119th Congress

Since we have a new U.S. Congress session starting today (3 January 2025), I thought a new thread should replace the old one. On opening day the House contains 219 Republican members-elect and 215 Democratic members-elect. The Senate has 52 Republican Senators, 45 Democratic Senators, and 2 independent Senators who caucus with the Democrats. There is one vacancy in each chamber. In the House, Matt Gaetz has declined to take his seat representing Florida's 1st district. A special election to replace him will be held on 1 April 2025. In the Senate Jim Justice, who was elected to replace Joe Manchin, will not take his seat until his term as Governor of West Virginia ends on 13 January 2025.

I referred to the House as "members-elect" because their first order of business, even before taking their oaths of office, is electing a Speaker. There technically is no House of Representatives until they elect their Speaker. Some of you may recall the difficulties a narrow Republican majority had in electing a Speaker in January 2023 and again when they replaced that Speaker in October 2023. The Republican majority (219-215) is even narrower at the opening of the 119th Congress than it was in January 2023 (222-212) or October 2023 (221-212). Representative-elect Thomas Massie (R-KY04) has already publicly said he would vote against returning Mike Johnson (R-LA04) to the position of Speaker, leaving Johnson with very little vote margin to retain the Speakership.

For those of you who are interested in watching this unfold in real time, the vote for Speaker of the House will be livestreaming here starting at noon EST (5:00 pm UTC) today (3 January 2025).

Comments

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Johnson can only lose one more vote and still maintain the speakership. It took two months after McCarthy lost the gavel before Johnson was elected. There is a lot that has to be done if it takes two months to find another new speaker. The official counting of the electoral votes (discussed previously), the extension of the debt limit, the continuation of existing tax structure, just to name a few.

    The Senate can go on to do its business, like approving-or disproving-the candidates for the cabinet and other major offices, even passing bills that need to be referred to the House.

    It is commonly assumed that the first 100 days of a new administration will set the tone for the next four years. If it takes 60 or more days to get a new speaker, that will definitely hobble what the new administration can do. Look for a lot of executive decisions that will very likely be tied up in court for the near future.

    Fun times for the US.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 3
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Johnson can only lose one more vote and still maintain the speakership. It took two months after McCarthy lost the gavel before Johnson was elected. There is a lot that has to be done if it takes two months to find another new speaker. The official counting of the electoral votes (discussed previously), the extension of the debt limit, the continuation of existing tax structure, just to name a few.

    I think the math works out that Johnson can't even afford to lose one more vote, if we assume that he won't get Massie's vote. To be elected Speaker requires a majority of those casting a vote for a person. (Voting "present" is the same as not voting and just lowers the threshold for a majority.) If everyone shows up and votes for a person a majority of members-elect is 218 votes, which is the size of the Republican caucus minus Massie.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    It is commonly assumed that the first 100 days of a new administration will set the tone for the next four years. If it takes 60 or more days to get a new speaker, that will definitely hobble what the new administration can do. Look for a lot of executive decisions that will very likely be tied up in court for the near future.

    It might be even more complicated than that. If there is no House of Representatives, Congress cannot certify the presidential election. If the Speaker election goes on long enough, the U.S. might end up with Acting President Chuck Grassley. As president pro tempore of the Senate he's next in the line of presidential succession if the president (uncertified), vice president (uncertified), and Speaker of the House (vacant) are all unavailable.

    The last speaker election fiasco was in October, and the one before that was right after the mid-terms, so the presidential election was not a factor in those cases.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    The first vote for Speaker of the House has ended with no one elected. The final vote count:
    • Mike Johnson - 216
    • Hakeem Jeffries - 215
    • Byron Donalds - 1
    • Tom Emmer - 1
    • Gym Jordan - 1

    For a while I thought that someone from the Trump team had taken House Republicans aside and convinced them to show some unity and not interfere with their God-Emperor's coronation inauguration, but I guess some things are just unmanageable.

    There will be another round of voting. Whether it happens today is up for debate.
  • “Tied up in court” is likely to be the best possible outcome for a great many proposed laws, executive actions, etc in the next four years.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    • Gym Jordan - 1
    Is there a reason you seem to regularly misspell his name in this way?

  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    The first vote for Speaker of the House has ended with no one elected. The final vote count:
    • Mike Johnson - 216
    • Hakeem Jeffries - 215
    • Byron Donalds - 1
    • Tom Emmer - 1
    • Gym Jordan - 1

    For a while I thought that someone from the Trump team had taken House Republicans aside and convinced them to show some unity and not interfere with their God-Emperor's coronation inauguration, but I guess some things are just unmanageable.

    There will be another round of voting. Whether it happens today is up for debate.

    I may be confused but I'm seeing that he did get elected on the first round: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mike-johnson-reelected-house-speaker-in-dramatic-first-round-floor-vote
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited January 4
    While Johnson won, there is no guarantee he will last for the next two years. He is on very thin ice.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    • Gym Jordan - 1
    Is there a reason you seem to regularly misspell his name in this way?
    This:
    https://www.newsweek.com/after-grilling-robert-mueller-about-accountability-accusations-gym-jordans-involvement-osu-1450949
  • “Tied up in court” is likely to be the best possible outcome for a great many proposed laws, executive actions, etc in the next four years.

