|
mutata posted:I'm starting to get the feeling that y'all don't like this McCarthy feller. He brings me joy OP
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Getting McCarthy to commit to a vote on something that was already pre-struck down decades ago by the Supreme Court is a pretty novel demand. I can't imagine what the purpose of getting him to commit to pass a law that will never pass the Senate or be signed by the President, and if it did, would instantly become void other than just seeing what else he will agree to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 05:40
|
|
|
I wouldn't trust this court to preserve precedent, but otherwise, 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 05:41
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Supreme Court already struck down term limits as unconstitutional in the 90's when Gingrich passed them. When did Gingrich pass term limits? I don’t think that stuff ever got put into law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 05:46
|
|
|
smackfu posted:When did Gingrich pass term limits? I don’t think that stuff ever got put into law. It was part of Contract for America, but there was a ruling on state term limits in 95 that declared them unconstitutional, so they had to make it a constitutional amendment and it never went anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 05:48
|
|
|
I went back to check on how close they were to passing that amendment. The term limits amendment passed with a majority, but was way off (60 votes short) of the 2/3 constitutional amendment requirement in the House. They had a balanced budget amendment and one that would also require a three fifths majority in both houses to raise taxes that came really close to passing. The balanced budget amendment passed the House and only failed by one vote in the Senate because one Republican opposed it. I forgot how close they came to that one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 06:06
|
|
|
delfin posted:Someone's going to mess around just long enough for Liz Truss to be named the next Speaker. Chaos nomination for next speaker: Mitch McConnell
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Getting McCarthy to commit to a vote on something that was already pre-struck down decades ago by the Supreme Court is a pretty novel demand. I can't imagine what the purpose of getting him to commit to pass a law that will never pass the Senate or be signed by the President, and if it did, would instantly become void other than just seeing what else he will agree to. Given who is asking for it, there's a very good chance they don't know or refuse to acknowledge that such a thing already happened. At best, it was all an activist move by the famously liberal Rehnquist Court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 06:24
|
|
|
Dems should switch all their votes from Jeffries to Pelosi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 07:03
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1610677777853808640 To be fair to her, she's as much a house rep as anyone else right now
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 07:13
|
|
|
Okay I'm not on top of US politics, are they just nominating the same dweeb over and over and nobody is voting for him? Can they pick someone less objectionable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 07:21
|
|
|
YggiDee posted:Okay I'm not on top of US politics, are they just nominating the same dweeb over and over and nobody is voting for him? Can they pick someone less objectionable? The short version is there is no one less objectionable to them who would want the job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 07:23
|
|
|
Just make them do it anyway
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 07:23
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Chaos nomination for next speaker: Mitch McConnell hosed up that you could actually find a way to make me feel bad for loving Addison Mitchell McConnell
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 07:35
|
|
|
The solution is single stochastic vote. Every representative submits a ballot with their candidate of choice, one ballot is chosen randomly, and whoever is on it gets to be the Speaker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 07:50
|
|
|
What about a joint speakership position? Would McCarthy be satisfied as co-speaker?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 08:26
|
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:What about a joint speakership position? Would McCarthy be satisfied as co-speaker? I doubt it. This has been his dream for well over a decade. It's all or nothing for him, and nothing is quickly bullying all out of the room. I doubt he'd take a pity part-time Speakership gig, no matter who offered it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 08:38
|
|
|
YggiDee posted:Just make them do it anyway If you mean instead of McCarthy, I think they're worried that their compromise candidate won't get the votes and it'll make things even worse (well worse for Republicans which is obviously better).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 08:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The short version is there is no one less objectionable to them who would want the job. also it's unclear if there's anyone less objectionable to them even among people who don't want the job getting nearly the entire republican house to agree on something is almost certainly far harder than getting 50 dem senators to agree on something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 09:41
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:getting nearly the entire republican house to agree on something is almost certainly far harder than getting 50 dem senators to agree on something. They are pretty good at agreeing to own the libs. If there was an actual chance for a democratic leader here, I doubt that the house dems would all go in lockstep either. It's way easier to show unity as a symbolic sign of opposition than if you are actually in charge. But yeah, those demands of the freedom caucus are insane. According to them, a singular person has the power to make a vote of mistrust at any given time. So essentially, under this requirement, every time a vote doesn't go their way, one of them will try that. Also, this is not even specific to republicans. According to that suggestion, random democrats could stall the proceedings of everything until the end of the legislative period. If Kevin caves to that ridiculous demand and it is somehow enough to sway them (fat chance), I imagine dozens of people demand bribes for every day they don't call for a reelection of the speaker. I also really like the guy who was all "We wont surrender unconditionally. So please tell us everything you want, so we may surrender and hand it to you."
