Below is my column in the Hill on the new rules that came out of the negotiations leading to the election of Kevin McCarthy as the 55th Speaker of the United States. As noted below, I did not support the standoff and I do not support some of the changes that came out of the negotiations. Some of these changes were already in the works with McCarthy’s support. Moreover, some of these changes will make it more challenging for the Speaker by returning to prior rules allowing greater opportunity for amendments and floor fights. However, the holdouts were right that things have to change in Congress, particularly in allowing greater deliberation and debate over legislation. Some of these changes could achieve that worthy goal.
Here is the column:
The ascendance of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as the 55th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives may have come with all of the spontaneity of a shotgun wedding — but it finally came. McCarthy deserved better than a tortuous three-day floor fight but, then again, he is now second in line to the presidency.
Many of us have great sympathy for McCarthy, who looked like a guy caught in a feedback loop stepping on the same rake over and over again. (For the record, I opposed the floor fight, given the overwhelming support for McCarthy.) However, as is often the case in Washington, the narrative opposing these holdouts allowed for little recognition of what they achieved in McCarthy’s concessions. Indeed, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank ran a column titled “McCarthy’s fate is irrelevant. The terrorists have already won.”
Moreover, many in the media were honest about what they consider his greatest shortcoming: “Kevin McCarthy is no Nancy Pelosi.”
Some of us sincerely hope so.
While Pelosi (D-Calif.) remains the ideal of many in the media, she tolerated little public debate or dissent. She thrilled her base with such infamous performative acts as tearing up a State of the Union Address of then-President Trump. As an all-powerful speaker, she oversaw a series of party-line votes with little opportunity for amendments or even to read some bills.
Many Republicans did not want the Pelosi model of an all-powerful speaker. For these members, the agreement with McCarthy is a type of Magna Carta.
The original Magna Carta, of course, was honored primarily in the breach by King John, who immediately asked the pope to annul it. Yet it was an impressive statement of rights.
No one is seriously suggesting that the GOP agreement is the new Magna Carta, but it is meant to redefine legislative rights — and it could have tangible improvements for the House.
I have worked in the House in various roles since I was a House leadership page in the 1970s and, much later, represented the House in litigation. I’ve watched the body become less transparent, less deliberative, with every passing year.
The Framers saw the House as a powerful forum to address factions in society, a legislative crucible where different interests could be expressed and resolved in majoritarian compromise. The legislative process can inform citizens while exposing legislative proposals to public scrutiny. But that process has been largely replaced with a series of robotic, preordained votes.
Some of these concessions may change that status quo. There are provisions I do not support — yet, we should acknowledge that these changes could also improve the process to allow greater dissent and debate.
Many in the media counter that such changes reduce the speaker’s power, as if the status quo under Pelosi was the optimal legislative model. Yet some changes would empower rank-and-file members to allow for greater diversity of views — not necessarily a bad thing.
Restoring the ‘Vacate the Chair’ rule
Nancy Pelosi consolidated her power by eliminating a rule that allowed any member to make a motion to vacate the chair, a type of legislative no-confidence vote. Pelosi eliminated the one-member rule and, instead, required a majority of either party to make such a motion. Some Republicans wanted that check on the speaker to be reinstated.
Notably, what has unnerved so many in Washington is that this speakership debate was not just largely public but also unscripted. It was an actual deliberation, conducted in front of the American people. While repellent to many, it just might be something that voters could get accustomed to.
Restoring legislative review and deliberation
The GOP holdouts sought to end massive spending bills moved forward with little time to read the legislation. They want a minimum 72-hour review period and a reduction of massive omnibus bills, to allow members and the public to better understand what is being passed.
The concessions reportedly include “open rules” on all major rules bills, such as appropriations, to allow lawmakers to offer amendments on the floor. It would restore an amendment process that was gutted in recent sessions, benefiting Democrats and Republicans alike.
They would reinstate “Calendar Wednesday,” which permits committee chairs “to bring reported bills directly to the House floor for consideration under an open amendment process, and reform the process by ensuring the same 72-hour notice that is required on all other measures is provided.”
For years, some of us have called for smaller bills and more deliberation. Massive bills are a way to hide personal perks and pork projects under fraudulent packaging like the “Inflation Reduction Act” that had little to do with inflation. The omnibus bill recently pushed through the House and Senate is an example of this abusive, opaque process. It was a collection of 7,200 earmarks and pork projects, including tens of millions for libraries for the papers of a couple retiring senators; five senators grabbed half a billion dollars for their favorite colleges. You had to swallow it whole or kill any spending bill.
Reinstate budget and tax procedures
Members want to restore the ability to reduce runaway spending and control increasing budgets and taxes. While one can disagree with some of the provisions, these members are clearly serious about gaining control over the budget. They would reinstate the “three-fifths supermajority in the House to approve any increases in tax rates” and require the Congressional Budget Office to analyze bills’ impacts on inflation.
They also would restore the “cut-as-you-go” (CUTGO) rule, which requires spending increases to be offset by equal or greater cuts in mandatory spending.
They would repeal the “Gephardt Rule,” which treats the debt limit as increased upon passage of a budget resolution. That rule allows members to avoid public debate over increasing a national debt that now stands at over $31 trillion. And they would restore the “Holman Rule” from 1876, permitting members to make targeted cuts impacting federal agency functions and salaries.
