Monumental TURD Mitch McConnell REFUSING to seat Doug Jones Until AFTER Tax Scam vote

[CousinIT]

I read Turtle Turd is refusing to seat Jones for a MONTH so they can ram the "screw the middle class & poor" tax scam through (which I think is going to hurt the f*ck out of more of us DUers than we realize).

http://verifiedpolitics.com/mitch-mcconnell-vows-not-seat-democratically-elected-doug-jones-tax-vote/

In other words, McConnell is going to pull a “Merrick Garland,” keeping Democrat Doug Jones from voting against the Senate tax scam just as McConnell stopped Republicans from performing their constitutional duty to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court pick so Republicans could illegally seat Neil Gorsuch as a Justice.

We need some NEW LAWS that PREVENT McConnell and others like him from pulling a "Merrick Garland" when it comes to seating senators, congresspersons, judges and justices.

[Achilleaze]

1. You knew the KGOP repugs had a Plan B to go low

that's who they are.

[treestar]

2. On what ground?

Good God, Turtle never fails to be abusively partisan.

[Mr. Ected]

3. Turnabout will be fair play

The Dems will need to give them a taste of their own medicine when the tables are turned in the future.

The only rationale needed would be that turnabout is fair play. We're Democrats; we don't normally countenance such partisan behavior, but the only way to stop this nonsense is to dish it right back.

Nuff said.

[NurseJackie]

28. Agreed 100% ... but the "go-high" people tend to disagree. Even though...

... such a noble philosophy is one that constantly puts Democrats at a distinct disadvantage.

[treestar]

55. Republicans have to learn their lesson the hard way

We have to bite the bullet and do it - then they will learn and only then.

[MurrayDelph]

68. But if/when we do

these same Republicans will go on Faux News and angrily decry the "unprecedented obstructionism."

[democratisphere]

4. redumbliCONs are NOW looking over their shoulders because the

Democrats are coming to remove them from office. Vote "NO" on the tax shill or be prepared to be lose your job.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. He has to wait until AL certifies the election

which is supposed to happen "by the end of the month" (meaning if they force the tax vote "by Christmas" or around then, then the election might not have been certified by then anyway).

[BigmanPigman]

6. The Tax Scam is not finalized...let's bury it once and for all!

Last edited Wed Dec 13, 2017, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

We did it with the ACA repeal and the grass roots efforts will do it again. We will not pay more so the 1% gets richer and we become more poor, sick and suffer. CALL THEM! [phone]
Get everyone you know to call. Let's bury Mitch and Ryan once and for all! It takes two minutes...NO EXCUSES!
https://notonepenny.org/take-action/?p2asource=20171204tmemail

[bdamomma]

15. Thanks Bigman

just sent off e mails to my reps and senators.

[BigmanPigman]

75. You are a great Dem, THANK YOU!!!!!

[Dave Starsky]

7. Gasp.

Who could have seen this coming.

[still_one]

8. As I understand it, Alabama won't certify the election until Janurary. The republicans have 8 days

to come up with something before their recess. If they are able to do that, then there is very little to stop them unless those 2 or 3 republican Senators who expressed concern with the bill vote no on the reconciliation.

However, if that doesn't happen, and Alabama certifies the election early in January, if McConnell tries delay seating the newly elected Alabama Senator, by refusing to seat him for a month, I believe he would be underestimating the repercussions of that action, which effectively denies the citizens of Alabama their Senate representations, and those repercussions will be felt by the republican party in 2018, which if the Democrats are able to take back the Senate and the House, they might be able to undo the most draconian elements of this tax bill, and prevent 2019, where the full effects of the bill take place from happening

[0rganism]

31. iirc their evil tax scam vote has to happen by Dec 31...

... or it becomes subject to filibuster

[still_one]

45. Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen. we can only depend on a handful of

republicans, and that Collins voted to have it sent to the house the first time doesn't give me much confidence

[tritsofme]

59. Actually the Dec 31 deadline is entirely artificial

I believe they would have until 9/30 to pass a bill under the current reconciliation instructions.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

58. Luther Strange should be declared a "lame duck" (which he technically has been for awhile)

and rendered unable to vote for anything else. I know that's not going to happen, of course, but it should.

McConnell should also be prohibited from pushing through this tax scam before Jones gets seated but we all know that won't happen either.

Where's "regular order" McCain when you need him?

