Motion to Overturn a Previous RA Rejection

I fourth the motion to vote.

I'm sure there will be little trouble getting three objections to a vote having been scheduled once a vote were to be scheduled.

And if this does somehow go back to the Court, all that will do is allow those of us who feel the Court erred to begin with to have an opportunity to brief the Court on its error. I'm curious as to what provision of our laws the Court believes allowed such an ex post facto judicial exception to be created in the first place.

You all do know that this may very well open up a can of worms that will blow up in TD's face?

Personally, I'd love to see the original rejection upheld as the results would be entertaining in the extreme as it would end up in the Court once again much to the amusement and merriment of all.

Romanoffia:

Personally, I'd love to see the original rejection upheld as the results would be entertaining in the extreme as it would end up in the Court once again much to the amusement and merriment of all.

Click to expand...

About as entertaining as a root canal. I'd also like to see the vote to overturn the rejection (failed) upheld.

Grosseschnauzer:

I'm sure there will be little trouble getting three objections to a vote having been scheduled once a vote were to be scheduled.

Click to expand...

That won't have any effect. The 3-person objection is to the Speaker's decision to schedule a vote (either to it existence or to its specific scheduling); under the 1/10 rule the Speaker has no choice and a vote must begin as soon as permitted by law. Once 1/10 is achieved the vote cannot be blocked.

I should note that, due to the recent admissions of a number of members, the motion will now require the support of eight members, rather than seven.