The rules of the 118th Congress state that “in the case of a vacancy in the office of speaker, the next member” named on a list submitted by McCarthy to the clerk of the House in January will become speaker pro tempore until a speaker is elected. A House reading clerk announced immediately after the vote that Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina was the first name on McCarthy’s list and therefore was appointed speaker pro tempore.
“Pending such election, the member acting as speaker pro tempore may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate to that end,” the rules state. The requirement of a list appears to have originated with the 108th Congress that convened in January 2003.
After the speaker pro tempore takes over, “presumably, the next order of business would be to choose a speaker,” Green said. He pointed out that “it’s unlikely the House would continue to operate as usual without a new speaker being selected.”
Probably because he went back on the deal that he made with Biden after the Debt Ceiling thing. If he had stuck to that, he might have gotten enough Democrats to vote “present” to have survived the vote.
But why throw any support to a person you can’t trust?
You can't even make deals w/ him anymore because he won't abide by them. On top of that, he has to bend to the most fringe aspects of his party to stay in power so it appers that he's reaching the same conclusions (impeachment, reneging on his words, etc) as a more conservative speaker, w/ just the semblance of moderate leanings
I think they decided that he is such an incredible piece of shit who stabs them in the back and reneges on every deal (see: his attempt on Sunday to blame the budget fiasco on them, his renging on the debt ceiling deal, his stance on J6…) that he wasn’t worth saving. Either some R’s join with D’s to make a coalition (as just called for by H. Jeffries) or the R’s have to get their shit together, painfully, for the budget. The last CR clearly showed the issue with the current R party composition. There is a wing that essentially acts as a third party spoiler. The CR was very much a win for the Dems (except for Ukraine funding, although I am of the personal opinion that a clean CR is the correct way to do a CR, fund other stuff separately).
This is a republican problem. They renegged the budget, they caused the shutdown, they ousted their speaker when he swerved to avoid it. The republicans have all the votes they need to not fuck over the constituents. All they have to do is their job. Dems know they won’t do it. Every second republicans are burning political capital.
Yep, and they’re wasting the time they have with a majority in the House.
The Freedom Caucus is acting like a crew of undercover Democrats infiltrated the Republicans Party to sabotage it by acting like caricatures. Like, back in 2010ish, some people that were fed up with Republicans being so rigid would complain by exaggeraing their politics, and these Freedom Caucus dipshits said, “Let’s do that, but for for real.” However, they’re in effect practically helping the Democrats. This is crazy 😮
What is the better alternative? What if there isnt a speaker by the time the stop gap measure expires?
I have this same question too, and - with all due respect - it would be nice if someone had a response other than blaming Republicans and just leaving it at that (I mean, it’s absolutely their fault, but it doesn’t answer the real question).
It would be nice to know Dems have a plan after taking this action. I’m fairly certain they do, but best I can do now is guess how it might play out. Not reassuring…
Most Republicans don’t want a shutdown, they know it’s political suicide. McCarthy made a deal with Democrats to avoid a shutdown because most Republicans (privately) pressured him to do so.
Most Republicans don’t want a shutdown in November, either. They are the majority party so they have the power to choose a speaker who will avert one. So Democrats don’t necessarily need a plan, the process may remain completely outside their control.
If Republicans end up needing Democratic votes to elect a Republican Speaker, then they will need to offer something to Democrats, because by itself electing a Republican Speaker is not in the interest of Democrats.
All of the above is already crystal-clear to both parties. The ball is in the GOP majority’s court, they get to choose the next move: work together with the Freedom Caucus or work together with Democrats.
McCarthy had two choices:
Do what the freedom caucus wanted and never see anything pass the Senate.
Make a deal across the isle and get some work done.
He dragged his feet, hymed and hawed and eventually caved in on option 2 as it’s the only reasonable one.
Then he proceeded to attack those who he just made a deal with the very next day.
He could have instead said that real leadership is finding compromises that move things forward but he’s lose MAGA voters who see the government burning down as an upside.