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 10:18
|
|
|
yes oh my god yes it is mccarthy would literally murder an infant right now if he could deal with only a singular a joe manchin instead of what he's currently got to deal with. I am zero % saying this as some defense of the dems or whatever Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Jan 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 10:21
|
|
|
Rogue AI Goddess posted:The solution is single stochastic vote. Every representative submits a ballot with their candidate of choice, one ballot is chosen randomly, and whoever is on it gets to be the Speaker. Representative Baba Booey, please come get your gavel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 13:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1610863167680167936
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:03
|
|
|
Curious to see if McCarthy can chip away anyone in today’s vote. Hopefully they don’t just come in and recess immediately, like last night. Although the recess vote was quite amusing to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:17
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Getting McCarthy to commit to a vote on something that was already pre-struck down decades ago by the Supreme Court is a pretty novel demand. I can't imagine what the purpose of getting him to commit to pass a law that will never pass the Senate or be signed by the President, and if it did, would instantly become void other than just seeing what else he will agree to. How many gop reps, McCarthy included, do you think know that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:19
|
|
|
YggiDee posted:Okay I'm not on top of US politics, are they just nominating the same dweeb over and over and nobody is voting for him? Can they pick someone less objectionable? There's only ~20 people objecting to that dweeb, and the other ~190 people aren't necessarily interested in immediately tossing their favorite overboard just to please a small and extremely demanding faction. Also, they needed a majority vote just to adjourn the House so they can stop rerunning the vote and go spend a couple days wheeling and dealing. The small faction blocked that for a while just to humiliate that one dweeb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83a3PJKMhqE McCarthy danced like a monkey and performed beloved culture wars for MAGA by reading Dr. Seuss as a grown rear end man and acting like some book getting pulled from sale by his own estate was GOP priority number 1 to remedy in some capacity and MAGA still won't vote for the guy to be speaker.  Like isn't culture wars and owning the libs what wins support, credibility and clout in today's GOP? Did McCarthy just not culture war hard enough? Not white male victimhood hard enough? I'm guessing not.....
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's only ~20 people objecting to that dweeb, and the other ~190 people aren't necessarily interested in immediately tossing their favorite overboard just to please a small and extremely demanding faction. They are getting pissed that McCarthy is giving up more and more, in particular they seem pissed that the 20 might “jump the line” on committee assignments. They might not be onboard to give ‘em all that they want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:34
|
|
|
How many more rounds does McCarthy have to suffer through before this makes it into the top 5 most failed speaker votes? Will he break before then? Because right now, he seems to be the weakest link in this entire clownshow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:41
|
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:What about a joint speakership position? Would McCarthy be satisfied as co-speaker? McCarthy: I'm Assistant Speaker of the House. Random Congressperson: Assistant to the Speaker of the House.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:49
|
|
|
Matt's a hell of a reporter so I trust his gut on this. It also feels like the conservatives are making outrageous demands that McCarthy immediately accepts to prove the point that he has no principles and will do anything for the gavel.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:49
|
|
|
Randalor posted:How many more rounds does McCarthy have to suffer through before this makes it into the top 5 most failed speaker votes? Will he break before then? Because right now, he seems to be the weakest link in this entire clownshow. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-mccarthy-house-speaker-multiple-ballots-history/ The longest it has ever taken was two months. That was pre civil war, though. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jan 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
Could they get a procedural ruling from the clerk to attempt to switch the vote to some kind of Ranked Voting with Instant Runoff? That might still not get to 218 but might speed up the process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/badlipreading/status/1610802268416380928?s=46&t=5ZnX1jQqhV0i7SWc-pTEuQ
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 14:59
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Could they get a procedural ruling from the clerk to attempt to switch the vote to some kind of Ranked Voting with Instant Runoff? That might still not get to 218 but might speed up the process. Someone could make a motion for it but it'd have to be accepted by a majority of the house and I'm not sure they'd take it. You'd also have to lay down the rules for that particular change, which I presume would also be part of that vote You can't necessarily say "I move to have the nomination vote be decided by ranked choice voting" because there's no parliamentary mechanism for that
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 15:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-mccarthy-house-speaker-multiple-ballots-history/ So... what, 6 more votes then he's in the top 5?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 15:00
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Could they get a procedural ruling from the clerk to attempt to switch the vote to some kind of Ranked Voting with Instant Runoff? That might still not get to 218 but might speed up the process. No? And why would anyone want to speed the process? Fundamentally this doesn’t really matter for the United States til July with the debt ceiling, because dem controlled senate and presidency means the house wont pass any laws. Any oversight they do will be bullshit like hunter bidens laptop investigations. Edit: also remember the current clerk was appointed by the dems, and it is usually their last official act to elect the opposing parties speaker, she has no incentive to bend the rules to empower republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Could they get a procedural ruling from the clerk to attempt to switch the vote to some kind of Ranked Voting with Instant Runoff? That might still not get to 218 but might speed up the process. So that would be 212 votes for Jeffries, followed by 212 votes for "Deez Nutz", then 201 votes for McCarthy? I'm fine with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
How much more must I grovel and supplicate before you see what a great leader I am?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Randalor posted:So that would be 212 votes for Jeffries, followed by 212 votes for "Deez Nutz", then 201 votes for McCarthy? I'm fine with that. I feel bad that I thought of Scalise for the second choice there...
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 15:13
|
|
