Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Axios)   House Republicans to sue House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an effort to block chamber's new proxy voting system amid the coronavirus pandemic, also Democrats owning them   (axios.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, United States House of Representatives, House Republicans, United States Congress, Nancy Pelosi, President of the United States, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Elections, United States  
•       •       •

1275 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 May 2020 at 1:23 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



46 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-05-27 10:25:26 AM  
"We believe the majority rule is unconstitutional. And so, the remedy there is for us to go to court and ask for them to confirm our reading of the Constitution, and that will take a little bit of time," a second Republican leadership aide said.

Can they get any more blatantly fascist?
 
2020-05-27 10:32:01 AM  
"We fear that this could lead to our not being able to vote only 'Present' or simply miss votes that we'd rather not put onto our own records. Besides, how can we allow Democrats to trust in their leadership when we can't even trust our own wives, let alone our colleagues?
 
2020-05-27 11:09:11 AM  
Can they just walk out like the Oregon crybabies?
 
2020-05-27 11:39:02 AM  
Call their bluff.  If they don't want to do it, force them all to come back to Washington.
 
2020-05-27 11:47:21 AM  
I'm pretty sure that if you told the Founders that they could vote on a spending bill from home instead of riding to Washington on a horse for three weeks, they would have been ok with it.  This toxic obsession with following the ethereal dictates of people who barely understood electricity is killing us.
 
2020-05-27 1:05:34 PM  
I'm pretty sure each chamber of Congress can set whatever procedures they want. The courts hate getting involved in internal working of Congress. This isn't going anywhere.
 
2020-05-27 1:17:33 PM  
Cry Moar, you corrupt sacks of sh*t.
 
2020-05-27 1:26:09 PM  
Mitch does whatever he wants, Nancy can do the same.
 
2020-05-27 1:29:04 PM  
Farking Republiderp cry babies, they really need to read the US Constitution and not their own agenda.
 
2020-05-27 1:30:09 PM  

eviljimbo: Mitch does whatever he wants, Nancy can do the same.


Mitch is a white land owning male turtle while Nancy is a liberal from San Francisco. Surely you see the difference
 
2020-05-27 1:30:28 PM  

NeoCortex42: The courts hate getting involved in internal working of Congress.


Unless the Democrats are in charge.  Then every procedure must be approved individually by Samuel Alito.
 
2020-05-27 1:31:02 PM  
Once again, the party of "no".  No solutions provided, just "no".  Solid work.
 
2020-05-27 1:32:00 PM  

Mentat: This toxic obsession with following the ethereal dictates of people who barely understood electricity is killing us.


I'll let you in on a little secret: That's not what the obsession is.
 
2020-05-27 1:35:21 PM  
Nancy Pelosi should really ask permission from Donald Trump before doing this. It'd be really uncivil of her if she didn't.
 
2020-05-27 1:35:48 PM  
I don't really like proxy voting. Not when it's fairly easy and quite secure to do remote voting (if you're really paranoid, do a 2nd verification of each vote - video and text over secure links, make the remote voting rep say "I, Representative Buck Naked of the 4th district of Farkistan, Vote Nay on House Bill U812 on this day, the 13th of Smarch in the year Dickety-Dickety").

They can still skip votes, or vote present, or whatever crap they normally do, they just won't be physically present in the chamber.
 
2020-05-27 1:36:02 PM  
Because of course they are. State law was changed here to allow for non-present voting by municipalities in two weeks after it was clear shiat still needed to get done.
 
2020-05-27 1:36:15 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-27 1:36:33 PM  
Imagine being so stupid that you vote for Republicans. On purpose.
 
2020-05-27 1:38:28 PM  

Mentat: I'm pretty sure that if you told the Founders that they could vote on a spending bill from home instead of riding to Washington on a horse for three weeks, they would have been ok with it.  This toxic obsession with following the ethereal dictates of people who barely understood electricity is killing us.


i.kinja-img.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-27 1:40:32 PM  

wademh: Mentat: I'm pretty sure that if you told the Founders that they could vote on a spending bill from home instead of riding to Washington on a horse for three weeks, they would have been ok with it.  This toxic obsession with following the ethereal dictates of people who barely understood electricity is killing us.

[i.kinja-img.com image 300x256]


Of course they chant "Down with Entropy!"  They want to stop it from increasing.
 
2020-05-27 1:40:43 PM  

Uncle Pooky: Imagine being so stupid that you vote for Republicans. On purpose.


To imagine that you'd have to imagine being unimaginative. Like an empath imagining being cruel, or someone sightless from birth imagining a rainbow.
 
2020-05-27 1:45:33 PM  
I'm pretty confident this is destined for a smackdown, since 28 USC § 1 and the court's Rule 4 require six justices for the SCOTUS to have a quorum, and the SCOTUS has been meeting via teleconference.
 
2020-05-27 1:46:04 PM  

Uncle Pooky: Imagine being so stupid that you vote for Republicans. On purpose.


I don't have to imagine. As a youngster in Louisiana I voted GOP straight ticket the first time I was allowed to vote. And boy did I regret it. The next election came around and I paid attention to the issues and voted for the folks who proposed realistic solutions, not pixie-dust and unicorn farts. Oddly enough, that wound up being an almost straight ticket democratic party...

