Kevin McCarthy’s fate on the line, House conservatives warn speaker’s election could take days

[Free Vulcan]

Just as his supporters have argued that there was nothing McCarthy could do to stop Democrats, it is clear now that he is equally impotent when it comes to Republicans.

Imagine if this were the other way around. The screechy wailing by the swampy RINO's for a consensus candidate would be excruciating.

They can't even live up to the rules they put on everyone else. I see no reason to give into their entitlement.

[roamer_1]

For some reason, you seem to equate holding a meaningless vote in the House on a balanced budget amendment that is 100% certain to fall short of the 2/3rds required threshold with actually having a Balanced Budget Amendment added to the Constitution.

To the contrary - Such a meaningless vote should be a no-brainer to secure his speakership... Especially one that is sure to fail. And he did not have to promise to bring it to the vote, but only to bring it to conference - to allow the debate.
That's a pretty meaningless concession. And he wouldn't give it the time of day.

Which is always the case - fiscal conservatism has been thrown under the bus consecutively ever since '94. And your boy, no doubt, will do the same.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Eh, make a deal with the Democrats to change the rules for election of Speaker so that only a plurality rather than a majority is required.  So only one more round of voting.

Give Gaetz and his buddies a clear choice.  Either vote for McCarthy, or Jeffries is the new Speaker.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Term limits would be more effective than balanced budget amendment.

With a balanced budget amendment, Big Government would tinker with the definition and the accounting principles of "balanced budget" until that phrase was meaning less.

Term lmits puts accountability in the hands of the voters and not in Swamp Creatures.

[Bigun]

Term limits would be more effective than balanced budget amendment.

With a balanced budget amendment, Big Government would tinker with the definition and the accounting principles of "balanced budget" until that phrase was meaning less.

Term lmits puts accountability in the hands of the voters and not in Swamp Creatures.

Term limits won't do anything other than limit your choices and make the political graft even worse than it already is.

[roamer_1]

Term limits would be more effective than balanced budget amendment.

With a balanced budget amendment, Big Government would tinker with the definition and the accounting principles of "balanced budget" until that phrase was meaning less.

Term lmits puts accountability in the hands of the voters and not in Swamp Creatures.

Federal term limits is unconstitutional. You'd have to go state by state.

[roamer_1]

Eh, make a deal with the Democrats to change the rules for election of Speaker so that only a plurality rather than a majority is required.  So only one more round of voting.

Give Gaetz and his buddies a clear choice.  Either vote for McCarthy, or Jeffries is the new Speaker.

If the GOP is willing to do that, then don't tell me about all the difference. Because there ain't none.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Might require a Federal Constituional Amendment, but that's why we need Republicans who fight, not appease.

[roamer_1]

Might require a Federal Constituional Amendment, but that's why we need Republicans who fight, not appease.

No... It will not stand. The state is sovereign in elections, not the fed.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Why does the Constitutional Amendment to limit Presidential terms still stand?

Why does the Constitutional minimum age of elected Federal Reps (25), Senators(30), and Pres(35) still stand?
 
A Term Limits Constituional Amendment should be put forth and tested in the states, courts, and Congress.  Progress can't be made if nothing is tried.

[roamer_1]

Why does the Constitutional Amendment to limit Presidential terms still stand?

Why does the Constitutional minimum age of elected Federal Reps (25), Senators(30), and Pres(35) still stand?
 
A Term Limits Constituional Amendment should be put forth and tested in the states, courts, and Congress.  Progress can't be made if nothing is tried.

In the states, I agree... I believe SCOTUS already struck it down in the fed.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Imagine if this were the other way around. The screechy wailing by the swampy RINO's for a consensus candidate would be excruciating.

They can't even live up to the rules they put on everyone else. I see no reason to give into their entitlement.

If they had actually done that, you'd be right.  But they haven't - you're literally just "imagining" what they might do if the situation was reversed.  So its kind of bogus to spin this as them "not living up to the rules they put on everyone else."

[DefiantMassRINO]

Did SCOTUS strike down a law or a ratified Federal Constitutional Amenment?

I'd like to see a ratified Federal Constiution Term Limits Amendment be tested.

