What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

118th Congress - Neutered Dog Attempts to Legislate

Status
Not open for further replies.
bronconick said:
I meant more like

June 1: Feinstein resigns
June 10: Newsom appoints Generic Democrat to Senate until 2024.

Can the Dems on the judiciary committee appoint a replacement for Feinstein now without the GQP blocking it?
Click to expand...

According to the Congressional Research Service website, the GOP can't block a replacement if Feinstein resigns, since that's considered business as usual, and there's a process for that.
 
bronconick said:
If someone convinces Feinstein to just resign from the Senate(Someone kidnaps her "staff" and shoves them in a box), do the Dems get to replace her then, or do they need farking GOP permission for even that?
Click to expand...

Right!? Why do they need gop permission for anything?
 
aparch said:
He's safe until 2026. *sigh*
Click to expand...

And if elected again, he'll be 82 when he takes office.

If your Dem Senator is over 60 and not named Bernie Sanders, just assume they've likely got LOLDems Disease. They got theirs and are still desperately trying to cling to their schtick of talking big for the rubes, then "compromising" with Rs on neutered legislation, slapping each other on the back, and still sending Christmas cards and golf scramble and cocktail party invites.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
And if elected again, he'll be 82 when he takes office.

If your Dem Senator is over 60 and not named Bernie Sanders, just assume they've likely got LOLDems Disease. They got theirs and are still desperately trying to cling to their schtick of talking big for the rubes, then "compromising" with Rs on neutered legislation, slapping each other on the back, and still sending Christmas cards and golf scramble and cocktail party invites.
Click to expand...

Don’t know much, if anything, about Durbin, but you sound an awful lot like Hovey with your backslapping comment. Barring Democrats having 60 Senators, and only one reconciliation bill per year, with its restrictive parameters, assuming Democrats even have a trifecta, what type of legislation can they pass? It’s either neutered trash, or nothing. I’m not saying vote for Durbin in ‘26, but he’s not Democrats’ problem. Malapportionment of the Senate, coupled with Manchin/Tester eventually disappearing, is going to make the Senate permanently 55-45 R or worse before too long.
 
Update from a Congresswoman on the Discord leak and what it means to our nation.

The intelligence community is immediately able to figure out who leaked classified information in a Discord chat. Yet somehow three years later can’t figure out how COVID-19 originated. Our government knows, just like the American people know, that COVID-19 originated in a lab in Wuhan, China funded by Dr. Fauci. It’s time our government starts to be transparent with taxpayers.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1648356147554918402
 
Since he is specifically named, why can't Fauci force her to prove it or pay him damages? Let's say.... a billion dollars.
 
SJHovey said:
Probably because of the Westfall Act. Looks like you get to blame Reagan again.
Click to expand...

Lol, no. That simply says the government steps in to cover claims against its employees when they're acting on behalf of the government, just as many states and businesses do.

What protects the biatch is legislative immunity, and specifically the Speech and Debate Clause in the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
unofan said:
Lol, no. That simply says the government steps in to cover claims against its employees when they're acting on behalf of the government, just as many states and businesses do.

What protects the biatch is legislative immunity, and specifically the Speech and Debate Clause in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
himym-lawyered.gif
 
psych said:
Don’t know much, if anything, about Durbin, but you sound an awful lot like Hovey with your backslapping comment. Barring Democrats having 60 Senators, and only one reconciliation bill per year, with its restrictive parameters, assuming Democrats even have a trifecta, what type of legislation can they pass? It’s either neutered trash, or nothing. I’m not saying vote for Durbin in ‘26, but he’s not Democrats’ problem. Malapportionment of the Senate, coupled with Manchin/Tester eventually disappearing, is going to make the Senate permanently 55-45 R or worse before too long.
Click to expand...

Weird that the GOP was able to pass most of its agenda even without that magic 60 votes in the senate.
 
unofan said:
Lol, no. That simply says the government steps in to cover claims against its employees when they're acting on behalf of the government, just as many states and businesses do.

What protects the biatch is legislative immunity, and specifically the Speech and Debate Clause in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I’ll give you partial credit for your answer, let’s say a B-.

in 1979, SCOTUS said (I think in a defamation case) that the Speech and Debate clause protects Congress critters, but only “in their seat.” In other words, while on the floor or in committee. However, the Westfall Act, adopted a few years later, extended it to anything done within the scope of their office or duties, which is generally interpreted as including communications with the press or public, and would obviously include those covered by the S&D clause.
 
I just looked it up. It was Senator Proxmire who argued for Speech and Debate clause protection and lost because it was just a press release. Hutchinson v. Proxmire.
 
ticapnews said:
Weird that the GOP was able to pass most of its agenda even without that magic 60 votes in the senate.
Click to expand...

The GOP passed one bill in their agenda under Trump. That idiot tax cut for billionaires under reconciliation. McCain farked them the other time on Obamacare. The rest were unqualified judges because Democrats learned too late that judges matter. So not that weird.
 
bronconick said:
The GOP passed one bill in their agenda under Trump. That idiot tax cut for billionaires under reconciliation. McCain farked them the other time on Obamacare. The rest were unqualified judges because Democrats learned too late that judges matter. So not that weird.
Click to expand...

I can understand that all anyone thinks Congress did for four years is pass one tax bill because that's all the media mention. Of course, Congress did more than that, but whatever. I would argue the Democrats still don't understand that judges matter. Or they do and just don't care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top