

I wish we were but we are not. Not even the Atlas has the ability to distract me from this and it has always been my escape in the past.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Maxwell actually did answer my question before the vote.   The truth of it is if someone had called for a vote and not mentioned my question, I wouldn't have even noticed there was an issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Maxwell actually did answer my question before the vote.   The truth of it is if someone had called for a vote and not mentioned my question, I wouldn't have even noticed there was an issue.

When I think of shua, demanding transparency seems to top the list for some reason.

Also, I prefer to be demonstrative for if I am not someone will surely complain about why what is done is done. So I do such to avoid the complaining, but it doesn't seem to work in all instances.