So he sold his soul, again, to those crazies and yet again proved he isn’t reliable.
Does this benefit the House as an organization?
Absolutely not. But the clown show that will follow in the next few weeks will make the GOP look horrible at least.
And maybe, just maybe, some of the more sensible parts of the GOP will come to the Democrats with a power sharing deal that will completely neuter the freedom caucus once they see how hopeless their situation is.
I hope so but that’s far from certain. Unless the chaos from this is particularly memorable AND it causes relatively little harm to the American people, I don’t think that’s likely.
We’re still over a year from the election. People will barely remember this and it probably will factor minimally in their decisions in 2024.
This will all be forgotten next month, what won’t be is Donny’s endless court cases. Anything the rest of the republicans do will be overshadowed by Trump’s legal antics. Their only hope is to detangle themselves from him, but that ain’t happening.
Maybe. It remains to be seen how much impact those court cases will have. Polls right now show a dead heat which is concerning. But maybe voters are just not paying attention yet.
I don’t want to get overconfident because the numbers are still scary, but I am not sure how much I trust polls. Most of them are unsolicited phone calls that just ask you who you plan to vote for and some basic demographic details. Young people tend to not answer calls from unrecognized numbers.
They generally adjust for that kind of thing. It’s always possible the polls are off but it’s tough to predict which direction. They’re usually only a little off so right now it’s safe to conclude the race is close-ish. But a lot can change in a year. It’s hard for me to believe people won’t reject more Trump insanity when the time comes. But people do lots of things I find hard to believe.
Well, it will only be forgotten if we get a swift resolution.
Next month, there needs to be another vote to avert another government shutdown, as the recent resolution was only a 1-month stay of execution. If the house is still busy arguing over who the Speaker should be until the 11th hour, there will be no way to avoid the shutdown.
Hate to say it but I doubt it. The people voting republican bought heavily into the idea that McCarthy was some kind of traitor and started calling him a RINO. They seem to live for this kind of chaos. They want things their way, and if they can’t have it the only alternative is burning it all down. Compromise is completely unacceptable to them hence McCarthy’s ouster.
He wanted to keep things running about as much as any other Republican. He was literally blaming Democrats when shutting down the government is pretty much a normalized annual thing from the Republicans at this point.
Defense lawyer here, though not in New York so take this all with a grain of salt, I just felt I should put my 2 cents in based on the vibes in this comment thread.
It is weird for a judge to go against a joint recommendation, which seems to have happened here. It takes something extraordinary. The article indicates that the judge felt she didn’t truly feel remorse for her actions, which could do it, but doesn’t always do it. But, to me, just the fact that the judge went against a joint recommendation will always raise an eyebrow. Usually, if the sentence isn’t harsh enough, the prosecutor won’t agree to it, and if it’s too harsh, the defense won’t agree to it. So joint recommendations are almost always followed.
Yes, it’s “only” 6 more months, but that’s really not insignificant.
Now, to all the people screaming about how it’s not enough (and especially to the one person saying she should have her citizenship revoked (???)), I wonder, how many of you are also against the prison industrial complex we have here in America? I challenge you to think beyond your initial emotions. Is this death tragic? Yes, absolutely it is. It was senseless violence for no good reason. So I agree, it deserves a harsh punishment.
But everyone keeps calling it murder. Not every killing is a murder. I also want to challenge people to watch their language. Murder carries with it an intent to kill. A shove does not intend death, regardless of who is being shoved. No, it shouldn’t have happened, yes, it’s tragic, but it was not a murder.
Now, all of you calling for 20+ years, really think about what you’re saying. Do you think this person has no chance of rehabilitation? Those are the people we put away for life. I don’t think that’s the case here. She fucked up. Obviously. She deserves to be punished harshly, and make no mistake, she is. 8.5 years is a LONG time. Think back to where you were 8.5 years ago. Were you the same person? I doubt it. Now, do you think she might better herself in those 8.5 years? I think it’s very likely, though again, the prison industrial complex makes that less guaranteed.
