General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo not seat them...
Link to tweet
Can we summon the courage that our forefathers had? 140 House Republicans refuse to acknowledge Bidens win (and thus their own, too). Do not seat them
Exactly this. By their own 'logic', if the election is fraudulent there is absolutely no guarantee that they were duly elected - and therefore there is no reason to seat them... and of course they are enablers of the Terrorist in Chief - stand back and stand by white supremacist Nazis.
He is inciting violence on the streets of the Capitol cause you know the cray cray that will show up look exactly like this:

All the while the very male, pale and stale fascist contingent in Congress seek to destroy democracy for political ends. Seditious traitors should not be seated. They do not believe that the elections were free and fair? Well then, let them be hoist by their own petard.

leftieNanner
(15,848 posts)They will be sworn in to office on the 3rd. The counting of the Electoral College votes happens on the 6th, so they will already be seated. Let's hope Speaker Pelosi does something to give them some consequences for their behavior. She may not have a full count and a list of names of the traitors on the 3rd.
onenote
(44,925 posts)leftieNanner
(15,848 posts)Possibly censure them? I am not aware of House rules, but I'm sure Nancy is!
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)On what grounds would the House censure them if they are doing what the law allows them to do?
Democrats took this action in 2005 and tried to do it in 2001 and 2017. Should they have been censured?
leftieNanner
(15,848 posts)I guess if they push beyond the Constitutional limits, then maybe some consequences.
I'm just so effing tired of all this crap. Can't wait until January 20th!
Happy New Year StarfishSaver!
wnylib
(25,183 posts)or fomenting violence then, were they? I get your point about the constitutional right to express disagreement and to protest. But where is the constitutional right to use violence and intimidation in the process?
Edited to remove question that was answered in a later post.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Regardless what some Republicans are saying and doing, the Republican Senators and House Members - none of whom have incited or fomented violence or urged a forceful overthrow of a lawful government - are objecting to the Electoral College votes through procedures set forth in the Constitution, statutes and rules providing for them to do so.
The Constitution limits the power of Congress to refuse to seat members to very specific circumstances, mostly relating to their qualifications, none of which apply here. The House Speaker has no right to refuse to seat members for reasons that don't fall within the very specific and limited areas set forth in the Constitution, regardless how reprehensible their behavior may be or how much she disagrees with them.
wnylib
(25,183 posts)clearer in your response. I agree with you and tge constitution that, as unpleasant as it is to us, the constitutional rights of those House members and of Senator Hawley must be protected.
But I am concerned that their position supports a president who IS using the January 6 vote tallying date and event to promote street demonstrations by gangs who are known for their violence.
So let's see what, if any, response those House members and Senators have if the demonstrations turn violent.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)They were denied their seats for supporting secession. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congress-expelled-lincoln-election/
There are very limited situations in which Member scan be denied their seats. Refusing to vote to certify an Electoral College vote is not one of them.
SCantiGOP
(14,359 posts)The original tweet is idiotic.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Funny that the same people making these arguments were perfectly happy about and supportive of Democrats doing the same thing in response to Bush's and Trump's election.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)election?
Which RNC documents were stolen and distributed publicly via Wikileaks, who were coordinating with one of Hillary's close operatives (Stone in the case of Trump) in the months leading up to the election, while Hillary chanted "wikileaks" over and over on the campaign trail?
Remind me when Chelsea Clinton met with Russian operatives who claimed to have dirt on Trump, in furtherance of their governments goal to get Hillary elected?
Granted this was not all known at that time, but numerous agencies had already said Russia was helping Trump, and we knew about the Wikileaks theft at that time.
IOW, there was AMPLE reason to be very suspicious.
Entirely differently from now.
Also ... no Democratic Senators backed the protests in the House, like Hawley is planning to do.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)If objecting to the Electoral College vote is grounds for refusing to seat a Member, that should also apply to Democrats who so object. We can't have it both ways.
Of course, there are no Constitutional or legal grounds for denying a Member their seat for voting to reject the Electoral College vote, something they have a right to do for whatever reason they choose.
And in 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer backed the House protest.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)So I don't think we're being hypocritical to call these assholes out.
Agree on the seating part, as I've said elsewhere on this thread
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But, as we both agree, they have every right to do what they're doing under the Constitution and statutes and can't be denied their seats.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)
maxrandb
(16,253 posts)despite winning the Popular Vote.
In fact, since 2000 Retrumplicans have won the popular vote ONCE in 2004.
Maybe people are sick of the will of the people being ignored.
I for one would like for Democrats to fight like hell for once.
It's a move that will probably fail, but for once, I'd like for the shoe to be on the other foot.
Let them sweat and worry about if 5 Christofascists in black robes are going to "save Democracy".
Let the media breathlessly report about how "unconventional" the Democrats are behaving.
