A GUEST said, in part:

And who paid to fly the 200+ members of the US House back to DC so they could vote on this?

This afternoon, on NPR, I heard just a scrap of a feature about this case. I have to admit that I didn't catch all of it.

But as I understood it, in the Senate session there were only three (that's right, 3!) Senators present for the vote, MUCH less than a quorum, so they went on what's called a "unanimous consent rule". So if three Senators all agreed and no-one suggested the absence of a quorum, they exercised the function of the full Senate.

If that is correct, it's not just wrong, it's not just shameful-- It's shocking, criminal in my view. It shows the extent to which the politicoes are willing to go to subvert not only the law but the Constitution for their political ends.

Frankly, I hope I'm wrong about that, but I'm afraid what I understood was what was intended by the NPR feature.

Dave Oesterreich