Sentences have many goals. Some of the primary goals are punishment, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the defendant. Does this sentence punish her? Yes, a lot. Does this sentence give her a chance for rehabilitation? I’m not sure on that one, but that’s because it may, if anything, be too long, and cause her to get too used to life in prison, and increase her likelihood of recidivism. But that’s not her fault, that’s the fault of the prison industry. Does this sentence protect the public? I say yes. She lost her temper once and it’s now going to cost her 9 years of her life (if you include the duration of the case). That’s a hell of an incentive not to repeat.
Alright, I think that’s all I really want to say. But please, everyone, in the future, try to think about how our prison system really works, and how much you support it, when you’re discussing individual crimes, not just when you’re talking about the system as a whole. I think most people on this site lean left, and therefore should support reducing the prison populations, but this comment section has me worried with everyone here frothing at the mouth to give MORE prison time, when the sentenced amount should be enough to satisfy our sentencing goals.
It was first degree manslaughter- the article says she was facing “up to 25 years.” She threw a tantrum about being asked to leave a park that was closing, threw her dinner on her fiance, “stormed down the street” then saw a little (100lbs vs her 175) old lady across the street, crossed the street while calling her a bitch, then shoved her onto her head. I don’t think 9 years is too long for society to be protected from her.
The court ruled “not a murder” because it was just a shove, but anyone could have seen than a shove like that would likely kill a small 87 year old woman and it certainly wasn’t an accident. The woman wasn’t just in her way while she was angry walking down the street. She went out of her way to attack the woman.
Then there’s the part where she evaded police for weeks, hiding her phone at a separate location, changing locations multiple times. I don’t think the longer end of her sentencing options would have been unreasonable at all.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I don’t think there’s really a number of years to put on it to make it appropriate. But I’m sure the lawyers discussed all the points you raised in negotiating this sentence. These numbers aren’t pulled out of our asses, there are guidelines (almost certainly, again, not barred in NY) which help ensure similarly situated defendants are sentenced similarly.
What I’d like to hear more about, is whether the judge also ordered some kind of anger management counseling. I think that’s what she needs more than a longer sentence.
If we truly want to balance the goals of protecting the public, adequately punishing the defendant, and also rehabilitating her, I don’t think a few more years either way is what makes the biggest difference. I think it more depends on what she does with that time. I’m not sure what the situation is like within New York prisons as far as counseling goes, but if they have good programs, it’s hard for me to imagine, if she takes it seriously, that 8.5 years of good counseling wouldn’t be helpful to her, and to society at large.
I also think she could make all those gains in counseling, again, if she truly takes it seriously, within a couple of years. But then, I could probably be convinced that 2-3 years isn’t long enough for causing someone’s death. I’ve seen people get that for having the wrong amount of weed on them.
But then we get into the larger discussion about the entire prison industrial complex. We need some kind of change with how our prisons operate. Exactly how that looks isn’t the point here. I’m just trying to point out that there’s a bigger picture in play, and hope that people will consider that in the future.
In the end, nothing we say here has any impact on her life or the issued sentence. But it might have a difference in how people perceive and talk about the system as a whole in the future, so I think it’s important to not lose sight of that.
I don’t give a fuck about rehabilitation. There’s 8 billion people on this planet, we can afford to dispose of the shitty ones. Spend those resources that would go towards rehabilitating her on someone who needs help and hasn’t killed any innocent old women.
We’re reaching a French revolution type point in American history. There are people who are the product of absurd privilege, and there is everyone else.
This is tipping the scales a little bit back out of the favor of privilege. In the grand scheme, it’s effectively misguided and miniscule. But it’s a sign of progress nonetheless.
Our legal system sucks ass. There’s no reason why so much of our population should be imprisoned for relatively minor reason… but we’re also used to money being more important than culpability. Affluenza, rapists getting off because it would be detrimental to their future to be held accountable, or generally rich people being able to pay for their crimes financially instead of punitively.
