A stupid question asked I have:

[King Coal]

What would happen if all of the Democratic senators go together and decided that they would all stay home until Rove was fired? Is that too stupid to contemplate? If they all banded together why couldn't they demand that he leaves his office, or they will shut down the senate? What would be the consequences of that?

[justinsb]

1. I like option 2 better

who knows what they would do if the Dems simply stayed home. But I wouldn't let this become a serious issue, fire back at Rove - god knows he's one of the chief Nazi's.

[King Coal]

4. But couldn't the democratic senators take plenty of shots while they

were staying at home? How about both options?

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. The corporate media would SKEWER them.

They would be made to look like fools.

[Wabbajack]

3. The Republicans would have a quorum

and could do anything they wanted with no Dems to object including confirm judges.

[King Coal]

6. I'm not sure that is true.

[Wabbajack]

7. It is

51 is a enough to conduct business. They could pass constitutional amendents with 2/3s of Senators voting.

They couldn't end fillibusters if one of the repubs was fillibustering (cause you need 60 votes TOTAL) but they could do anything else.

[whistle]

5. Like when the Texas democratic legislators all left town to....

...hide in a Holiday Inn in Oklahoma? Joe Lieberman won't go along with that and I guess other democratic senators as well would refuse to stay away.

If a senator or a representative fails to show up for work (not in his/her office or on the floors of the House or Senate) can that time and portion of their salary be docked?

[Lars39]

8. I don't recommend it! Remember the "doomsday" plan?

From Boston Herald article @ Common Dreams:
http://tinyurl.com/9xwya

<snip>Usually, 218 lawmakers - a majority of the 435 members of Congress - are required to conduct House business, such as passing laws or declaring war.

But under the new rule, a majority of living congressmen no longer will be needed to do business under ``catastrophic circumstances.''

Instead, a majority of the congressmen able to show up at the House would be enough to conduct business, conceivably a dozen lawmakers or less.

The House speaker would announce the number after a report by the House Sergeant at Arms. Any lawmaker unable to make it to the chamber would effectively not be counted as a congressman.

The circumstances include ``natural disaster, attack, contagion or similar calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings of the House.'' <snip>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And as Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) pointed out, ``Changing what constitutes a quorum in this way would allow less than a dozen lawmakers to declare war on another nation,'' Baird said.

[whalerider55]

9. if you'd asked this question six months ago...

who would have been able to tell the difference between whether they were at the senate or staying home.

go reid. go dean. gone thugs.

whalerider