Skip to content

20 thoughts on “10th vote, same as the 9th”

    1. AnnieDunkin

      Start making more money weekly. This is valuable part time work for everyone. The best part ,work from the comfort of your house and get paid from $10k-$20k each week . Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week.
      Visit this article for more details.. http://incomebyus.blogspot.com/

  2. cld

    Wolf Blitzer says it's truly stunning!

    Is it really? Just what I expected, really.

    No joy in Mudville. No, no joy. --that's the point.

  3. Jasper_in_Boston

    This is not yet a crisis, but my understanding is there's some housekeeping business coming up soon that actually does require the existence of a House of Representatives, which, for all intents and purposes, the country currently lacks (no sworn in members means no legislation can be voted on). Not that Republicans will do it, but next time Democrats have a majority, they really ought to consider a rules change to avoid such a situation in the future.

    1. rick_jones

      I was under the impression the members were sworn in. Pre-requisite for electing the Speaker.

      Perhaps I should volunteer?-)

      1. Jasper_in_Boston

        No. It's the Speaker who swears them in. The members-elect convene to elect the Speaker. The Dean of the House administers the oath to the Speaker, who then administers the oath en masse to the members. As far as I can tell the specifics of how the oath is administered are matters of chamber rules and legislation, not the constitution itself (these specifics should be reformed in my view in light of current happenings). But taking an oath is indeed a constitutional requirement, which means that yes, we have no House.

        Interestingly, the very first law passed by the Senate (not sure about the House) was the Oath Act of 1789.

        https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Oath-of-Office/

        2. JimFive

          That seems odd, since the constitution says that the "House of Representatives" shall choose their Speaker. If they've not been sworn in and there is no House then no one can choose a speaker.

          1. Jasper_in_Boston

            >>If they've not been sworn in and there is no House then no one can choose a speaker.<<

            Members elect can (and do) choose a Speaker. But technically, that Speaker (just like the other 434 members elect) isn't a sworn-in Representative at that point. In essence, he or she is Speaker of the members-elect. He or she only becomes an actual Representative upon taking the oath of office (usually administered by the Dean of the House).

    2. CaliforniaDreaming

      Yep, no new spending.

      These guys don't want to do anything to begin with so there's no penalty in their minds if they're still doing this 2-years from now.

  4. different_name

    I think we may need to move to weekly update model, or something.

    "And rounding out our May Political update, McCarthy lost 63 votes this month..."

  6. rick_jones

    Kevin remains out ahead of his old stomping grounds on this. MoJo said in their coverage of the first vote they would be providing updates.

    Since then?

    Bupkis.

  7. zaphod

    I never realized that Kevin was such a popular name.

    I never realized that Kevin was such a popular Republican name.

  8. D_Ohrk_E1

    McCarthy offered to give terrorists a knife to hold over his neck.

    When that didn't work, he directed them to hold it over his carotid artery.

    Having failed, he gave them a steel paddle with spikes, got down on his hands and knees, and begged them to whack his ass, each time following up with, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"

    And you know what? The terrorists obliged. Over and over.

  9. James Wimberley

    Some free advice for the House, and worth every penny. You already have a replacement speaker - Cheryl Johnson, the Clerk, who is running the show perfectly well to general acclaim. The House of Commons for one runs just fine with a neutral umpire as Speaker - he or she has to be a sitting MP, which makes it a bit odd for constituents, but they have workarounds. The unSpeaker's role would have to be beefed up. The order of business would be whatever she can get the votes for, committee assignments have to be negotiated, etc. It is usually easier to fix a problem starting with what you have plus a big roll of duct tape, rather than reinventing an institution.

    1. Yehouda

      Another possibility is some non-controversial celeberity (e.g. Robert Redford).

      Also, the democrats can select a reasonable Republican (there are still two that voted to impeach Trump, so at least they count), and vote for them en-bloc without asking for their opinion on the matter. Will give the the only moderately crazy Republicans something to think about.

  10. jhmi

    Am I wrong or does the Speaker *not* need to be a member (or member-elect)? Dems might nominate Trump and see what happens. No, not really worth the risk.

    1. Jasper_in_Boston

      You're correct. I don't even think the Speaker need be a citizen. Maybe we could get Prince Harry to take on the role.

Comments are closed.