Read on Twitter
I wonder how those who want the House to refuse to seat Members who signed the brief would feel if, in 2022, the GOP wins the House, then refuses to seat D Members who were impeachment managers. Or who voted to impeach. Or some other test.
The law applies to all, or to none.
The law applies to all, or to none.
No the groups are not equivalent: those who signed the brief are anti-democratic partisans who sought to wrongly overturn an election; those who impeached were following clear evidence & their consciences.
But neither group has the authority to <simply> refuse to seat the other.
But neither group has the authority to <simply> refuse to seat the other.
Is the impulse to “punish” Members who brought us to a constitutional crisis understandable? Yes.
Isn’t “punish“ – rather than investigate, then apply the law equitably – what they want to do to HRC, BHO, etc?
Would doing so be stooping to their level and absolutely wrong? Yes.
Isn’t “punish“ – rather than investigate, then apply the law equitably – what they want to do to HRC, BHO, etc?
Would doing so be stooping to their level and absolutely wrong? Yes.
Can the House decide on contested elections? Yes.
Can Ds who lost to Rs who signed the brief contest their losses on <that basis alone> <without> alleging actual electoral fraud or failure to qualify? I suppose.
Would that be anti-democratic, partisan, bad for our country? Yes.
Can Ds who lost to Rs who signed the brief contest their losses on <that basis alone> <without> alleging actual electoral fraud or failure to qualify? I suppose.
Would that be anti-democratic, partisan, bad for our country? Yes.
After the House is seated in Jan can it vote to expel those Members? Yes.
Doesn’t that require a 2/3 majority (290)? Yes.
Would every D vote to expel? Unlikely.
Would 6 dozen or more Rs join Ds and vote to expel? No.
So is this option anything more than a rage fantasy? No.
Doesn’t that require a 2/3 majority (290)? Yes.
Would every D vote to expel? Unlikely.
Would 6 dozen or more Rs join Ds and vote to expel? No.
So is this option anything more than a rage fantasy? No.
Can the Speaker decide unilaterally those who signed the brief lost their qualifications for serving in federal office under the 14th Amendment? No.
Can the House vote to decide this? Possibly.
Is it likely the House has the votes to decide this? No.
So what is the remedy?
Can the House vote to decide this? Possibly.
Is it likely the House has the votes to decide this? No.
So what is the remedy?
Voting.
Will it be easy to vote out those who signed the brief? No.
Will it be easy to elect new state reps to create more equitable congressional districts – or better, non-partisan commissions? No.
Is this all frustrating? Yes!
Is that why we lash out without thinking? Yes.
Will it be easy to vote out those who signed the brief? No.
Will it be easy to elect new state reps to create more equitable congressional districts – or better, non-partisan commissions? No.
Is this all frustrating? Yes!
Is that why we lash out without thinking? Yes.
All of my tweets on this topic began when people suggested the House has the power to refuse to seat qualified, duly elected Members based on an ad-hoc test.
It does not.
But I understand why they wanted this to be possible. I agree that those who signed went far over the line.
It does not.
But I understand why they wanted this to be possible. I agree that those who signed went far over the line.
The law must apply equally.
Too often people get away w/terrible acts (the brief) – as lawful remedies are limited.
If you abuse a power you say others may abuse it, too; refuse to seat them now, they refuse to seat you next time.
Then, what would we have?
Not democracy. /end
Too often people get away w/terrible acts (the brief) – as lawful remedies are limited.
If you abuse a power you say others may abuse it, too; refuse to seat them now, they refuse to seat you next time.
Then, what would we have?
Not democracy. /end