These are measures designed to control federal spending — a shock to a system that has abandoned any semblance of fiscal responsibility under both parties.
Committee reforms
Rebelling members pushed for a committee to investigate the FBI and its continuing scandals. I previously called for the creation of a new “Church Committee,” which will be established under Speaker McCarthy.
They also demand commitment to oversight in areas long ignored by Democrats, including the threats posed by China. The House Ethics Committee would have a new process allowing complaints from the public.
All of this challenges a status quo which seems inviolate to many in the media.
Yes, there are demands in the concessions that some of us do not favor. However, we should be honest about the status quo: Today’s legislative system is a mockery of the deliberative process, characterized by runaway spending, blind voting and perfunctory debates. You can dislike or denounce the holdouts while still admitting they have a point — Congress has got to change.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
More of Turley’s purchased advocacy for the MAGA mavens. He, of course, has to begin by criticizing Nancy Pelosi for tearing up Trump’s lie-filled vainglorious SOTU speech, which was the right thing to do. I’d have been tempted to make a butt-wiping motion with the document, or maybe even pulling out a Bic lighter and setting it on fire to symbolically indicate the lack of value for a malignant narcissist using the Floor of the US House to lie about nonexistent “achievements”. Everyone, including the MAGAs out there, knows that McCarthy sold his soul to get that gavel. He gave away the power of the speaker to the QAnon and ultra right wingers just to get that name plate and pretend that he has “accomplished” something–something he claims he “deserves”. And, he will fail miserably. The writing’s already on the wall. One thing a speaker must be able to do is lead his or her caucus, and McCarthy is starting out unable to do even that. They’ve already proven who’s boss, and it’s not McCarthy. Whatever else you think about Nancy Pelosi, she was able to pull together her caucus and get things done, including pulling together the left and right-leaning members. McCarthy has set a record for the most votes needed to get a Speaker in the last 100 years–and this only happened after multiple members didn’t even vote for him–they voted “present”, which reduced the number of voting members to give him the minimal number of “yes” votes–and for what? So that the radical right wingers can get in some sound bites for alt-right media. Anyone who understands how our government works knows that nothing the so-called “Freedom Caucus” wants, like cutting Medicare, Social Security Medicaid and SNAP benefits, cuts to aid for Ukraine and their other radical agenda items has even a ghost of a chance of passing the Senate–that is, if it even gets out of the House, which it won’t because there are too many reasonable Republicans who know their constituents don’t support these things. The Republican “majority” is so thin that the extremists in the Republican party don’t have enough clout to overcome the more-reasonable members; but, they have shown that they will “fight” to get their way, with the net result that nothing valuable legislatively will be done.This is where an effective Speaker is supposed to use the power of their position to lead, but McCarthy already bargained that away. Just one member can vote to remove him, which they will if he doesn’t do what they want–that’s the sword that’s over his head. Plus, they’re planning multiple “revenge investigations” to retaliate for the J6 Committee. Biden will never sign any legislation they want, even if it passed, so we’ll just have to bide our time and watch our money get wasted on politically-motivated “investigations” with no tangible legislative achievements until these people get voted out in 2024.
NUTCHACHACHA,
Congratulations!
Such an illuminating screed, paid for by the [actual] American taxpayers for over a century now.
Imagine, a truly gifted person, such as yourself, might have accomplished this feat entirely of his own talents, acumen, volition, devices and gumption.
Do you really still need affirmative action and the panoply of assistance and entitlements you enjoy or may we finally be done with this charity and abolish these unconstitutional alms once and for all?
Oh, and may we impute a value and obtain commensurate REPARATIONS for the theft and illicit taxation of [actual] Americans to fund your crutches and sundry other forms of support?
Gigi: Why use two-thousand words when all you need is but a few. Try this next time: I hate Turley, he lies all the time. And I also hate anything that is conservative. But, I do love Biden and corrupt government.
There you go, give it a try…
I don’t hate Turley–I pity him for selling his credentials to serve as a Fox echo chamber, by ignoring the important political stories to harp about the unimportant and partisan political swill served up by Fox every night. I didn’t say Turley was lying, either–I have pointed out repeatedly that his writing is politically-motivated and is not neutral. He never misses an opportunity to criticize Democrats or Nancy Pelosi, and ignores, glosses over or spins important political stories as today’s post shows–McCarthy bargaining away the power of the Speaker just to get the gavel, with the result that the House will likely accomplish nothing useful–just political theater created by “investigations”, proposing legislation that will never get enacted into law because it is so radical and contrary to the values of most Americans. McCarthy cannot be an effective speaker because just one member can propose his removal if he doesn’t capitulate to his/her will. Republicans have no intention of trying to work with Democrats to move America forward, and Turley is just a hired mouthpiece to try to lend credibility to the process. Saying these things doesn’t amount to “hate”. Turley is routinely criticized by credible legal blogs, such as “Above the Law” and pieces in publications like “Salon” for the same things.
You don’t have anywhere near the merit, status, rank, value, worth or CV requisite to assess Professor Turley, much less “hate” anyone.
You require the crutch of the welfare assistance state, affirmative action, etc. to exist as a pseudo functional entity.
Are you a child of public housing too?
“…we’ll just have to bide our time and watch our money get wasted on politically-motivated “investigations” with no tangible legislative achievements until these people get voted out in 2024.”
