Meanwhile additional gridlock like this is going to occur with only a very short stopgap spending bill approved going into November and no other major viable candidates for republican speaker appear to be present.
I can’t wait to see how they’re going to make this the democrat’s fault.
He already tried to blame them on CNN or something. Saw the headline. Didn’t read the article.
I was just reading a WSJ article about it and basically the through line is “well we never gave Dems any concessions or have any plans to, and we forced through that last spending bill without time for review, and I broke promises on spending limits and then launched an unfounded impeachment bid BUT THEY WONT SHOW ANY UNITY TO KEEP THE HOUSE GOING” (obviously paraphrasing there)
The short of that is that he spun the efforts of the Democrats to actually read what they were voting on as efforts to shut him down, to try and make the moderate republicans the only good guys.
Democrats were the primary party to vote him out. So they can blame it on that. But since they have the majority, there is no excuse to not elect a new leader. Unless, of course, there is literally no republican suitable for the position…
Isn’t this the 13th time?
I can’t remember if it took 12 or 14 votes the first time to get elected
15, actually! I can’t imagine they’re gonna do it any quicker this time, because it’s the exact same jackasses being a bunch of disruptive children, and no particularly popular alternatives appear to exist. Yaaaay we’re in hell!
Is American politics ever not drama?
Republican politics are always drama.
Democratic politics are occasionally drama.
Democrat politics are flawed, in a regular, normal human kind of way.
republican politics are mentally ill, in a stubbornly ignorant, hysterical, corrosive and self-destructive way, it relentlessly goes on 24 hours a day forever.
Personally, I don’t recall it being like this when I was younger. Then again, the biggest amount of drama I remember from way back then was stuff about a blowjob, a dress with stains, and the definition of “is.” I’m sure there was probably more, but that was about the time I started paying some semblance of attention to things.
and the definition of “is.”
Now the Supreme Court is debating over whether “and” means “and” or “or”
Note: the implications of the actual piece of legislature this pertains to is very important, but the concept of arguing over the definition of “and” is still absurd
I dont think my desk can take much more punishment from me, slamming my head into it.
Into it or onto it? Better convene the assembly so we can try to achieve consensus
yes
Now the Supreme Court is debating over whether “and” means “and” or “or"
Sorry, European here - what the actual fuck?
Basically there’s this piece of legislature regarding nonviolent drug offenders that will spare them from longer sentences so long as they do not have on their record conditions: A B, and C
The key issue being that “and” is written right at the end of condition B
The debate is basically over whether that means they cannot have A, B, AND C on their record collectively, or if it was intended to mean they cannot have A, cannot have B, AND cannot have C - as in they cannot have any one of them
Or perhaps alternatively, they cannot have either A, or B AND C together
Basically the wording is shit - likely intentionally, but it’s also probable that whoever wrote this is just dumb… Par for the course either way, really
Hope that wasn’t too complicated… I’ve made like 6 edits to this comment trying to clear it up as best I can lmao
That was well explained and blows my mind a court is wasting any time on that.
Here we have the convention when drafting legislation that the conjunction ‘and’ at the end of a list it means all things in the list- so A, B, and C. Whereas if ‘or’ appears, it means a choice from the list.
I get that maybe once upon a time there needed to be clarification in the courts, but that cannot me the first time such a drafting approach has been taken in legislation in the USA and so an interpretation must have been established already?
I can see why contextually there could be room for either interpretation, but it’s astonishing a consistent interpretation hasn’t been established.
Like I said, it was likely made intentionally vague - either with malicious intent or to give wiggle room for this exact sort of legal debacle while still getting the legislation passed
Or, again, whoever wrote this is stupid
It’s really a coin toss for either option
They recently ruled that “adjacent” means “adjoining” … soooo …
No. It’s exhausting. The media is definitely to blame in part.
The media is definitely to blame. Ftfy
No. People here don’t even understand that politics should be boring and predictable.
All this so Republicans can shut down the government.
*grabs popcorn 🍿