So when someone from a perceived place of privilege is actually held to the same standards as one of us serfs, it’s usually celebrated. It sucks, but it’s true.
This thread more of an indictment of our shitty legal system than of the defendant.
republicans are winning and winning and winning. maybe the biggest winners in history. they will keep on winning so much…like they will ask to stop the winning on weekends. else would just be too much winning.
“Judges aiming?” More like “Judges enforcing law violated by Alabama Republicans to protect rights of Black Alabamians to proportionate representation in elections.”
She was clearly afraid when they surrounded her and drew their weapons. I mean, my god she’s black and pregnant, and surrounded by cops harassing her for a false accusation. She was terrified it was the end. It’s not her fault. It’s theirs. And she can’t take it back. Read the damn article. It went against policy for that cop to stand in front of the car in the first place.
Further, this is why cops shouldn’t even fucking have guns. They are too dumb and quick to agro to realize they shouldn’t draw it ever. Especially for such a low stakes, stupid crime. When you start with the gun, it can only get worse.
On GrapheneOS, you can fully disable emergency alerts in Settings → Safety emergency → Wireless emergency alerts since we add a toggle for Presidential alerts. The naming of the alert types varies based on country which is determined by the carrier’s country code not language.
Not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court. They could have brought charges 25 years ago, he would have been acquitted, and then he’d have been profiting off his crimes ever since as the guy who killed Tupac and got away with it.
They held off charging, and when he tried to profit off of his crimes anyway, he ended up confessing. Now, they can gain a conviction because they have better evidence.
Houchin said Gardner accidentally shot a child in the shoulder. They were taken to a hospital with injuries that were not life-threatening.
Also, it was a blank, so the kid doesn't have a bullet hole. None of this excuses wielding a firearm irresponsibly in a crowd of people, and I'll take "Trigger discipline" for $200, Alex. Just wanted to bring to the fore that the kid will be okay.
It “slipped”?! How about not firing guns if your hands are not dexterous enough to point it correctly. Pretty much any time you fire a gun there is going to be a direction it could “slip” to that will kill someone.
ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot
ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Every gun is considered loaded until proven otherwise. Every pull of the trigger will cost $10,000, as lawyers become involved, per NRA literature. Hearing damage by firing close to people is another risk.
In a film shoot prior to the fatal scene, the gun that was used as a prop (a real revolver) was loaded with improperly made dummy rounds, improvised from live cartridges that had the powder charges removed by the special effects crew, so in close-ups the revolver would show normal-looking ammunition. However, the crew neglected to remove the primers from the cartridges, and at some point before the fatal event, one of the rounds had been fired. Although there were no powder charges, the energy from the ignited primer was enough to separate the bullet from the casing and push it part-way into the gun barrel, where it got stuck—a dangerous condition known as a squib load.
During the fatal scene, which called for the revolver to be fired at Lee from a distance of 3.6–4.5 meters (12–15 ft), the dummy cartridges were replaced with blank rounds, which contained a powder charge and the primer, but no solid bullet, allowing the gun to be fired with sound and flash effects without the risk of an actual projectile. However, the gun was not properly checked and cleared before the blank was fired, and the dummy bullet previously lodged in the barrel was then propelled forward by the blank’s propellant and shot out the muzzle with almost the same force as if the round were live, striking Lee in the abdomen.[101][102]
So two blanks, one with no powder and the other with no bullet, effectively formed one round of live ammunition. What a truly wild story.
Kid will survive, but that doesn’t mean they won’t be traumatized. Still, I’m glad the guy at least had the foresight not to stick a real bullet in there… why he thought firing a gun was the best way to get attention, though, is beyond me. If someone fires a gun in my near vicinity I’m not suddenly going to go “ohhh, it’s time to pay attention to the pastor” Nah. Imma be running for the hills before I even know my legs are moving
The guy at least had the foresight not to stick a real bullet in there
The next one might not because America’s gun laws – especially in Texas – are based on voluntarily following good practises.