[still_one]

61. Thanks for enlightening me, appreciate it

[Proud Liberal Dem]

62. Just ranting

[still_one]

65. It was more than that. A lot of good information in your comment

[Proud Liberal Dem]

67. Are you being serious?

[still_one]

69. yup

[Proud Liberal Dem]

70. In that case, you're welcome

[DrDan]

9. you do realize that votes need to be certified by Alabama SOS prior to ANYONE being seated

[Lee-Lee]

11. But that doesnt make for a great headline to be outraged about

I swear, we just had an amazing win last night- we have a Democratic Senator from fucking ALABAMA!!!!!!- and people can’t even bask in that glorious win 12 hours before looking for something to be outraged about that isn’t even a real issue.

We won. It’s a big fucking deal people. Quit looking for reasons to be downers about it.

[DrDan]

12. you are correct . . . anything for a good poutrage

[PunksMom]

33. Right on!

[Roland99]

35. Like that will be a timely process.

[DrDan]

50. there are guidelines the State must follow

[ancianita]

10. This sounds like a pattern of abuse of power -- impeachable, unlikely as that is.

[onenote]

13. Wrong on all counts.

First, whether and when someone gets seated as a newly elected Senator is determined by the Senate rules, not McConnell
Second, those rules spell out a process that requires the Secretary of State of the newly elected Senator's state to submit a certification to the Secretary of the Senate. Once the certification is received, it is a ministerial act over which the Secretary has little discretion, for the certification to be accepted and new Senator to be seated.
Third, Senators can't be impeached.

[Baitball Blogger]

16. What is the expected timeframe for all of this to happen?

[onenote]

18. It generally takes around two weeks.

For example, Scott Brown won a special election held on January 19, 2010. He wasn't seated until February 4, 2010.

[Baitball Blogger]

20. Do you know the timetable for the tax deal?

I thought the Senate had already voted on that terrible bill.

[onenote]

23. They need to vote again. And they'll try to do so as early as next week

[Baitball Blogger]

24. Thank you. n/t

[NewJeffCT]

37. and, Democrats delayed the important Obamacare vote

until Brown was seated

[ancianita]

17. Okay. Guess I assumed the OP title was correct. Guess it was just provocative.

[Demsrule86]

21. Baloney...they will drag their feet...get ready for the shit show.

[ancianita]

41. I was just going along with being called wrong. I agree with you on the shit show, IF Dems call

them on it.

[Demsrule86]

42. Well after they refused to do their constitutional duty and seat Merrick Garland, we can expect more

of the same...I hope I am wrong, but I don't know if they will seat Franken's replacement at all...They may seat Jones as they hope he will vote with them...I don't think he will. Time will tell.

[ancianita]

48. The politics of spite never sleeps.

[Demsrule86]

54. The Republicans are capable of anything.

[Baitball Blogger]

14. Is there any process that can undermine Mitch's meddling?

[onenote]

22. In fact, McConnell has little or nothing to do with it.

As explained elsewhere in this thread, the Senate's rules determine when a newly elected Senator can be sworn in and those rules require the Secretary of the Senate to have received the certification of the election from the Secretary of State of the state in which the newly elected senator resides -- a process that generally takes around two weeks, sometimes a bit more (but likely will take a bit longer because of the holidays).

[Baitball Blogger]

30. Thank you again.

Hopefully, the holidays will push the vote back to next year.

[Demsrule86]

43. And what will happen if McConnell refuses to seat Jones and any replacement for Franken, they have

the last word..

"A few years after the Powell decision, the Supreme Court clearly affirmed the right of the
Senate to make the final and conclusive determination concerning the election process and the
seating of its own Members. In the case of contests or challenges properly raised concerning the
election or selection of a Senator, the Court affirmed the constitutional authority for “an
independent evaluation by the Senate” of the selection of those presenting themselves for
membership. Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15, 25-26 (1972)."

And for those who tell me it can't happen...two words Merrick Garland. I hope it doesn't happen, but I won't make the mistake of underestimating the Republicans.

[tonyt53]

51. BINGO!!!

[Demsrule86]

19. Mark my words, McConnell will not seat Franken's replacement.

Last edited Wed Dec 13, 2017, 10:53 AM - Edit history (1)

They have to seat Senator Jones...he won an election...but the Powell ruling does not include the word appointed...Franken should not resign for this reason alone.