    Amen. Red tape can be a blessing…
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    An honest mistake is not a problem, but deliberate misspelling of people’s names is not permitted in Purgatory.

    BroJames
    Purgatory Host
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gwai wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    The first vote for Speaker of the House has ended with no one elected. The final vote count:
    • Mike Johnson - 216
    • Hakeem Jeffries - 215
    • Byron Donalds - 1
    • Tom Emmer - 1
    • Gym Jordan - 1

    For a while I thought that someone from the Trump team had taken House Republicans aside and convinced them to show some unity and not interfere with their God-Emperor's coronation inauguration, but I guess some things are just unmanageable.

    There will be another round of voting. Whether it happens today is up for debate.

    I may be confused but I'm seeing that he did get elected on the first round: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mike-johnson-reelected-house-speaker-in-dramatic-first-round-floor-vote

    They apparently held the vote open long enough for Johnson to convince/browbeat Ralph Norman (R-SC05) and Keith Self (R-TX03) to switch their votes to Johnson. My mistake was assuming that the usual five minute period after the first two rounds of the roll call vote would be in effect.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gwai wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    The first vote for Speaker of the House has ended with no one elected. The final vote count:
    • Mike Johnson - 216
    • Hakeem Jeffries - 215
    • Byron Donalds - 1
    • Tom Emmer - 1
    • Gym Jordan - 1

    For a while I thought that someone from the Trump team had taken House Republicans aside and convinced them to show some unity and not interfere with their God-Emperor's coronation inauguration, but I guess some things are just unmanageable.

    There will be another round of voting. Whether it happens today is up for debate.

    I may be confused but I'm seeing that he did get elected on the first round: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mike-johnson-reelected-house-speaker-in-dramatic-first-round-floor-vote

    They apparently held the vote open long enough for Johnson to convince/browbeat Ralph Norman (R-SC05) and Keith Self (R-TX03) to switch their votes to Johnson. My mistake was assuming that the usual five minute period after the first two rounds of the roll call vote would be in effect.

    I see it differently. Norman and Self got what they wanted. More say among the members in drafting legislation, and they got a promise Johnson will not work with Democrats to get key legislation passed. That one point might be a poison pill, though, since the Republicans are so divided Johnson has to work with the Dems. Norman and Self held all the cards. Johnson had to give in to them to keep the speakership.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I am hearing the Republicans are going to try to push through a large MAGA bill through the reconciliation process which will extend the Trump tax cuts, eliminate taxes on Social Security, fund the border wall and the deportation program plus raising the dept limit, and more--not quite sure what else. But the reconciliation process will bypass the ability of the Democrats to filibuster programs they do not like--which would be most of them.

    On the other it will only take two representatives, such as Norman and Self to throw a wrench in this massive bill. Odd, that I find myself cheering for them on this one.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) started criticizing the Trump administration on the Senate floor at 7 pm yesterday (EDT) and is still going. The NY Times says the Senate was supposed to convene at noon today, and it's after that now. His voice has been getting breaks as a few other Democratic senators have asked questions and make remarks. I don't know enough about the Senate rules to know if he can keep the body from convening by holding the floor or if someone can stop him.

    Salon reporting suggests that there may be some restlessness in the ranks of Congressional Republicans over tariffs:
    Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Thursday that the “power of the purse” had to return to the legislative branch amid tariff proposals that could sour voters.

    "Tariffs should be a Congressional-initiated action," Bacon said. “I think we made a mistake. In the past, we passed legislation that gave the president some temporary tariff authority. And I think we should look back and maybe restore the power back to Congress."
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited April 1
    Ruth wrote: »
    Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) started criticizing the Trump administration on the Senate floor at 7 pm yesterday (EDT) and is still going.

    Live feed here, for those who are interested.
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    That’s fantastic. God bless him!!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    What's impressive to me about Booker's filibuster is that he's not filling time by reading children's books or the phone book (remember phone books?), but it's all been detailed criticism of the Trump administration.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    He’s a few hours away from the record Strom Thurmond set speaking against the Civil Rights Act (24 hrs., 18 min.).


  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    He’s a few hours away from the record Strom Thurmond set speaking against the Civil Rights Act (24 hrs., 18 min.).

    The YouTube live chat says he said he plans to go for 25 hours.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited April 1
    And Booker has broken the record. Definitely a much better use of time than the hours Thurmond spent opposing civil rights.


  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    What's impressive to me about Booker's filibuster is that he's not filling time by reading children's books or the phone book (remember phone books?), but it's all been detailed criticism of the Trump administration.

    I thought he was reading the constitution at one point. (And yes, my comment to my kid was that was much better than the phone book.) And that's before I considered how desperately this administratiion needs to hear the constitution read!
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    He read from the Federalist Papers a little while ago in support of the point he was making at the time.
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    And Booker has broken the record. Definitely a much better use of time than the hours Thurmond spent opposing civil rights.

