traderdave wrote:

thephan wrote:Fox News President Jay Wallace released a statement that the network intends to file an amicus curiae brief supporting CNN's lawsuit against Trump.

That is a 3 point kick in the balls right there.

Nothing like a suspension of the U.S. Constitution to bring people together.

But let's be honest, there is probably 60+% of the country that would support ignoring the Constitution where it's convenient to achieving their political goals.

Werthless wrote:But let's be honest, there is probably 60+% of the country that would support ignoring the Constitution where it's convenient to achieving their political goals.

Way to take the WH's side as articulated by DOJ.

Unfortunately, though, he isn't wrong (though maybe the % is a bit high). Such is the sad state of our country.

Werthless wrote:

traderdave wrote:

thephan wrote:Fox News President Jay Wallace released a statement that the network intends to file an amicus curiae brief supporting CNN's lawsuit against Trump.

That is a 3 point kick in the balls right there.

Nothing like a suspension of the U.S. Constitution to bring people together.

But let's be honest, there is probably 60+% of the country that would support ignoring the Constitution where it's convenient to achieving their political goals.

I for one would like to see the Senate either turned into something ceremonial like the House of Lords, or simply eliminated altogether. But I guess my preferred method for achieving these aims would be a Constitutional amendment, so not totally ignoring the Constitution.

Multiple Democratic members who publicly support Pelosi are speculating to me on background that she doesn’t have the numbers and can’t get there.

from Huff Post's Matt Fuller

Fat Mueller

Matt Fuller @MEPFuller
Multiple Democratic members who publicly support Pelosi are speculating to me on background that she doesn’t have the numbers and can’t get there.

Would be something. The problem the anti-Pelosi people have is they don't have a candidate.

If she really cannot get to 218, I guess maybe she tries to pick out a loyal lieutenant to jump the line?

Rumblings are Pelosi may not have the votes. I think this is a mistake and gives the GOP a win while hurting Democrats more than they know. She has no higher aspirations so she can take the flak and not worry about it. She’s also a deft politician and good at keeping the caucus together in the past.

I don’t know if a serious contender has stepped up yet though, so who knows if anyone will be able to step up and claim the mantle.

No one can beat her in a caucus fight, but if there's a hard no count on the floor that puts her below 218 she's in a sort of limbo. There's a lot of brinkmanship and quasi-bluffing going on. If they really do have 20 hard no members that they can hold on the floor they can make sure she doesn't win, but that's a hard thing to do against 90% of your caucus.

It's what the Freedom Caucus people tried to pull with Boehner. It didn't work after 2014, and it probably wasn't going to work when Meadows started shitstirring in the middle of the Congress, but it was partially responsible for him retiring early.

My guess is she'll get through somehow bartering with some segments of the no groups - maybe pledge this is her final term from the outset, agree to various rule changes some of the rebels might want, etc.

thephan wrote:

Werthless wrote:But let's be honest, there is probably 60+% of the country that would support ignoring the Constitution where it's convenient to achieving their political goals.

Way to take the WH's side as articulated by DOJ.

?

I was just trying to be snarky with the DOJ position that Trump can have the press of his liking in the briefing room. What a disaster that would be. So you assessment I was trying to flip as position. Clearly didn't work.

As much as I would like to see Pelosi turn the speakership over to the next generation, the fact is that it does not seem that the Dems ever really considered this seriously before last Wednesday and do not really have anyone who can pull it off. It seems wise that Nancy stay on and train some folks n how the positions work so that some day they can take over.

Who could take her place even? Hoyer or Clyburn?

CalvinBall wrote:Who could take her place even? Hoyer or Clyburn?

Yeah, nothing says looking forward to the future like stopping the 78-year-old Pelosi from Speakership and turning it over to the 79-year-old Hoyer or 78-year-old Clyburn

CalvinBall wrote:Who could take her place even? Hoyer or Clyburn?

Aren't they to the right of Nancy? And it's not like we're talking youthful outsiders here.

I want Schiff for the JH reaction

thephan wrote:I was just trying to be snarky with the DOJ position that Trump can have the press of his liking in the briefing room. What a disaster that would be. So you assessment I was trying to flip as position. Clearly didn't work.

Obama had a lot of support for his executive orders, and aggressive actions around the 2009 economic decline, based around people's trust of him. I remember that liberals would bemoan the lack of Congressional action and supported Obama's statement “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.” A lack of principle is not a monopoly on the right, although with the GOP in charge right now, that's what we see. The pendulum will swing back, and then we'll see the other side.

CFP wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Who could take her place even? Hoyer or Clyburn?

Yeah, nothing says looking forward to the future like stopping the 78-year-old Pelosi from Speakership and turning it over to the 79-year-old Hoyer or 78-year-old Clyburn

You didn't provide any insight just shot down my speculation based on current senriority. Also Clyburn would be the first black speaker, that's not nothing.

If the option is someone Seth Moulton is putting up or Pelosi, I choose Pelosi and I've been on the anti-Pelosi as speaker train for a while.

McCarthy is the next minority leader

thephan wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:This welcome the newcomers to capitol hill thing is odd. Some races aren't decided. Those people get left out!

Also, people like Andy Kim are there who *should* win but there still hasn't been a concession nor has it been certified.

I want answers.

I that they are awkwardly invited. Rick Scott of FL was there. I was surprised to see Sinema get there so quickly. Of course that is the Senate, who knows what the little league does.

Young Kim is there and she's going to lose!