OTOH, we will save time reversing the legislation when the rest of the politically-motivated “investigators” are ousted from power in 2024.
Your crocodile tears over money wasting is laughable, especially given your concern over such crap like Ukrainian aid.
Why even come here, we know what you’ve been told to think.
(Coming back online with an Afternoon refresher), two thoughts:
(1) Didn’t Congress used to have a Spending Reduction Account adopted by House Rule several years ago? I thought it allowed amendment proposals showing where any new budget increase could be offset by spending reductions in other provisions? We sure could use another one of those….
(2) OT: It is amusing that the same person who frequently begins his comments with “Turley is a hypocrite,” “Turley is disingenuous,” “Turley is a liar,” -is the one breathlessly appearing on this site, arguing for “engaging in real discussion.”
Spending Reduction Account right here!!!
_________________________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the [war] Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;…
_______
Congress has the power to tax for ONLY Debt, Defense and Infrastructure, aka general Welfare.
If Congress cannot tax for it, Congress cannot fund it.
General means “all or the whole,” distinctly not individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, charity or favor.
The poor, the young, the old, the minority, etc. are not “all or the whole” and cannot be taxed for.
Matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., DO NOT CONSTITUTE DEBT, DEFENSE OR GENERAL WELFARE and shall not be taxed for.
Most governmental employees MUST NOT exist and shall not be taxed for.
What part of Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution do you not understand?
Please, by all means, enlighten and edify me as to the error of my ways.
No, George, I need not edify you as to the error of your ways. We just happen to be talking about two different things.
Simply by posing the question you conjure the appearance of attempting to legitimize, not only wholly unconstitutional taxation that has no raison d’être, but the denial of the rights and freedoms of Americans protecting them from that very illicit, punitive and confiscatory taxation.
McCarthy is the biggest gator of them all but he’s called to heel by the Freedom Caucus. The biggest concession is the one member “vote of no confidence” which means he has to pay homage to the MAGAs. We’ll see how he does but I’m guessing Boehner redux. After that it’s Jordan.
Some things Mark Levin says I can agree with, but he really seems to like the swamp a bit much at times.
Things must be a bit better now as when I listened to some of his radio show tonight & all I could hear in my head was:
One of the things Levin says he’s PO’d about is Rep Andy Biggs, when he had a chance, didn’t support Levin/others call for Article 5 Convention of States.
I’ve wonder for it seems to decades that if what Levin,etc., have something valid that’s worth something to the US/States He should have writing it down on paper & offered it up to the public so that we could all consider his/their Brilliance that’s at least something close to the level of the Founders.
Anonymous says:
January 4, 2023 at 8:58 AM
Madison gave us a blueprint to follow! If parts of the U.S. Constitution are fundamentally flawed, Madison and the Framers also gave us a “constitutional-amendment process” to improve on that model.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/01/09/the-55th-speaker-kevin-mccarthy-is-no-nancy-pelosi-and-thats-a-good-thing/comment-page-2/#comment-2252976
I’m looking at McCarthy with an open mind. If he says that you have to pass the bill to learn what’s in it my worries will began. Just imagine such a statement being made by a Speaker of the House. Oh my, no imagination required.
Thinkitthrough: Humorously clever; I hope people reading your comment will remember what you are referring to…
Please keep in mind that many of the proposed House rules that were linked to earlier contain conservative policy preferences and limitations on what members can do — see the many examples of it “shall not be in order to”.
Nancy, take off that “Bumpkin From Bakersfield” costume!
______________________________________________
“The President bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters.”
– Kevin “The Bumpkin From Bakersfield” McCarthy, RINO In Chief
@ 0:12
PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHO THE —- DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TALKING TO?
“It was reported on February 12 that McCarthy called Trump asking for help during the riot. Trump refused to send the National Guard, saying, “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” McCarthy responded, “Who the f— do you think you are talking to?” This was reported to CNN by multiple Republican members of Congress, including Jaime Herrera Beutler and Anthony Gonzalez.[151]”
– Wiki
_____
“An official timeline of the Jan. 6 tragedy assembled by Capitol Police shows that a Defense Department official reached out to a Capitol Police deputy chief, Sean Gallagher, on Jan. 2, 2021 to see if a request for troops was forthcoming, but the offer was quickly rejected after a consultation with then-Chief Steve Sund.”
– John Solomon
36 YEARS AS A “SWAMP” RINO
Chief RINO And “BUMPKIN” McCarthy has been a parasite suckling at the government teat since 1987 as a “staffer” beginning a “CAREER” in politics.
President Trump worked in the private sector; he was elected and held political office for only four years – exactly as the Founders intended.
@George…
Trump offered the use of National Guard to Pelosi before Jan 6th.
The responsibility of protecting the capitol goes to Pelosi who refused it.
Please READ!
Please read John Solomon above.
President Trump’s DOD asked Capitol Police Deputy Chief, Sean Gallagher, if he wanted federal troops, the offer was then rejected by Chief Steve Sund, on behalf of Pelosi.
Yes, and we have not been able to see any of the emails between Speaker Pelosi and the Sargeants at Arms.
Have you seen the “e-mails” between Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln?
The dialogue is eminently illuminating, causing Americans to understand the forces behind the elementary shift to the current communist enslavement after merely 71 years of constitutional freedom.
“RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
Not just America, the whole d—- world.