After I wrote this I came across a later ruling..."Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15, 25-26 (1972)." Now I am not sure they need to seat anyone. The wording sounds very much like 'advise and consent'. And look what happened to Merrick Garland.

[Baitball Blogger]

25. I think Franken will still be serving when the next vote comes in.

He said he would resign at the end of the year.

[Demsrule86]

38. And when he resigns...what makes you think his replacement will be seated...I know some

on this site have stated that this can not happen, but it can happen. We could be one Senator down until the election in 18.

...A few years after the Powell decision, the Supreme Court clearly affirmed the right of the
Senate to make the final and conclusive determination concerning the election process and the
seating of its own Members. In the case of contests or challenges properly raised concerning the
election or selection of a Senator, the Court affirmed the constitutional authority for “an
independent evaluation by the Senate” of the selection of those presenting themselves for
membership. Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15, 25-26 (1972). "

[onenote]

27. As I've pointed out before, the Powell case involved a House seat

And House seats can ONLY be filled by an election, so of course the decision referenced an election.

Senate vacancies, by the express terms of the Constitution, can be filled by appointment. There is no leeway for McConnell to refuse to seat Franken's replacement. In fact, it's not even McConnell's decision. Its governed by the Senate rules, which even contain a model form for a state to use in certifying the appointment of a Senator -- a certification that the Secretary of the Senate (not McConnell) has little leeway to reject, as was determined when the Secretary of the Senate tried to hold up the seating of Roland Burris as Obama's replacement.

But I'll definitely mark your words so I can point out to you -- again -- that you didn't know what you were talking about.

[Demsrule86]

34. Both parties have refused to seat Senators in the past.

Consider this...

"Louis C. Wyman (R-New Hampshire) was declared the victor of the US Senate contest in 1974 in New Hampshire by a narrow margin on Election Day (355 votes). A first recount gave the election instead to John A. Durkin (D-New Hampshire) by ten votes, but a second recount swung the result back to Wyman by only two votes. The state of New Hampshire certified Wyman as the winner, but Durkin appealed to the Senate, which had a sixty vote Democratic majority. The Senate refused to seat Wyman while considering the matter. After a long and contentious debate in the Senate, with Republicans filibustering attempts by the Democratic majority to seat Durkin instead, a special election was held, with Durkin winning handily and becoming Senator."

Now the Democrats did this over a close election...but don't tell me the GOP can't do this if they choose. They can, and I think they will. c

"... A few years after the Powell decision, the Supreme Court clearly affirmed the right of the
Senate to make the final and conclusive determination concerning the election process and the
seating of its own Members. In the case of contests or challenges properly raised concerning the
election or selection of a Senator, the Court affirmed the constitutional authority for “an
independent evaluation by the Senate” of the selection of those presenting themselves for
membership. Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15, 25-26 (1972). "

[onenote]

36. Your tin foil is clearly on too tight.

[Demsrule86]

39. Your underestimate the determination of the Republican party...

who would have ever believe they would refuse to seat a justice for a sitting president, but they did.

"...A few years after the Powell decision, the Supreme Court clearly affirmed the right of the
Senate to make the final and conclusive determination concerning the election process and the
seating of its own Members. In the case of contests or challenges properly raised concerning the
election or selection of a Senator, the Court affirmed the constitutional authority for “an
independent evaluation by the Senate” of the selection of those presenting themselves for
membership. Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15, 25-26 (1972)."

[onenote]

72. Apples and oranges.

Last edited Wed Dec 13, 2017, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)

First, the Roudebush v. Hartke case involved a situation in which there was a dispute over which candidate was elected. The decision actually narrowed the ruling of the court below, which had held that a state's recount procedure was unconstitutional because it would usurp the Senate's role in reviewing the election of those asserting that they should be seated. The Court found that states can conduct recounts, but that the Senate can still undertake it's own evaluation of an election.

Of course, the problem with your theory is twofold. First, it assumes that the Senate could refuse to seat Franken's replacement for no reason at all. That is not the case. There would have to be a cited reason within the Constitutional boundaries of the Senate's power to not to seat someone.

Second, it's not McConnell's decision in the end. It requires a majority of the Senate to vote to exclude. And despite your fears, there is zero chance a majority of the Senate would vote against seating Franken's replacement in the absence of any valid reason to do so.

