MAJORITY OF SENATE REPUBLICANS AND HALF OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS REFUSE TO VOTE YES ON GAY JUDGE- UPDATED

The votes are in on Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland's confirmation as a judge by the General Assembly.

In the House of Delegates, Thorne-Begland won by a 66-28 vote, with 34 Republicans in favor, and 34 voting "no" or not voting.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Tommy Norment reminded Senators of a Senate tradition of not voting no on judges, and instead not voting or abstaining since it requires 21 votes to confirm and not voting or abstaining is the same as voting "no".  Thorne-Begland then won by a 28-0 vote after 12 Republican Senators walked out rather than vote on his confirmation.

You read that correctly.  A majority of the Virginia Senate GOP- 12 of 20 Senators walked out rather than vote for a gay judge.

UPDATE:  The 12 Republican Senators who walked out:

Dick Black
Bill Carrico
Tom Garrett
Emmett Hanger
Steve Martin
Jeff McWaters
Steve Newman
Mark Obenshain
Bryce Reaves
Ralph Smith
Bill Stanley
Richard Stuart

Unbelievable. 

Comments

[me.yahoo.com/a/YlxJMWoMwtP83v5kX8PLMUYSmFe5U7dXWw--]

You got the House tally wrong according to the WaPo. Head, Putney and Ingram were the Republican abstainers or walkouts, and Joannou, Joe Johnson, and Jeion A. Ward were the Dem walkouts.

So really 37 R yes and 31 R no.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-roll-call-confirmation-tracy-thorne-begland/2013/01/15/1d3a7f3c-5f5e-11e2-9dc9-bca76dd777b8_story.html

[Sdgilleran]

I too think this is big, but for a different reason. I read that half the Republican caucus bucked the Family Foundation in an election year.
Baby steps. Long overdue. But progress, nonetheless.

[James Leo]

The above post is highly informative for all.

Visit Here

[Chad Parker]

"reminded Senators of a Senate tradition of not voting no on judges, and instead not voting or abstaining since it requires 21 votes to confirm and not voting or abstaining is the same as voting "no"."

So in essence, one of the duties of the Senate is to confirm judges.

But some "tradition" dictates that the senate confirm judges.

And because abstaining, while legally and logically is different than voting "no," is nevertheless effectually the same as voting "no."

So everyone should vote "yes."

Remind me again of the purpose of Senate confirmation?

I like Tracy. I would have voted for him last year and this year. But the Senate should be run as a group of independently elected officials, each working for his or her constituents, not as hierarchical subgroups bound by tradition and fear of being labeled "anti-whatever-difference-the-nominee-happens-to-hold."