this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
1321 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2561 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Republicans have at long last elected a House speaker: Representative Mike Johnson, a fundamentalist Christian who was also once called a key “architect” in Congress’s efforts to overthrow the 2020 election.

Johnson finally secured the speaker’s gavel after Republican infighting left the House without a speaker for 22 days. He secured 220 votes.

Johnson is a four-term congressman representing Louisiana. His win also represents the rise of the MAGA front in the Republican Party. Earlier Wednesday morning, Donald Trump endorsed Johnson as House speaker—after quickly killing Mike Emmer’s nomination the day before.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] orclev@lemmy.world 365 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This next election is going to be an absolute shitshow. I guarantee they'll refuse to certify the election, and they'll try to hijack the electoral college (again).

[–] Atom@lemmy.world 105 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The 119th Congress will be seated on January 3rd 2025 and the presidential election certification will be January 6th. So if the Dems win the majority in 2024, they won't have the power to deny certificatation outright. Though, I'm sure a minority will still object to every swing state like they did in 2020, just to draw it out.

[–] TwoGems@lemmy.world 66 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fascism just keeps coming back and we gotta stave it off again

[–] holiday@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weeds needs trimming. Or in this case punching, stomping, and and a good old dick twist

[–] Kobester1985@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sadly they might enjoy all of that.

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

Matt Gaetz has entered the chat

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago

The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

And even if the 119th Congress was exactly the same as this one, the House Republicans can only do so much.

First, they would need to object to Electoral Votes with a Senator. (Unfortunately, this wouldn't be hard for them to do.) Next, the House and Senate would separate to vote on each objection. Only if both chambers voted to set the Electoral Votes aside would they be set aside.

With a Democratic Senate, this won't happen.

So the House Republicans can slow things down, but they won't be able to overturn elections. This isn't to say that there aren't threats on the state and local level. There are. And if the Republicans gain control of the House and Senate, I could see them sustaining objections because "it must be fraud if Biden won," thus giving the election to Trump. That just shows why it's more important than ever to vote blue.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

They are very unlikely to win the majority.

[–] Countess425@lemmy.world 96 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm betting on this guy not lasting until November 2024 (not sure what the over/under is on November 17, 2023).

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago (4 children)

How do you think he'll get removed? It took them this long to agree on someone to elect, it seems unlikely enough of them would agree to remove him. They could maybe get the Democrats along with a small subset of Republicans to vote him out like the last time, but I'm not sure the Democrats would be up for that. Maybe if they wait until right before the election, but I can't imagine the GOP being dumb enough to oust the speaker right before elections happen (although that does raise the question of who certifies the election if there's no speaker. I'm assuming the speaker pro tem?).

Yeah, this is the guy the MAGAs could support. The little rebellion is over, and they got what they wanted.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)
[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They can oust any and every speaker at will, keeping Congress at a standstill and the government in chaos as long as they can get a simple GOP majority vote.

They don't need a GOP majority vote. They need a house majority vote. And unless dems have some compelling reason to keep the republican speaker (unlikely), it only takes a handful from the GOP to oust the speaker. I think McCarthy only lost 8 republican votes.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

The only possible chance the democrats don't collectively vote him out, given the chance, is if the budget hasn't gone through yet. Otherwise, they will take any call to eject the speaker as an opportunity to oust him.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

I tend to agree, but let's remember that Republicans ousted McCarthy, it only took one member requesting to call for a vote, and they had had a giant number of votes to get him in initially. Those maga Republicans are nutty, I wouldn't count on them not getting pissed off and trying to break all the toys again.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 4 points 1 year ago

Bold of you to assume that they'll hang on to their majority. I don't see how they do.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Trump won't even be on the ballot in most states.

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"this one's marked Jesus Christ"

"Yeah we count those as for the Republican"

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Donaghy you magnificent son of a bitch!

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Hopefully, but I also doubt that will stop them trying to elect him anyway. Or if not him I'm sure they'll find someone worse. I doubt we're going to see another Democrat elected in the next few elections that doesn't result in them trying to refuse to certify the election and just in general whine and complain while throwing around baseless accusations. If we're lucky that's as far as it goes, but considering how many parallels to 1920s Germany we're seeing lately I'm very worried the MAGAts recent fascist dabblings are just a taste of things to come.

[–] MorrisonMotel6@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Outrageously false.

There is nothing that even comes close to settling that in any state at this point. Any speculation on the matter is as good as a handful of shit. Less, maybe.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Colorado has already blocked him from the ballot under the 14th Amendment Section three. Only a 2/3 vote in Congress will change that.

[–] MorrisonMotel6@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Survives legal challenge" does not mean it's settled. There is a long fucking way to go here.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/21/politics/colorado-lawsuit-trump-ballot/index.html

"Can move forward" means "definitely still in process"

https://www.kktv.com/2023/10/23/lawsuit-aiming-block-former-president-donald-trump-colorado-ballot-can-move-forward-judge-rules/

"Could keep trump off the ballot" means "still eligible to be on the ballot"

https://www.businessinsider.com/colorado-case-reject-trump-president-candidacy-not-dismissed-14th-amendment-2023-10

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)
[–] MorrisonMotel6@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

And for the record, the person you're responding to is flat out wrong. Colorado has ABSOLUTELY NOT made any sort of legal ruling to settle that suit

[–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder if that also makes write-ins invalid…

Like is he just removed from the ballot, or is he ineligible altogether?

[–] LetMeEatCake@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Election law varies from state to state. But generally from what I gather, a write-in candidate is only valid if the candidate registers with the state in advance.

If there's a winning plurality for Mickey Mouse in your state for a statewide office, it won't matter. The state won't be forced to see if there's anyone there that has the name Mickey Mouse and then pick which (if more than one) was the individual meant by the voters. Someone has to register with the state saying that they're going to run a write-in campaign for office with name XYZ.

Note that these details are a bit of a side track. The above person was talking about Trump being excluded due to the 14th amendment. However that doesn't say "not on the ballot" — it invalidates people from office entirely. If applied to Trump, the not being on the ballot would be a consequence of being determined ineligible for office, not a method to make him unable to win. Also it's all moot: while I think on the face of it the correct action would be to apply the 14th amendment to Trump, the fact of the matter is that this will not happen. States are not going to be willing to risk the political backlash from going down that path, so they will not.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

States are not going to be willing to risk the political backlash from going down that path, so they will not.

Many states already are going down that path. Are you saying the judges won't vote in the people's favor bringing the suit?

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What I'll say is the only states doing this wouldn't vote for him anyhow. It's important that this happen, but let's be real.

"All states" is the only thing that would directly, functionally impact results.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Arizona is red and Michigan is purple. New Hampshire and Minnesota are very close to purple. Colorado is blue. The down ticket will mess their shit up as well.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ballots-14th-amendment-jan6-insurrection-1825503

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ballots-14th-amendment-jan6-insurrection-1825503

We have a case in colorado that is going forward I believe

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] MorrisonMotel6@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

No. Not really. Not even a little bit.

There ARE legal challenges in some states, however. To date, none of those are even close to being settled