Marx and “Crazy Abe” were voraciously greedy.
George, to the best of my knowledge, there was one letter from Marx and a reply not even written by Lincoln. It was very much like the form letter sent by politicians today. I see nothing in the letter to indicate any love of Marxism by Lincoln, and since he didn’t pen the words, Lincoln must not have thought enough of Marx.
SO, NO E-MAILS?
THE MARX GANG WAS KICKED OUT OF EUROPE ON THREAT OF PROSECUTION AND ENDED UP IN ILLINOIS, THE LAND OF LINCOLN, RIGHT?
“Carl Schurz [was a] participant of the 1848 revolution in Germany, he immigrated to the United States and became the 13th United States Secretary of the Interior.”
– Wiki
Lincoln, for some reason and by some means, encountered and espoused Marx’s pejoratives “capitalist” and “fleece the people” as far back as 1837.
Letter – Marx/Lincoln https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
__________________________________________________________________________________
“…THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD.”
– KARL MARX TO ABRAHAM LINCOLN
___________
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
– Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
__________________________________________________________
“Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”
– Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
______________________________________________________________________________________
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
__________________
“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864
___________________________________________________________________
“ON DECEMBER 3, 1861, a former one-term congressman, who had spent most of the past dozen years studying dissident economic theories, mounting challenges to the existing political order and proposing ever more radical responses to the American crisis, delivered his first State of the Union address as the sixteenth president of the United States.
“Long before 1848, German radicals had begun to arrive in Illinois, where they quickly entered into the legal and political circles in which Lincoln traveled. One of them, Gustav Korner, was a student revolutionary at the University of Munich who had been imprisoned by German authorities in the early 1830s for organizing illegal demonstrations. After his release, Korner returned to his hometown of Frankfurt am Main where, according to historian Raymond Lohne, “he was one of about fifty conspirators involved in an attack upon the two main city guardhouses and the arsenal at the police facility and jail. This admixture of students and soldiers had planned to seize cannon, muskets, and ammunition; free political prisoners accused of breaking press-censorship laws, and begin ringing the great Sturmglocke (storm bell) of the Dom, the signal for the people to come in from the countryside. At that point, the democratic revolution would be announced…. Unfortunately, they were walking into a trap…. Betrayed by both a spy in their midst, and the reluctance of the common people to rise, nine students were killed, twenty-four were seriously wounded, and by August 3, 1833, Gustav Körner found himself riding into downtown Belleville, Illinois.”
“Within a decade, Korner would pass the Illinois bar, win election to the legislature and be appointed to the state Supreme Court. Korner and Lincoln formed an alliance that would become so close that the student revolutionary from Frankfurt would eventually be one of seven personal delegates-at-large named by Lincoln to serve at the critical Republican State Convention in May 1860, which propelled the Springfield lawyer into that year’s presidential race. Through Korner, Lincoln met and befriended many of the German radicals who, after the failure of the 1848 revolution, fled to Illinois and neighboring Wisconsin. Along with Korner on Lincoln’s list of personal delegates-at-large to the 1860 convention was Friedrich Karl Franz Hecker, a lawyer from Mannheim who had served as a liberal legislator in the lower chamber of the Baden State Assembly before leading an April 1848 uprising in the region—an uprising cheered on by the newspaper Marx briefly edited during that turbulent period, Neue Rheinische Zeitung—Organ der Demokratie.
“Even as they agreed on homesteading, Greeley and Lincoln wrangled over the timing and scope of an emancipation proclamation. The editor joined Frederick Douglass in demanding that the president take steps to make the Civil War not merely a struggle to preserve the Union, but “an Abolition war.” Even as Greeley and Lincoln exchanged sometimes pointed letters, the Tribune’s longtime managing editor Charles Dana was now working for Lincoln. Officially assigned to the War Department — where he would eventually serve as assistant secretary — Dana’s real role was as an aide and adviser to the president on questions of what the former newspaperman described as the “judicious, humane, and wise uses of executive authority.” That Lincoln spent much of his presidency reading dispatches from and welcoming the counsel of Marx’s longtime editor—like the fact that he awarded military commissions to the numerous comrades of the author of The Communist Manifesto who had come to the United States as political refugees following the failed European revolutions of 1848—is a shard of history rarely seen in the hagiographic accounts that produce a sanitized version of the sixteenth president’s story. In the years following Lincoln’s death, his law partner and political comrade, William Herndon, complained that Lincoln’s official biographers were already attempting “to make the story with the classes as against the masses,” an approach that he suggested “will result in delineating the real Lincoln about as well as does a wax figure in the museum.”
– ISR International Socialist Review
“SO, NO E-MAILS?”
GEORGE, That is funny. No e-mails and only one non-descript reply by someone other than Lincoln thousands of miles away with NO TELEPHONE.
Not so funny is your implication based on a quote you are taking out of context. Here is the quote, in context, showing the opposite of what you are trying to portray. Try harder.
“I am decidedly opposed to the people’s money being used to pay the fiddler. No one can doubt that the examination proposed by this resolution, must cost the State some ten or twelve thousand dollars; and all this to settle a question in which the people have no interest, and about which they care nothing. ^^^These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people,^^^ and now, that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people’s money to settle the quarrel.”
George, lacking context to prove a point is the leftist method for argument. Are you the real George? 🙂
When Twitter unblocked Trump’s account that made it visible to everyone again.
