posted
I'm astounded that what The Times' columnists, as well as myself, thought would go down today, didn't.
It was a great opportunity to have some "deposits" made to the Democrats "favor bank" by the Republicans. The Democratic leadership headed by Rep. Jefferies (D-NY-8) should have been negotiating the "deposits", but instead, they jumped on the bandwagon to have Rep. McCarthy on the back benches - and with a "dumpster view" office.
I had been circulating texts with friends throughout the day, but I guess these two responses I got from "hard core" Democrats probably summed it up:
quote:I do not think the Dems trusted McCarthy to keep his word......Agreed, Lisa. He's been shown to be untrustworthy. The Democrats partnered with him to avert a government shutdown and immediately he went on TV and disbaraged them and blamed them for the situation. Insane.
I like the name of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA-1). Lest we forget, he almost lost his life practicing for the Bipartisan Baseball Game a few years ago when some gunman decided to be a "spectator".
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
Speaker pro tempore Patrick McHenry has already been active, per Nancy Pelosi, who claimed that she was ordered out of her Capitol office by him.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
A sufficient number of recognized news sources, have also reported on this matter; so I think it safe assumption for one consider it confirmed.
Rep Pelosi (D-CA-12) is nowadays a "back bencher", having chosen not to stand for election as Speaker of the 118th Congress (members from the minority party are never elected, although there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting such).
By no means do all 435 Members of the House have "hideaway offices"; I don't think her supporters have "a leg to stand upon" when they contend she has been slighted. She was awarded the honorary title of "Speaker Emerita" when she stepped down.
She of course, still has an office and staff "somewhere in the House Office complex".
Finally, allow me to conclude with an interesting facet: the Speaker need not be a House Member, although they always have been such. I must wonder, especially considering how the Fathers only called for direct election by the People, the House of Representatives, they considered "the People" (well, those qualified to vote as determined by each State) to be "rabble" and that a Speaker was needed to "keep the herd under control".
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Maybe enough Democrats will vote for Rep. Scalise (R-LA-1) so that the House will again have a Speaker; there's just too much stuff going on to not have one. While the Pro Tempore can call the House to Order and Adjourn them, he can't do much else (well, evict a Member from a "preferential" office reserved for the Leadership).
Dems; it's unreasonable to expect someone such Rep. Jefferies (D-NY-8) to be seated.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Well, Rep. Scalise has withdrawn; where to now, volks?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
It appears "the showdown" will be today to decide if Rep James Jordan (R-OH-4) "has enough" support to become Speaker.
According to a CBS Radio News report I heard earlier today, somehow, some Democrats hold they can elevate Rep. Hakeem Jefferies (D-NY-8) to the Speakership in a House controlled, albeit narrowly, by Republicans.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Another day, another "legislative logjam".
Seems like more "critters" than not want Rep. Jefferies (D-NY-8) to be Speaker - never mind he is a Democrat.
Why can't you all that "we the people" who put you there do something so that legislation may again flow through the House?
Why can't you simply allow Speaker Pro Tem McHenry (or otherwise, Rep; R-NC-10) to preside over any and all House business even with the understanding he will serve until such time as the 218 of you all actually elect someone with the majority that, again, your existing rules (ain't in the Constitution, boys and girls) require?
Addendum: The Journal's Editorial Board apparently agrees with such a position.
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
FWICS, the Founding Fathers intended there to be “logjams” in Congress. With the status quo, for as long as it lasts, no harmful legislation can proceed, and most of it has indeed been harmful. Seems like a blessing.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted The Hill, as well as other recognized news sources, report that Rep Jordan, who at present can't seem to muster the votes to be handed the gavel, endorses granting Speaker Pro Tem McHenry all powers that a duly elected Speaker has to move legislation through the house. This empowerment must be voted upon on the floor by the full House, will expire on January 3 with the Second Session, and will not provide to stand second in line to the presidency.
I guess, if both Joe and Kamala got "taken out", the Presidency would fall to Third in line Senate President Pro Tem Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA).
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
Does not look like the 25th Amendment really provides for such succession in writing; however, it does require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to determine whether or not neither the POTUS or VPOTUS can perform the duties of office. The law in question that names the potential line of succession would be the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, which removed Cabinet members from the front of the line of succession behind President pro tempore, those being non-elected officers.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
"White Smoke" from the Sistine Chapel; we have a Speaker.
Rep. James Michael "Mike" Johnson (R-LA-4)
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Suffice to say, The Times Editorial Board is "not exactly" pleased with the choice the Republicans made for the country.
But they are the House majority party, and that is who selects the Speaker.
But I hope the Republicans do not lose sight that, first, the Election is only a year away, that enacted legislation is needed in the next two weeks to keep the government open and, if shutdown, some of their constituents will be "hurt".
The 118th/2nd cannot waste time on pointless pursuits such as impeaching Joe. Just direct your efforts to effective, albeit conservative, legislation and you'll be rid of him soon enough and have Trump back as POTUS47.
The alternative will be is a completely Democratic Congress and come Jan 20, 2025, Joe sitting where he does for a while longer with Kamala surely taking over at some point along the way.
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Is this the individual that you would like to have under his control the entire legislative agenda for at least the next fourteen months?
YES!!
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
I vote “yes” myself.
Not that he does, mind you. There is still the Senate.
One thing I found very heartening was his proposition to defund the new overgrown IRS and divert those funds to Israel.
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
McCarthy today announced he is leaving office at the end of the month (year).
As for Johnson, he is very much on the side of the establishment, having slipped an extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) reauthorization bill, until April 19 of next year.
posted