/ For every race this year I'm screaming "Vote Blue, No Matter Who!"
// Prolly gonna get kicked out of the polling place...
/// Live in Washington so my wife will likely kick me out of the house for a bit.
 
2020-05-27 1:49:09 PM  

Sid Vicious' Corpse: "We believe the majority rule is unconstitutional. And so, the remedy there is for us to go to court and ask for them to confirm our reading of the Constitution, and that will take a little bit of time," a second Republican leadership aide said.

Can they get any more blatantly fascist?


How many fascists do you know who are concerned with what the courts have to say?
 
2020-05-27 1:49:10 PM  

abb3w: I'm pretty confident this is destined for a smackdown, since 28 USC § 1 and the court's Rule 4 require six justices for the SCOTUS to have a quorum, and the SCOTUS has been meeting via teleconference.


No, that is currently a republican dominated branch or government, so under the unwritten and every changing rules of maga-ball, they currently can do nothing wrong, unless they don't support trump.
 
2020-05-27 1:49:48 PM  

eKonk: I don't really like proxy voting. Not when it's fairly easy and quite secure to do remote voting (if you're really paranoid, do a 2nd verification of each vote - video and text over secure links, make the remote voting rep say "I, Representative Buck Naked of the 4th district of Farkistan, Vote Nay on House Bill U812 on this day, the 13th of Smarch in the year Dickety-Dickety").

They can still skip votes, or vote present, or whatever crap they normally do, they just won't be physically present in the chamber.


That's not proxy voting
 
2020-05-27 1:51:05 PM  
I'm just tired of these assholes farking shiat up.

No more Republicans.  Or at least change their name to the Fascist Party.
 
2020-05-27 1:56:10 PM  
"We believe majority rule is unconstitutional [unless we hold the majority]".

These disingenuous jackholes ... always arguing out both sides of their face.
 
2020-05-27 2:00:59 PM  

Mentat: I'm pretty sure that if you told the Founders that they could vote on a spending bill from home instead of riding to Washington on a horse for three weeks, they would have been ok with it.  This toxic obsession with following the ethereal dictates of people who barely understood electricity is killing us.


I am pretty sick of their warped sense of "original intent":

"The constitution only means what they wrote 200 years ago, regardless of technological advances. But they definitely meant the second amendment to include grenade launchers."
 
2020-05-27 2:03:47 PM  
Oh look Republicans refuse to govern.  This is my surprised face.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-27 2:06:30 PM  

Mentat: This toxic obsession with following the ethereal dictates of people who barely understood electricity is killing us.


... when it suits them.
 
2020-05-27 2:07:07 PM  

wademh: Mentat: I'm pretty sure that if you told the Founders that they could vote on a spending bill from home instead of riding to Washington on a horse for three weeks, they would have been ok with it.  This toxic obsession with following the ethereal dictates of people who barely understood electricity is killing us.

[i.kinja-img.com image 300x256]


Seeing that "no entropy" sign decaying in a landfill would be awesome. The irony would be lost on these idiots though.
 
2020-05-27 2:10:11 PM  

qorkfiend: eKonk: I don't really like proxy voting. Not when it's fairly easy and quite secure to do remote voting (if you're really paranoid, do a 2nd verification of each vote - video and text over secure links, make the remote voting rep say "I, Representative Buck Naked of the 4th district of Farkistan, Vote Nay on House Bill U812 on this day, the 13th of Smarch in the year Dickety-Dickety").

They can still skip votes, or vote present, or whatever crap they normally do, they just won't be physically present in the chamber.

That's not proxy voting


Right, that's my point - I would prefer they allow remote voting rather than going forward with proxy voting.
 
2020-05-27 2:22:38 PM  

eKonk: qorkfiend: eKonk: I don't really like proxy voting. Not when it's fairly easy and quite secure to do remote voting (if you're really paranoid, do a 2nd verification of each vote - video and text over secure links, make the remote voting rep say "I, Representative Buck Naked of the 4th district of Farkistan, Vote Nay on House Bill U812 on this day, the 13th of Smarch in the year Dickety-Dickety").

They can still skip votes, or vote present, or whatever crap they normally do, they just won't be physically present in the chamber.

That's not proxy voting

Right, that's my point - I would prefer they allow remote voting rather than going forward with proxy voting.


Because why?
 
2020-05-27 2:24:58 PM  

SpocksEars: wademh: Mentat: I'm pretty sure that if you told the Founders that they could vote on a spending bill from home instead of riding to Washington on a horse for three weeks, they would have been ok with it.  This toxic obsession with following the ethereal dictates of people who barely understood electricity is killing us.

[i.kinja-img.com image 300x256]

Seeing that "no entropy" sign decaying in a landfill would be awesome. The irony would be lost on these idiots though.


What if the sign were made of iron and it was rusting?

But what if someone points out that iron oxide has a higher entropy of formation than simple iron so that rusting increases the entropy of the sign? But Rust Never Sleeps, and rusting is a spontaneous process, so in fact the rusting sign would be spontaneously decreasing in entropy. What about that?
 