Let these fucksticks feel the anxiety of whether or not there's going to be a fucking coup.
If there are no consequences for the House Retrumplicans behavior, then I wonder what 2022 or 2024 is going to look like.
It's why I also would like to see if there are ways to expel states from the Union.
We fought a war to settle secession, but I don't think we've covered expulsion yet.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)How do you propose the Democrats "fight like hell for once" to change that, absent getting 2/3 of the House and Senate to expel members or to get 2/3 of Congress and 33 states to ratify a Constitutional amendment, neither of which are going to happen in our lifetimes?
And if you think that objecting to the Electoral College vote count should be sufficient grounds for expulsion from Congress, you should be prepared to see some Democrats booted out of office if they try to object to the Electoral College thwarting the will of the people in the future. You can't have it both ways.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,390 posts)That members must sign a declaration before entering.
Proclaiming that "I believe the results in my own riding that gave me the win, as well as every other riding across the country, are valid and legitimate".
Force them to either sign that, or then be exposed as the slimy hypocrites they are. And Democrats can use the fact that they did not even sign a statement saying even their own election was valid.
wnylib
(25,183 posts)do not use that British (and Canadian?) term. Most Americans don't understand it. We call them "districts."
LiberalLovinLug
(14,390 posts)Cosmo Blues
(2,879 posts)We we criticized the decision of the Supreme Court, purging of Voters, gerrymandering, closing of polling stations and voter ID laws, we acknowledge Bush was president and cough Trump was president, or if you were talking about this, my Senator at the time Barbara Boxer was making a point, not trying to overturn the election
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)There is nothing in the Constitution that says Members can be denied their seats for rejecting the Electoral College vote IF we think they don't have a good reason for objecting, but if we agree with their reason, they are allowed to object without consequence.
The bottom line is that Members and Senators are allowed to object to the Electoral College vote and their right to do so is not dependent on their having a reason we think is valid and, just as important, the House has no right to deny seats to any duly elected Member for any reason other than failure to meet the Constitutional requirements to be elected to the seat.
onenote
(44,925 posts)So the only way to "unseat" them would be to expel them, which requires a 2/3 vote and that's not going to happen and Pelosi isn't going to allow her caucus to waste time on such nonsense.
Chili
(1,725 posts)I was posting here in 2005, about 2 things:
1) I monitored the emergency calls to that same Election hotline that voters were able to use this election. I mapped the calls and made a graph - a horrible number of calls were in urban Cuyahoga county, where precincts that had, say, 6 machines were down to 1, etc. This was still the day of chads, and machines in those precincts had not been mandatorily cleaned and emptied of chads, and so they broke down. This is what caused most of the 10-12 hour lines of people trying to vote in Cuyahoga County.
2) I became a member of the recount, and the group I was a part of reviewed those big registration books - can't remember what they were officially called, so please forgive if I'm getting it mixed up after 15 years... but each page had a list of 15 or so votes, with the totals at the bottom: 6 votes for Kerry, 9 votes for Bush, etc. We were checking the counts, and the totals at the bottom of many of the pages were incorrect. We showed these to our coordinators, and they got excited. Can't even say if these contributed to the conviction of the election coordinator and ballot manager of Cuy Cty Bd of Elections (they served 18 months in jail), but it freaked out the DNC lawyers at the time.
I also showed the lawyers the graph I had of the elections calls of all those chad machines broken/down in urban Cuyahoga County. That freaked them out too.
jalan48
(14,671 posts)lapucelle
(19,712 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But it's so much more fun to spread falsehoods contained in tweets without bothering to check the facts or history, isn't it?
lapucelle
(19,712 posts)
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)of us than I do of them, who are clearly devoted and dedicated to a fact-free existence.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Every time one of them is called on to speak in teh House for the next 2 years, the chair says "The Traitor to the Constitution of the United States of America from Wisconsin has 5 minutes'.
That type of thing.
ancianita
(39,585 posts)onenote
(44,925 posts)rzemanfl
(30,385 posts)your grave, my urine. Fuck you.
Cosmo Blues
(2,879 posts)Is eventually Republicans will win the House and they won't seat any Democrats ever again
dhill926
(16,953 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)if it were possible to do it, the republicans would have already done it awhile ago.
SheltieLover
(62,647 posts)

bucolic_frolic
(48,652 posts)Dump them out on their butts
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)Nancy & the house should go for it !!!!! if the shoe was on the other foot - they sure would . everybody is tired of of there bull shit ! there pissed that there president {gag} is getting kicked out to curb . maybe he'll have to take a back to his dump in Florida . i wouldn't laugh to hard . ya rite !!
onenote
(44,925 posts)A new Congress. Congress cannot refuse to seat someone who meets the qualifications to serve. And it takes 2/3 vote to expel a member.
onenote
(44,925 posts)A new Congress. Congress cannot refuse to seat someone who meets the qualifications to serve. And it takes 2/3 vote to expel a member.
niyad
(122,093 posts)know, no concrete evidence that this will occur.
shelshaw
(615 posts)Who are we to dispute them?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Jay25
(419 posts)I wonder how this is going to play out. Law enforcement seems to only attack BLM protesters, who are not usually armed.