The difference between this situation and the Garland situation is that the Senate leadership has the power to decide not to proceed to a vote on a nomination. But under the Senate's rules and precedents, they don't have that power with respect to challenges to seating a Senator. A motion to seat a Senator is "privileged."

[Demsrule86]

73. But the bottom line was the decision specifically said the Senate had the right to determine

if a person should be seated. And I don't trust Senate rules...they can be changed...but constitutionally it could happen. I hope I am wrong.

[onenote]

80. You asked that we mark your words, so I did.

Jones and Smith were just sworn in.

Now here's a suggestion. Loosen the tinfoil.

[Demsrule86]

81. I am delighted to see Jones and Smith sworn in but basted on what happened with Garland...

I still feel it was a possibility and that Franken should never have be forced out.

[onenote]

82. Agree about Franken

Garland's situation and that of Jones and Smith were apples and oranges.

[Demsrule86]

83. If this was blue seat that the GOP didn't care about ...I still say they would have refused to seat

Franken's replacement. This is a seat they want to win which is why they went after Franken with their vicious lies...and they could win it too...I hope not.

[Codeine]

26. Can we stop posting this nonsense?

Any delay will be related to the fact that is going to take AL a while to certify the vote.

[Fred Sanders]

52. YES. Certification could legally not be until January 11.

[ebbie15644]

29. Doug Jones should show up with media in hand

[WillowTree]

40. And demand to be seated before the vote has been certified? Are you thinking that would look good?

[ebbie15644]

44. Yes I do think that would look good, he and dems would look

like they're ready to fight

[WillowTree]

49. Fight the law that requires that the vote be certified? That never happens overnight.

[ebbie15644]

53. Never in my post did I say overnight

but Doug should show up before that vote on the GOP tax scam

[WillowTree]

57. If the vote has not been certified before then, there would be no point.

From all that I've read, they're going to try to get the tax bill passed before Christmas and the soonest that we could expect the vote certification to be filed would be the 26th, so, while I understand your hope, the chance of him being able to successfully "demand" to be seated before the tax vote would be legally futile.

[ebbie15644]

60. optics would be great

[WillowTree]

63. If you say so.

[onenote]

78. So, should Scott Brown have shown up and demanded to be sworn in before his election was certified?

Scott Brown won a special election to fill a vacancy in the Senate on January 19, 2010. He was sworn in on February 4, 2010, after Massachusetts certified his election.

You still think the optics would be great? He'd look like an idiot.

[Thor_MN]

32. It will take until the end of the year to certify the results.

The AL SOS office is Republican. A recount, paid for by Moore, could take longer.

Doesn't the option for Reconciliation end at the end of the year? I thought the Tax Bill has to pass before the end of the year or it's dead.

[tritsofme]

66. I am almost positive that the 12/31 deadline is artificial

And that they have until the end of the fiscal year, 9/30/18, to act on the Reconciliation bill.

[Thor_MN]

71. I think you are right, so a Frankenesque recount and appeal could take 6 months

The Franken-Coleman election was much closer, of course, so taxpayer funded. But if they don't get enough votes by the 22nd, paying for a recount might start to seem like a good deal to Turtle and Co.

[BSdetect]

46. American Democracy at its worst.

Third World Dictatorship behavior.

[Johonny]

47. So next July then?

[Bayard]

56. Unfortunately, my senator IS McConnell

Called his office, and as usual, no one answers and his mailbox is full. If I send an email, I get a response about 3 months later. I at least got Rand Paul's voice mail, and left a message.

[The_Casual_Observer]

64. I doubt he is going to get away with this shit, anyway I would guess that tax

bill isn't going to get a vote until next year. Just a guess.

[Mme. Defarge]

76. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

Period.

[Kaleva]

77. Jones can't be seated till Alabama certifies the election results

According to this CNN article, that most likely will happen when the Senate is in recess and after the tax bill vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12/politics/alabama-senator-join-congress/index.html

[red dog 1]

79. TELL MITCH McCONNELL: "SEAT SENATOR-ELECT DOUG JONES NOW"

Sign the Credo Action Petition To Mitch McConnell:

(The petition reads)
"Do not schedule a vote on the Trump Tax Scam before Alabama's newly-elected senator,
Doug Jones, is seated."
https://act.credoaction.com/sign/seat_doug_jones


Social Security Works.org has a similar petition to McConnell,
(but I'm unable to post a direct link to it)
Go to;
https://www.socialsecurityworks.org/