A former slave was guarding some Confederate prisoners during the Civil War and noticed his former master. He reported shouted out: “Hello massa. Bottom rail on top dis time!”
On this anniversary of the insurrection during the counting of the Biden/Harris electoral votes (1/6/21), this has a bit of a bitter taste. President Biden reminded us to honor democracy in the midst of dishonor:
Armed with deadly weapons and animated by lies and hate, insurrectionists invaded the United States Capitol in an attempt to overturn a lawful election and silence the voice of the people.
But, who is "on top," having majority control, this time? A majority of the Republicans in the House (less than ten senators did) challenged electors even after the insurrection invaded the Capitol. Today, Republicans are in the majority. I find it nauseating that this is so but two years later, especially given they continue to oppose even investigating the act.
A fraction -- at the very most 21 (one voting "present") -- of the Republicans held up the selection of a Speaker of the House. The speaker of the house needs to be chosen to start things into motion. The Speaker swears in the others (by law) and then rules are agreed upon. The 20th Amendment says the start of Congress should be January 3rd. The Senate did start on schedule.
(A bit of history too. Senator Patty Murray became the first woman Senate pro tempore, a spring chicken at 72 next to the senator from California who turned down [was refused?] the job. She also shaved off a decade from her predecessor, Pat Leahy. She also comes off as someone with a bit more of an edge than more happy-go-lucky Leahy of Batman fame.)
The House of Representatives was more of a clown show with no speaker chosen for three days. Vote after vote took place with the strange spectacle of a clerk being the presiding officer as C-SPAN (with special power to control the cameras) repeatedly panning to show an empty chair. Eleven votes took place, each time the Democrats had a larger plurality.
Kevin McCarthy (portrayed over the years as a bit stupid) tried to give up enough power to obtain the dissenters of the so-called Freedom Caucus, some of the usual suspects (like Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene) staying loyal. The overall effect -- though I'm sure it will be forgotten by many in time -- is an appearance of a clown show with Kevin the lead clown, being controlled by a bunch of crazies. He looked pathetic.
A few suggested that the Democrats offer to work with some Republicans in return for some concessions. A nice idea -- the two sides could have even found a way to work together to support a temporary leader so that the House could operate during the fight for a permanent Republican leader. Rep. John Quincy Adams once was accepted as a temporary leader during a 19th Century struggle to choose a House speaker.
The reality of the situation -- shades of only ten Republicans impeaching Trump the second time around (none the first) -- is that (bitch behind the scenes some) no Republicans actually were willing to do that. We will see how things go over the next ten years. And, there was a faction of some size (a third or so) that never challenged the electors.
But, Kevin McCarthy played the long game, especially since the most credible alternative (Scalise) did not want the job. On Friday, on the twelfth and thirteenth ballots, two-thirds of the dissenters peeled off. Not quite enough with a 222-212 (one Democrat died in November) majority, but the path was clear. All the Republicans present (two for the moment were absent) agreed to take a break until the evening.
One law professor was "quite heartened to see the House of Representatives actually engaging in a debate with everyone present." What debate? The only "debate" was nominating speeches. The usage of "debate" there is a bit generous.
The true "debate" was as usual behind-the-scenes negotiations. And, floor debate is a thing. One-sided, and he duly noted. Those debates at times have a bit more substance. Everyone might not be around in those debates, but everyone was not on the floor at the same time here too. They were around to be present to vote but moved in and out of the room.
The process is worthy of scorn. When you have a tiny majority, yes, there will be back-and-forth. You might have problems obtaining an agreement. Yes, Nancy Pelosi managed to retain control even with tiny majorities. Still, it is reasonable for the dissenters to use the situation to their advantage. On the other hand, days of being unable to start the session, with so many fruitless votes, is quite another matter.
(The rules have a mixture of good, bad, and okay. A summary and a more complete rules resolution.)
And, the blame is shared. First, you have the nature of the current Republican Party, which many voters simply don't care about. They might care some -- thus the closeness of the election and winning the Senate -- but not enough. Second, you have a weak leader in Kevin McCarthy, who makes the situation worse. Finally, you do not have a faction of Republicans that are willing to push back to check the extreme faction.
The fact that Kevin McCarthy finally gained control in the evening of 1/6 is quite fitting on some level. The insurrectionists finally took over, if two years later than some expected. Shame on the nation that.
We will see how McCarthy likes what he traded power for, including if the Democrats can take advantage of the minority tactics. I never really felt that he would lose the race even if some assured us things would go badly for him. Who else would get power? Shades of Biden in 2020 really. Some, including me early on, might have wished otherwise, but he was the one that was going to be the nominee. THAT turned out okay.
This -- even if the beginning was somewhat fun to watch (who doesn't want to see Kevin McCarthy embarrassed?) -- will be a bit less so. OTOH, we survived Trump. We will survive this.
===
I wrote the above expecting that the evening was set and we would get a vote for speaker on the 14th vote. In what apparently was unexpected, what we got was McCarthy getting exactly 50% with four others and two presents (Boebert early). Gaetz timed his "present" to come late. That isn't enough.
There are 222 Republicans (two came back into town). You need an actual majority of 217 in that scenario. So, he lost AGAIN. Then, there was a vote by Republicans to try again on Monday. At first, it looked to be a tie (which is a failure without a tiebreaker). Then, some Republicans began to change their minds (more than the original 21 dissenters), so not quite.
Not sure what the point of all of that (some dominance pissing contest perhaps), but he won on the 15th vote. This time the dead-enders all voted present, which did not trick. So, the loser wins. After midnight. Insurrectionists won.
Some want to blame New York Democratic leadership. SCOTUS voting rights rulings including shadow docket actions involving districting arguably are as or more to blame. Net, bottom line, a majority of the people who voted -- not by a hair either -- voted Republican.
The blame can be shared. The bottom line is who is in power. Insurrectionists and enablers. The "moderates" and "serious ones" went along. Fuck you. You poison the well of democracy.
McCarthy was sworn in and then he swore in the rest.
Not a single fucking challenge on 14A, sec. 3 grounds. Bullshit to that. That clause, like the emoluments clauses and the Third Amendment, apparently doesn't mean much at all. Also, Ted Lieu tweeted about challenging the seating of Santos. Also, no challenge. That was a weaker threat since he could only be challenged on qualifications. But, more b.s.
The "b.s." for the second part is that there really was no chance of him not being sworn in. The first part is different. You can argue that there is not enough evidence. But, multiple people flagged the issue, including posing questions of possible guilt. This includes people with some expertise and members of Congress. If not a single person wants to put the matter to a vote, to help us clarify the issue, that too is all b.s. This includes Congress not passing legislation to clarify the process, and not just for Trump.
[ETA: Gerard Magliocca is a bit of a 14A, sec. 3 expert and enthusiast. He testified as an expert in at least one of the cases and wrote about it.
He recently co-wrote an op-ed (that remarkably used without comment on the strong opposition to the Ford pardon of Nixon as a positive precedent) again seeing it as the ideal -- over impeachment or criminal trial.
And, now he notes -- in an "oh well" tone -- how it wasn't brought up last night. Okay. Maybe, you can get it in your head that people really are not paying much attention to it, even if it is a professor's favorite thing. Maybe not. Why should he care? He's a reasonable conservative, just observing.]
No rules were agreed to -- that fight was put off to Monday. But, you know it will be settled. Eventually. What a waste of a week.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!