Whenever something like this happens, pro-gun people flock to the comments to pat themselves on the back by telling everyone that they would never do that with a gun because they have trigger discipline and they treat guns with respect.
But so what? They might never drive drunk but that doesn’t mean we can abolish DUI laws.
What laws did this guy break and what is his punishment? Was it illegal to make his own sketchy blanks? Was it illegal to injure an innocent person with a firearm? Was it illegal to have a firearm at a wedding or to brandish it? Is he going to be prevented from owning firearms in the future now that he has proven to be a dumb fuck?
And most importantly, what is the pro-gun community going to do to prevent things like this happening again?
But we know the answer. He probably broke zero laws and will still be able to own all the guns he wants and take them to all the weddings he wants. His punishment will be minor or non-existent. The pro-gun community will do absolutely nothing to address the shortcomings of their laws, they’ll just tut about it on the internet.
Republicans value $16 million a year and a voting bloc that will tolerate anything over people’s lives. The gun lobby values profits over people’s lives.
But the pro-gun community sells people out for convenience.
Hey you might get a kick out of this. If you look carefully in the show Farscape you will notice that the person in the show who was an ex-solider never has her finger on the trigger unless firing but the untrained people with her do.
What does this mean? Like, a 10 year old can walk into a grocery store and buy a tomato. Is that what you mean? Or did you mean legalize it like alcohol?
Home brewing alcohol doesn’t have to be complicated. I make hard cider all the time by just opening a jug of apple juice, dumping in yeast, and putting a balloon with a pin hole over the mouth of the jug. Kids could very easily make hooch if they wanted to.
Yes. BK is probably sizing the bun-to-patty ratio to make them look and seem larger. They also probably make sure to paint their lettuce green so it looks fresher. Or would, if that weren’t already banned by the FDA.
Stuff in the ads is very rarely the same as reality. For example, under bright studio lights, ice cream melts pretty quick. Mashed potato doesn’t. Guess what they use.
Of course. I assumed they were saying it was the burgers itself. As long as the patty was a 1/4 pound patty at some point or whatever they say they serve…it’s going to be hard to argue
People were spray painting lettuce green at one point. And I’m pretty sure they still occasionally dye pistachios red for some reason
It depends on your perspective. From a consumer protection stand point, sure, marketing based entirely on all the faults of the product might be helpful. “our burgers are designed to be unsatisfying, to make you buy more. they’re loaded with fat and butter and other kinds of fat, and the buns are incredibly sugary to make you addicted and make up for the utter lack of real flavor… and it’s not even entirely beef in that there patty” isn’t really going to sell many burgers.
So from a marketing perspective it is bad. Saying “oh, the photo on the menu makes it appetizing, when it’s not really appetizing” is like… Saying “OH. our photographers and food modelers did a good job!” to them. and that, whether you like me or not, is why you really need to read the menu instead of looking at the advertisements. Whose beef patty is probably made of painted mashed potatoes, painted up in lacquer because it’s hard to keep food fresh enough to get a good photo…
read the menu instead of looking at the advertisements
The issue is most fast food restaurants use the advertisement photos on the menu. Sorta leads the customer to believe that’s what they are getting (with some tolerance).
I remember seeing a show when I was a kid made for kids about deceptive advertising (it was on HBO back when HBO was decent) and they had a segment on all the ways they dress food for food ads. It was fascinating. I remember milk was made from Elmer’s Glue, cereal flakes were chosen from hundreds of boxes to find the perfect ones, and ice cream, which would melt under the hot lights if it were real, was made from vegetable shortening.
oh yeah. Commercial food photography is… a sneaky art. they find textures that are similar and paint them to be what they need. hard gloss like beef juices are lacquer, fruits are made to look fresher with hairspray… and this assumes they’re using fruit at all.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.