[roamer_1]

Did SCOTUS strike down a law or a ratified Federal Constitutional Amenment?

I'd like to see a ratified Federal Constiution Term Limits Amendment be tested.

I believe a law, but I don't remember.

And I do not want a federal term limit. State is fine, if that's what they want.

[Free Vulcan]

If they had actually done that, you'd be right.  But they haven't - you're literally just "imagining" what they might do if the situation was reversed.  So its kind of bogus to spin this as them "not living up to the rules they put on everyone else."

Apparently you've missed the last 50 years of GOP politics. Conservatives are always expected to fall in line, and the swampy RINO's never shut up no matter how much they are beat, or fail, or lose.

[Kamaji]

Did SCOTUS strike down a law or a ratified Federal Constitutional Amenment?

I'd like to see a ratified Federal Constiution Term Limits Amendment be tested.

The Supreme Court struck down a state-level attempt to impose term limits on Members of Congress as well as a federal statute.  Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#Congress

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Did SCOTUS strike down a law or a ratified Federal Constitutional Amenment?

I'd like to see a ratified Federal Constiution Term Limits Amendment be tested.

A Constitutional Amendment obviously can't be unconstitutional, but you need 2/3 of both houses plus 3/4 of the states for ratification.

[Hoodat]

Either vote for McCarthy, or Jeffries is the new Speaker.

See logical fallacies:  False Dilemma

[roamer_1]

The Supreme Court struck down a state-level attempt to impose term limits on Members of Congress as well as a federal statute.  Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#Congress

In 1995, SCOTUS struck down various state laws that limited the terms for US representatives. In the opinion, they said that states could not lawfully impose restrictions on running for office in excess of those stated in the Constitution. So by that reasoning, Congress could not do it either by law.

A Constitutional Amendment obviously would work, but you need 2/3 of both houses plus 3/4 of the states for ratification.

I stand corrected - I knew it to be deemed unconstitutional at the federal level, but was unaware of the states.

Thank you.

[Hoodat]

In 1995, SCOTUS struck down various state laws that limited the terms for US representatives. In the opinion, they said that states could not lawfully impose restrictions on running for office in excess of those stated in the Constitution. So by that reasoning, Congress could not do it either by law.

A Constitutional Amendment obviously would work, but you need 2/3 of both houses plus 3/4 of the states for ratification.

So for McCarthy to cut a deal for the Conservative votes he needs to become Speaker, all he had to do was to allow such vote.  It would have been an effortless exercise for him and would have cost him nothing.  Yet he couldn't bring himself to say 'yes' to Conservatives.  Wow.  Just wow. 

[DefiantMassRINO]

Kevin McCarthy lacks the political intelligence, carisma, and saavy to be Speaker.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

See logical fallacies:  False Dilemma

How is that a logical fallacy if the rules are changed to make it a plurality rather than majority for Speaker?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So for McCarthy to cut a deal for the Conservative votes he needs to become Speaker, all he had to do was to allow such vote.  It would have been an effortless exercise for him and would have cost him nothing.  Yet he couldn't bring himself to say 'yes' to Conservatives.  Wow.  Just wow.

Well, if you believe that was literally the only demand that Gaetz was making - which I don't - then McCarthy should do it unless there is some procedural reason that makes it a bigger deal than it sounds.  I'm not well-versed enough in House procedures to know the answer to that.

What I do know for certain is that purely symbolic votes doomed to fail in the House are a stupid reason to be embarrassing the GOP like this.

[Hoodat]

How is that a logical fallacy if the rules are changed to make it a plurality rather than majority for Speaker?

So if A and B and C and D, then and only then can a binary option be considered with high enough probability to discount any other outcomes?  Sure, if that works for you.

[Hoodat]

What I do know for certain is that purely symbolic votes doomed to fail in the House are a stupid reason to be embarrassing the GOP like this.

Well then maybe McCarthy should end it by withdrawing his name from consideration instead of repeating the same vote over and over without offering anything different.

Good grief, it isn't that difficult.  Just give the Conservatives something here to ensure that this won't be two more years of Paul Ryan.