2020-05-27 2:28:23 PM  
At least Nancy always keeps her mimsy clean.
 
2020-05-27 2:28:44 PM  
Each House ... may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
 
2020-05-27 2:48:45 PM  
Why don't they just fire her?
 
2020-05-27 2:50:05 PM  

qorkfiend: eKonk: qorkfiend: eKonk: I don't really like proxy voting. Not when it's fairly easy and quite secure to do remote voting (if you're really paranoid, do a 2nd verification of each vote - video and text over secure links, make the remote voting rep say "I, Representative Buck Naked of the 4th district of Farkistan, Vote Nay on House Bill U812 on this day, the 13th of Smarch in the year Dickety-Dickety").

They can still skip votes, or vote present, or whatever crap they normally do, they just won't be physically present in the chamber.

That's not proxy voting

Right, that's my point - I would prefer they allow remote voting rather than going forward with proxy voting.

Because why?


Are you asking why I prefer that an elected representative cast their own votes rather than designating a proxy? Or are you pointing out that I am making a false dichotomy by promoting one over the other when the two approaches are not mutually exclusive?
 
2020-05-27 3:44:45 PM  
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 (US Constitution):

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings
, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

Yep, I don't see any court wanting to get in the middle of this, given how clear the Constitution is on this topic.
 
2020-05-27 3:46:11 PM  
Just have everyone who cannot attend in person appear via an agreed upon video meeting service.  Hell, I'm sure that Google or someone would help farkin' the US Congress with a special version of their own.  It's so idiotic to be held back in the dark ages.  It's time to finally move forward.  I know that terrifies the scared little "conservatives".
 
2020-05-27 4:01:06 PM  
This was kind of a known risk for dems to take. SCOTUS has shown it is time and again interested in being a partisan cudgel where precedent has no meaning. 

So, here is the risk: Do nothing, Force everyone to come home, or chance any legislation made during this time being struck down by SCOTUS. Not like ther'es much getting done anywhere with the Senate locked in on more partisan judges.
 
2020-05-27 4:10:57 PM  
The wording of the constitution requiring a physical quorum to "give rise to act" aka open the congressional session, was satisfied when the session opened.  Everyone was there.

The requirements for physically meeting one time a year were also met when the session opened.

I have a hard time thinking the courts would interfere here.  As long as the plain language is met the house can set its own rules.
 
2020-05-27 4:22:04 PM  

webron: abb3w: I'm pretty confident this is destined for a smackdown, since 28 USC § 1 and the court's Rule 4 require six justices for the SCOTUS to have a quorum, and the SCOTUS has been meeting via teleconference.

No, that is currently a republican dominated branch or government, so under the unwritten and every changing rules of maga-ball, they currently can do nothing wrong, unless they don't support trump.


Yeah, but the lawyers for the House Republicans will look silly arguing that "quorum" requires in person meeting, when the court they will end arguing it before will consider itself to have a "quorum" to hear the case via teleconference.

lawboy87: Yep, I don't see any court wanting to get in the middle of this, given how clear the Constitution is on this topic.


There seems a little wiggle room, in that Article I Section 5 specifies that "a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business" -- so, a deranged imbecile might try and argue that requirements for a quorum are set by the Constitution, limiting the scope of the House rulemaking power. However, it doesn't say that the majority must assemble in corpore, and the SCOTUS apparently doesn't itself consider that a requirement, which will make trying to argue that requirement as an imperative likely to be quite silly.
 
2020-05-27 5:06:54 PM  
I dislike proxy votes. A friend stupidly bought into a resort area HOA. A nice, small condo with many amenities on a beach in Texas. And most of the other condos were either voted to convert to allow time-shares or owned by absentee landlords who B&B'd them. Her retirement dream was a constant hell-scape of uncaring vacationers blaring music endlessly, littering pool and beach with broken glass, police calls to stop fighting, police raids to stop god-knows-what, fires started by passed-out drunks with something in/on stove, graffiti from kids with crayons, looted & stolen vehicles from the common parking garage, broken pool tables, gym equipment, sauna and showers, stolen & broken common area furnishings .... Of the 200+odd units, one person was paid to hold the proxies of (I remember her saying) 141 other units and vote them. It was supposed to be a 55+ community, but .... She finally found a way to get revenge: since no kids were allowed, she rented to a known sex offender for enough to cover her costs.(taxes, utils & Assoc. fees).
 
2020-05-27 5:33:25 PM  
Keep in mind, if the House pulls itself into the 21st Century and allows Zoom Meetings, Email voting, proxy voting, vote by skype, etc., then the biggest reason for not expanding the house to TRUE representation of the populations of Americans is gone... Space.

We don't need 1200 seats in the chamber. We don't need 1200 offices, and 20,000 staffers.  We can repurpose 90% of them into committee/panel/meeting rooms, and every Representative can have an office in their district, spend 80% of their time IN THEIR DISTRICT, attend Congress from their district, and vote from their district.  They can head to DC for special committees, etc, and do their stuff in person when it's actually needed in person.

And if we do that... Blue states are going to explode all over the House.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.