Including tweets on J6 at 1pm and 3pm respectively asking protestors to protest peacefully and to respect the blue.
Because the Republican party was the party of law and order.
I forget the sources for the moment – but recent published news stories have confirmed that Pelosi killed the national guard offer.
She also delayed the NG by calling Gov. Hogan and Northam and asking for the NG – which they do not have the authority to do.
Neither can deploy the guard outside of their state – only the president can do that.
While she could have called the DC NG comandant who was ready. waiting an pre-authorized by Trump. All he needed was a request from the Capitol.
If you’re trying to find Dr Turley’s article about chuck todd, try this link (quickly):
https://ussanews.com/2023/01/09/getting-personal-chuck-todd-dismisses-investigation-into-possible-biden-influence-peddling/
kennedyobrien, there are ‘a few adjectives’ added’ that were not in the original blog!😄
It is about time!
I fully support the efforts of the Renegade Republicans in attempting to open up the procedures of the House. I think it’s a good thing that an all-powerful Speaker is unable to bottle up legislation from being debated just because the Speaker doesn’t like the ideas in the proposed legislation. But I think it’s important that the Speaker not be all-powerful. An anti-Pelosi model is the ideal way to go.
Yes, there are parts of these rules that I would disagree with. But I am not the person that has to follow those rules; that is the job of the legislators. But if someone is campaigning for the job of Speaker of the House, then it is that individual’s prerogative to offer ideas for why he or she should be elected to that post. I was satisfied that this debate took place in public, rather than behind the scenes; then there would be no idea of what concessions to the power of the Speaker’s post took place.
On a side note, I would like to (figuratively) knock Dana Milbank upside the head with a baseball bat for his comment that “the terrorists have won.” Terrorism is the act of taking control of (in this case) a process by the use of non-political means. It does have other definitions, but that’s beyond the point. What we witnessed was the taking control of the process entirely by political means; therefore, this was not a terrorist action, no matter how far Milbank wants to think otherwise.
Prof. Turley: They were just talking about this: Getting “Personal”: Chuck Todd Dismisses Investigation into Possible Biden Influence Peddling on Red Eye (I listen to the podcast in the a.m.) when I came across your email, so I thought I would see what your opinion is. But when I clicked onto it, it’s not there. Any reason. Thanks.
See his 10:53am comment: https://jonathanturley.org/2023/01/09/the-55th-speaker-kevin-mccarthy-is-no-nancy-pelosi-and-thats-a-good-thing/comment-page-2/#comment-2252753
The sheep bleat about democracy but want an authoritarian ruler.
Cry out about free speech but want censorship.
Scream “No man is above the Law” but want to end all investigations into an apparent case of bribery and influence peddling.
Par for the course
So: the damned few are the rebels of present. These wily rebels only want Trust and Accountability; Legislation that is Focused, Amendable and Readable; No Leadership Involvement in Primaries including political proxies; Conservative representation on Committees and Chairs; A firm Plan to end Limitless Spending; Use legislation to restrain President Biden’s spending; Style a Church like commission to investigate government actions against citizens; and other issues as highlighted by our host.
The rebellious Republicans that held up the vote for Speaker sprinkled a little hope for the future, that just maybe there is a shift back towards Law and Order, and a government by and for the people.
Earlier, Hullbobby articulated the problem here where we have a whole slew of comment-bombing leftist trolls making this comment space all but unusable by people who just want to have a normal conversation. There’s no preventing them, but there is something that can help: ignore the trolls, and by all means don’t feed them. I repeat: don’t feed the trolls. It just makes them come back for more food.
Great advice, I myself succumb sometimes when the idiocy of a comment overwhelms by common sense.
oldmanfromkansas,
Hear! Hear!
There are some whom I make a point of reading or looking for their comments.
Others, just scroll past.
Jim22 and I just had an interesting exchange.
I have had more than a few with Lin, HullBobby, James, S. Meyer (if I regretted not voting for Trump in 2016 or 2020), John Say and several others.
HonestOldLawyer and Lin provide for some very interesting legal analysis and observations, which I as a layman do appreciate.
And, of course, our host the good professor.
Upstate Farmer always adds worth to the conversation! Thank you Upstate.
It’s really strange that those who post differing views or opinions on the matter or just responding to a post is considered trolling because it’s annoying to be faced with a different view or even a view that is disagreeable to an extent.
The entire point of this blog is to encourage exactly that kind of discussion and discussion. Yet you have those like Hullbobby and others who want to make this blog into a safe space, a comfortable echo chamber, where you can be free from criticism and ridicule at your ideas and comments. All of which ARE part of the free speech sphere that Turley is always fighting for.
You can ignore it all you like and it’s perfectly fine. BUT I bet the comments you supposedly do wish to ignore are read anyway.
When you have a contrary view expressed, one that you vehemently disagree with and oppose that is when you engage in discussion. That doesn’t any agreement will be reached. But there will be a discussion and that is the purpose of this site. There are a few posters who will engage in discussion no matter how protracted it is. Then there are those who skulk away from a discussion because it becomes difficult or complex.
Svelaz, I do consider you a troll because you never post any information that supports your position. When confronted with facts on an issue you never respond with countervailing information. As an example, on many occasions you have said that books are being banned. When I’ve asked you to provide a list of books that are banned you never respond. Therefore, in your case the application of the word troll is properly applied. Without the proper support an opinion is just a clanging cymbal. We hear the sound here every day.
