Congress Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 655
  • Views: 23K
  • Politics 
altmin said:
Jeffries shouldn't deliver a single vote at this point.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. There was a deal. Trump commanded Rs to rip it up. Rs ripped it up.

Let the Rs in Congress understand early that there is a price to abandoning a bipartisan agreement to appease Trump. The negotiating positions have changed. Ds cannot fall back to the earlier bipartisan deal.
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
I'm not steeped in legislative procedure and I don't have the time or energy to do any real research, but I can't imagine the absence of an elected Speaker could derail the electoral process. The 12th Amendment and 3 USC 15 are pretty clear about the procedure for counting electoral votes and neither requires any real role for the Speaker. Both do say, however, that the President of the Senate shall preside and open the votes.
Click to expand...
It could be a problem as the WSJ a year ago (01-06-2023) noted below:

Congress has since passed a law that clarifies the vice president’s role is merely ceremonial, and made other changes designed to make it harder for lawmakers to object to states’ electoral votes, but it didn’t address a hypothetical scenario in which there might be no speaker or sworn members.
Without a speaker, the House’s newly elected members are unable to be sworn in to office, or conduct any other business beyond tedious voice votes, as the House clerk, who is presiding, calls out hundreds of lawmakers’ names one by one, in alphabetical order.
Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution said in past protracted speakership elections, there were times when a majority of the House decided to change the election rule for the speaker from a majority to a plurality, so there’s precedent that the House can do some bare bones motions. But she said it’s uncertain how the lack of a speaker – who is supposed to submit any electoral count objections to the House for its consideration – would affect the process of ratifying presidential results.
“Thank goodness, we don't have to certify any Electoral College results this week, because we wouldn't be able to," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Calif.).
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D., Mo.) said he didn’t have any idea what would happen in two years if there was no speaker or functioning House on Jan. 6.
“And I bet nobody else does either,” he said. “There is no contingency … I mean, over the last three or four years we've been going in and out of unexplored territory.”
 
I suppose if somehow the Republicans can't select a Speaker by noon on January 20, 2025, then Senator Murray would be inaugurated. Works for me.

Now we laugh at such an outlandish outcome, but I bet there are at least a couple Representatives that will demand a King's ransom in exchange for their votes once they realize the power they hold.
 
BlueSmoke said:
It could be a problem as the WSJ a year ago (01-06-2023) noted below:

Congress has since passed a law that clarifies the vice president’s role is merely ceremonial, and made other changes designed to make it harder for lawmakers to object to states’ electoral votes, but it didn’t address a hypothetical scenario in which there might be no speaker or sworn members.
Without a speaker, the House’s newly elected members are unable to be sworn in to office, or conduct any other business beyond tedious voice votes, as the House clerk, who is presiding, calls out hundreds of lawmakers’ names one by one, in alphabetical order.
Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution said in past protracted speakership elections, there were times when a majority of the House decided to change the election rule for the speaker from a majority to a plurality, so there’s precedent that the House can do some bare bones motions. But she said it’s uncertain how the lack of a speaker – who is supposed to submit any electoral count objections to the House for its consideration – would affect the process of ratifying presidential results.
“Thank goodness, we don't have to certify any Electoral College results this week, because we wouldn't be able to," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Calif.).
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D., Mo.) said he didn’t have any idea what would happen in two years if there was no speaker or functioning House on Jan. 6.
“And I bet nobody else does either,” he said. “There is no contingency … I mean, over the last three or four years we've been going in and out of unexplored territory.”
Click to expand...
Interesting, and thanks for the info. I can't imagine it becoming an issue, but then again a lot I couldn't imagine has happened.
 




I am the one who tanked this and is making last second demands at 1:16 am but it is Biden’s fault!!
 
Last edited:
nycfan said:




I am the one who tanked this and is making last second demands at 1:16 am but it is Biden’s fault!!
Click to expand...

And I am sure in one month from now everyone will be going out of their way to blame Biden for whatever is happening because the media spotlight will be so glaring on him and not the orange attention whoring asshole living int he White House. let's see how that works.
 
Trump doubled down on his desire for a debt limit patch today, telling NBC News’ Garrett Haake that he’s keen to get rid of the limit entirely, not just raise the ceiling: “Democrats have said they want to get rid of it. If they want to get rid of it, I would lead the charge,” Trump said. “It doesn’t mean anything, except psychologically.”
 

Johnson says plan C reached to avert shutdown, vote expected​


“Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Republicans have arrived at a plan C to avert a shutdown and the House will vote Friday morning on the legislation.

“Yeah, yeah, we have a plan,” Johnson said Friday morning as he entered the Capitol. “We’re expecting votes this morning, so you all stay tuned. We’ve got a plan.”

He did not say what it entails.

Developing.”
 
heelslegup said:
Trump doubled down on his desire for a debt limit patch today, telling NBC News’ Garrett Haake that he’s keen to get rid of the limit entirely, not just raise the ceiling: “Democrats have said they want to get rid of it. If they want to get rid of it, I would lead the charge,” Trump said. “It doesn’t mean anything, except psychologically.”
Click to expand...
Seems as if Trump and his minions in Congress and elsewhere are aggressively trying to trap Democrats into supporting measures that will allow Republicans to make major budget cuts and then blame Democrats for it after Trump takes office. "See, those nasty Democrats wouldn't raise the budget ceiling, so now we've got to make cuts to your Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Don't blame us, blame them, it's all their fault as usual!"
 
Threatening to primary every single Republican who doesn't do what you say (even before you return to office) isn't a policy that will win friends. Especially when they realize that 1) they only have a 2 seat majority and 2) Trump is a lame duck immediately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top