    When he crossed the 24 hour, 18-minute mark, he was in the middle of forgiving Strom Thurmond for opposing civil rights. This was all clearly well planned out.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    When he crossed the 24 hour, 18-minute mark, he was in the middle of forgiving Strom Thurmond for opposing civil rights. This was all clearly well planned out.
    Yep. Well executed, too, I thought.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited April 2
    Technically, it was not a filibuster since no bill was up for debate. He spoke under the 'unlimited debate rule' which allows senators to speak for as long as they can physically manage, provided they don’t sit, eat, or leave the chamber. This rule is often used for symbolic protests or to draw attention to critical issues, as Booker did in his critique of the Trump administration’s policies
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    This might not - probably won't? - get through the House, and Trump will never sign it, but the Senate has passed a bill blocking the tariffs on Canada, 51-48. Guardian report here. Four Republican senators voting for it: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul.
  • Oh man, how I wish.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL) was at a conference of tribal and non-profit leaders on Monday where she was asked, "What do you have to say to people who are afraid or who represent people who are afraid?"
    We are all afraid. [Long pause.] It’s quite a statement. But, we are, we're in a time and a place where, I don't know, I certainly have not, I have not been here before. And I'll tell you, I'm, I'm oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, um, because retaliation is real. And that's not right. But that's what you've asked me to do. And so I'm going to use my voice to the best of my ability. And sometimes it will be viewed in a way that, well, that's pretty confrontational. And other times it's going to be using my mother's charm that I learned as a young girl and in direct communication that those that I've made relationship with and am able to affect some change that way. But I've got to figure out how I can do my best to help the many who are so anxious and are so afraid.
    [Transcribed from the video on that page]

    Gotta say, this does not fill me with hope for the future of the United States.
  • PowderkegPowderkeg Castaway
    Nobody -- apart from a few terminally online political nerds -- gives a shit about Cory Booker wasting his time and everyone else's. The Democrats are aimless and leaderless, and have nothing to offer but "we hate everything Trump is doing".
    It's no wonder their approval rating is roughly on par with toenail fungus.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    edited April 19
    [Admin]
    Dafyd wrote: »
    [Hosting]
    Powderkeg wrote: »
    Watching Trump's address to Congress tonight, and so far Democrats have refused to applaud or acknowledge:

    -- Families of military heroes.
    -- Victims of murder.
    -- A kid with brain cancer.

    It's going to be a long, long time before they win elections again. They hate America. They hate heroes. They hate everything.

    It must be a miserable existence.

    I haven't seen you post about anything other than how miserable the Democratic Party makes you. Furthermore I haven't seen you respond to any responses to your posts. This is a pattern of behaviour in violation of commandments one and eight. Desist.

    Dafyd, Hell Host

    [/Hosting]

    (ETA formatting, DT)

    [Admin]

    This troll and run posting style is unacceptable and a violation of C1, if it happens again @Powderkeg you will be banned.

    Doublethink, Admin

    [/Admin]

    Per previous warnings, you will now be banned. If you wish to discuss this, you will need to use the site’s email contact link to message us.

    Doublethink

    [/Admin]
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Rather than bumping up the old thread on the 118th Congress I'll post this update here.

    When last we saw "George Santos" he was pleading guilty to a bunch of felonies. His sentencing was today and things did not go in "Santos'" favor.
    Disgraced former U.S. Rep. George Santos was sentenced to more than seven years in federal prison -- the maximum he faced -- on Friday after pleading guilty to a series of fraudulent schemes.

    U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert sentenced him to 87 months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release.

    <snip>

    Santos, 36, was convicted of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. He faced a sentence of 75 to 87 months imprisonment, including a mandatory minimum two-year sentence for aggravated identity theft.

    So, the maximum sentence for a first time offender. Given how contrite and apologetic he was this seems . . . wait:
    They also argued the former New York congressman's recent "social media blitz" shows he "remains unrepentant for his crimes" in a subsequent filing. In one example, prosecutors pointed to an April 4 post on Santos' X account that stated, "No matter how hard the DOJ comes for me, they are mad because they will NEVER break my spirit." The post was made the same day the DOJ filed its initial sentencing recommendation.

    Santos, meanwhile, insisted in a letter to Seybert this week that he has "accepted full responsibility" for his crimes. He said he can be both "profoundly sorry" and upset by the Justice Department's recommendation of a lengthy prison sentence.

    "But saying I'm sorry doesn't require me to sit quietly while these prosecutors try to drop an anvil on my head. True remorse isn't mute; it is aware of itself, and it speaks up when the penalty scale jumps into the absurd," Santos' letter said.

    I guess the court didn't buy the whole "I'm very remorseful about this totally unjustified prosecution" schtick.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    As I have constantly been told if I have any pending court case, civil or criminal, never post anything about it on social media because it will come back to bite me.

    Now, if the courts could just do something about the grifter in chief.
Sign In or Register to comment.