TiT, “ Svelaz, I do consider you a troll because you never post any information that supports your position.”
Never say never. You have shown yourself to be a liar on this blog regarding claims as such. Don’t go paining yourself into a corner now.
If your criteria for labeling someone a troll is lack of information supporting a position you should count yourself in that category as well as everyone else here.
Svelaz, I support my posts with information every day. You never do. Anyone who frequents this blog will see that I post many links to support my position and you do not. Once again I ask you to provide a list of books that have been banned. Where is your list?
You lie every day. It’s one of your favorite ways of trolling.
“ Svelaz, I support my posts with information every day. ”
LOL!!! You lie every day. The comment I quoted is one of two you’ve said so far.
Svelaz, once again you will not answer. What books are being banned? You never answer. Your answer is you lie. So well thought out and presented as a junior level argument. Next you will call me a doo doo head to support your position. Well done.
“ Your answer is you lie. So well thought out and presented as a junior level argument. Next you will call me a doo doo head to support your position.”
Huh? Well you DO lie. That’s not in dispute.
As for the books you’re gonna have to narrow down which ones you think I was referring to .
it’s annoying to be faced with
a different viewrepeating lies, or even a viewoldmanfromkansas, the trolls are going to be here whether you like it or not. Letting them go unanswered is not an option. It is obvious that there are people who visit this blog often with an open mind who want to evaluate all sides of any given issue. To allow the trolls to dominate the conversation without rebuttal based on facts is not a good plan of action. You may have made up your mind on the issues but for those who are still weighing things one way or another a vigorous debate of the positions of the trolls is imperative to the conversation. Convincing the trolls is most often a lost cause but there are some minds that can be changed. Starving the arguments of the trolls is not feeding them. It’s exposing their thoughts through presenting proper evidence in opposition.
Thinkitthrough – I can certainly understand and respect your position. Perhaps you and I have different objectives in the use of the comment space. Either way the good Professor is to be commended for providing it.
oldmanfromkansas, I agree that Professor Turley is providing a space for debate. The good Professor is presenting his opinion for the purpose of changing minds. I believe that we should follow suit. Otherwise what is the point. I appreciate your wanting to avoid an argument but if you are participating on this blog you do indeed do it for arguments sake. Avoiding contention on this forum is just not possible. From one old man to another, fight on.
That right there.
A civil exchange of ideas or POV between OldManFromKS and TiT.
Interesting.
Thinkitthrough – I like to engage in argument in the sense of a conversation about the issues. Some people comment-bomb and clutter up the space with umpteen comments, answering everyone, and doing so in a kind of a nasty tone.
Generally speaking, I start by assuming good motives, and continue with that assumption until proven otherwise. But once I’m convinced someone is commenting just to cause contention – kind of like static that gets in the way of a clear signal – I ignore them. I figure if I respond it just encourages more static.
Sometimes a person I assumed to be arguing in good faith, because their comments are a little more thorough, proves me wrong . . . such as when one person misquoted the Professor in order to bash him; when I pointed out the misquotation he refused to acknowledge it even though it was there in black and white. Others just start with very short nasty-grams and continue that way, so it becomes obvious from the start what they’re about.
Oldmanfromkans, “comment bombing” nothing more than responding to multiple posters and offering multiple opinions on different claims on the column. It’s LITERALLY what this whole blog is about. There are others here who also just offer ad hominem attacks and personal insults because it’s what they do best instead of engage in real discussion. There are FEW who do engage in discussion and do get heated at times. That is NORMAL on this blog.
When I offer a contradictory opinion or state the different point of view I”M the one who is “attacked” because my different point of view is considered immediately as trolling. That is not honestly engaging in a discussion and it’s actually a way to deflect from going deeper into an issue.
Tit, says, “ It is obvious that there are people who visit this blog often with an open mind who want to evaluate all sides of any given issue.”
Hogwash, you label anyone who posts an opposing view or contradicting comments as a troll. Then you proceed to lie and put words in their mouth to justify YOUR trolling behavior and lying. You “evaluate” all sides by labeling anything you disagree with as trolling.
Very much agreed. It’s a chore, but the trolls have to be addressed. Assuming they won’t he is the whole premise of comment bombing, and has been for many years. They do it on purpose. It’s better if the replies outpace the trolls. Given how idiotic and blatantly false their comments are, it isn’t even terribly difficult, just frustrating.
Thank you Oldman, I will try to take your advice.
Amen! Professor Turley…..with the Supreme Court’s recent decisions trimming the power of the Federal Government and more often looking to the Constitution instead of political views in making Decisions…..perhaps there is hope for us yet.
Now if the Ethics Committee’s and DOJ will do their jobs in holding members of Congress to the Rules and Laws by prosecuting those culpable of misconduct…..we might just see some change in the way Congress feathers its own nest at the direct expense of the Taxpayer.
Now we need a similar movement in the Senate and a Republican President elected in the 2024 Election that will use the power of that Office to cut spending and turn the DOJ back into a non-partisan agency.
One thing is for sure…..Congress and the Federal Government must be reformed and cleansed of radical incompetent political hacks by whatever means required.
Just as an aside: To all of the people that want to blame Brazil on Trump and Republicans I say ok, but let’s blame Venezuela on Bernie, AOC and the Democrats. The people of Brazil are upset because they know that what comes next is what happened to Venezuela and they know they are doomed. Of course the left doesn’t care, I can still see Sean Penn, Dannty Glover and others lapping at the feet of Hugo Chavez and the marxists in Venezuela. Of course now they are silent.
The left does the damage and then they silently walk away. See Cambodia, Venezuela, China, the Soviets of the 30s and 40s when the NY Times was calling Uncle Joe Stalin a great man and there wasn’t a famine going on. The libs are all little Walter Durantys.
It was your Trump who called Putin’s invasion of Ukraine “brilliant!”
george227, here’s what Trump said about Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. “So, Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well.” Trump was saying that Putin was saying that part of the Ukraine was independent to justify the invasion. Trump was saying that Putin was hiding behind the “independent narrative to justify his actions. He was simply saying that Putin is a crafty guy not that he was approving of his actions. george227, you should apply a proper link so that we can determine for ourselves what Trump said in context. We can certainly expect that you will not do so in the future do to your malady known as TDS.
You left off the beginning of the quote: “I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful”
It’s not a “peace force.” Putin started a war. It’s not wonderful. It’s not genius or savvy to start a war. It’s horrible and disgusting.
Anonymous, Trump was saying that it was political genius for Putin to say he was supporting the independence of a part of Ukraine. Putin was using the independence ploy to give his allies an excuse to support him (see China). Understanding the mind of your enemy is not a weakness. The existence of an evil genius does not just happen in the comic books. An intelligent mind gone wrong is not an unusual occurrence. Trump was pointing out this reality. He was telling us to beware of such a mind because he understands the nature of man. Get it?
LOL that you think it’s “political genius” for Putin to lie, as he routinely does. China doesn’t need an excuse to support Putin. It consistently does what it believes is in its own best interests. Only an idiot doesn’t understand that Putin is evil. I doubt that you needed Trump to explain it to you.
Did Putin do this when Trump was in the whitehouse?
Anonymous – the endless wars we are waging, or supporting, in the Middle East, are also horrible and disgusting.
I agree, but Trump was not discussing any of those wars in his comment, which is what I was responding about. Trump was only commenting on the war that Putin started in Ukraine, lying that Putin was a “peacekeeper” and calling it “wonderful.”
Anonymous – But for some reason, people (perhaps not including you) will denounce Putin as a warmonger but refuse to acknowledge that that we have been behind wars against Arab peoples, which have cost a greater loss of life than that brought about by Putin in Ukraine. And, Trump, to his credit, was a critic of the war against Iraq.
“You left off the beginning of the quote:”
Another one who has difficulty with understanding the English language. But worse, he accepts a quote without proof of its legitimacy. That is something he does all the time. Can’t be trusted.
TiT,
Thank you for providing the actual quote to let us judge for ourselves rather than a drive by one liner that amounts to just about nothing.
One can admire a foes actions, tactics and strategy. It gives insight to that tactician’s mind which can be used to exploit a weakness or avoid a tactical error.
People need to read The Art of War, by Sun Tzu.
The Klingon version of The Art of War is not bad either. 😉
@george
Simply disagreeing and casting aspersions is not ‘debate’. As expected, You are a run of the mill troll.
Lula is hardly Chavez, and nothing excuses yesterday’s violence and destruction.
You know Lula was already once Brazil’s leader, right?
(It appears that some commenters here have interpreted my statement that congressional sessions “not devolve/be reduced to unruly shouting matches like the British Parliament” to mean that I oppose open and spirited debate or argument.
NOT….and to the contrary!
I am only referring to “unruly” conduct and vitriolic speech. I stand by that, as I don’t think such conduct inspires prospective generations of intelligent, debate-capable, and results-by-reconciliation type persons that we need.)
Lin, there is always going to be “unruly” and vitriolic speech in any lively debate. It’s expected,as it is the very essence of free speech. It should be expected. The British parliament has perfected that vitriolic speech and the “heckling” that goes on, It’s part of the debates and it’s much more honest and they do abide by certain rules that are indeed enforced by the speaker. Those “shouting” matches should be encouraged.
Nobody has said it’s exciting to watch congress debate an issue. It’s outright boring. When Britain’s parliament engages in debate it’s engaging even to the audience because of those “shouting matches” there is a deliberate method to their “shouting”.
Hi Everyone, I just wanted to explain why a blog posting appeared and disappeared. It is not your computer. It was a glitch on my end. That draft was prematurely posted and will appear later.
I hope that you’ll correct the false statement that the “laptop was authenticated.” The laptop is in the FBI’s possession and has not been authenticated. Some of the contents from the copied hard drive have been authenticated; most have not.
It looks like it’s tomorrow’s blog post which was inadvertently posted today. That glitch was more of a human “oops” moment than a glitch.
Have the proposed rules been published anywhere? I have seen conflicting accounts of what they include. For example, some say the agreement to hold spending to the FY 2022 level is in the rules and others say it is not.
I believe that this is the current version, but am not certain:
https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules118.house.gov/files/BILLS-118hresPIH-118th-rules-of-the-house-of-reps-V3.pdf
Thanks. I didn’t see anything in it limiting expenditures to the amounts for FY 2022.
Good to have a mind reader around
No mind reading involved. As Turley noted, it was posted briefly, during which time I read it.
When you breastfed on your mother, did you complain that you had to suck too hard?
How long do you reckon it will take the FBI to authenticate the Laptop? 2024 is just around the corner .. . and the clock is ticking.
*Snowden for President 2024 ‘I Can Authenticate The Laptop in 3 Minutes or Less’
Nothing has been found to be fake.
But you at least admit all that has become public is real
Plenty has been found to be altered after the FBI took possession of the actual laptop: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/
You do know that the vaunted WAPO has declared Russia did NOT influence the 2016 election. Something I, and millions of others have been saying forever. My standard response. $200k in facebook ads, in a campaign that combined, spent $2 Billion influenced nothing.
Apparently you fail to understand the meaning of “authenticated”. It is “authentic” if it is what it purports to be; Hunter’s laptop. Not a Russian plant, which the DNC and its government lackeys bamboozled the public into believing just long enough to get past the election. For the laptop to be “authentic” all of its contents need not be proven accurate or true.
The laptop has not been authenticated at Hunter Biden’s.
A fraction of the contents of the “copied” hard drive have been authenticated. The majority of the contents have not been authenticated. Some of the contents of the copied hard drive have been shown to have been tampered with.
Same old lie.
Nothing has been found that is some sort of disinformation. There exists nothing to call into question any of the data.
All of the modified data on the “copy” that occurred after the actual laptop was turned over to the FBI calls into question everything that was modified.
“All of the modified data on the “copy””
You must know all about the modified data so you can tell us what it is and how it is pertinent to the material on the laptop.
You can’t? Why not.?
ATS, you are spinning again.
Has Hunter denied the legitimacy of the laptop?. No.
Has he claimed anything produced from the laptop was wrong? No.
Same for Joe Biden.
Same for all the data.
Same for all the people discussed in the laptop.
So far you are batting 0. We await your proof that the laptop is not genuine and that anything on the laptop was Russian disinformation. Eventually such an attitude becomes laughable.
LOL
“The laptop is in the FBI’s possession and has not been authenticated.”
How do you know that?
And might we see the results of that investigation before the next appearance of Halley’s comet?
Vir ipsa loquitur: “The guy himself speaks.” Another nice column. Thanks for the clarification.
Thank you for keeping us in the loop professor.
Keep up the good work.
As Charles Krauthammer would remind us: “The process has been messy, loud, disputatious and often rancorous. So what? In the end, the system works.” Holdouts to McCarthy have forced Washington to finally confront the national debt. Krauthammer would consider it a “triumph of democratic politics – a powerful shift in popular will finding concrete political expression.”
Ron A. Hoffman,
Thank you.
That quote speaks to my thoughts exactly.
As I responded to Jim22, only time will tell if there is real change.
How about we start with doing away with the thing that drove our national debt to record levels thanks to Trump–tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy corporations and individuals? Raising revenue is one way to do this. We also need to fund additional IRS agents to conduct audits so we can catch the wealthy tax cheaters out there and speed up the paperwork backlog caused by Trump cutting IRS’s operating budget. Those are 2 good starts–but the Republicans absolutely won’t do either–they’ll take away or cut back on retirement and disability benefits and food aid to needy families first–just like they promised.
We have reached a point when raising revenue is not nearly enough. What is required the most is ceasing indiscriminate and imprudent spending.
Dear Prof Turley,
There’s no need to sugar coat it.
The ‘weaponization of congress’ can get us all killed. Literally. .. they’re quite power-mad, you know.
*Behold a pale horse .. . and its name is Ukraine.
Meanwhile, violent right-wing insurrectionists stormed the Brazilian Congress yesterday — Bolsonaro-backers denying that he lost the election, reminiscent of the destructive MAGAs who stormed the Capitol 2 years ago.
You do a great job of mouthing the words put into your head. Good luck with your ascent in the media, they need more acritical thinkers with middle-school needs of collectivism like you. Go get your treat from your master. Baaaaa-baaaaaaa.
“Baaaaa-baaaaaaa.” Are you a sheep?
I figured that bleat would have you come calling.
The banner that they wer rallying around said “WE WANT THE SOURCE CODE.” As in the US, the issue isn’t just questions about the legitimacy of the election, but the steadfast refusal to allow forensic audits.
The issue is that they resorted to violence and destruction.
Like antifa and BLM
Antifa and BLM didn’t attack the Brazilian Congress and Supreme Court. Nor did they attack the US Congress and Supreme Court.
Antifa and BLM didn’t attack the Brazilian Congress
I never said they did.
You said
The issue is that they resorted to violence and destruction.
I said. Just like Antifa and BLM
You brought up “destructive maga”. Because that’s just how you roll.
Yes, the riot in Brazil was reminiscent of the destructive MAGAs who stormed the US Capitol 2 years ago.
Meanwhile Venezuela is the responsibility of Bernie Sanders and AOC…right?
I didn’t suggest that it was the responsibility of any American politician, so that’s quite the non sequitur.
In Venezuela (as in North Korea, Iran, and Cuba) it’s the government that uses violence, so the leftists see no problem there.
Meanwhile Hullbobby makes his 50th post of the day. Come on. Let some of us post something too. Quit hogging the discussion.
Gotta be pretty desperate to reference Brazil to take cheap political potshots.
All Pelosi needed was a bad hair dye job and a red nose to complete her ensemble.