Let’s just change the team name to the Almost Redskins and make everybody happy.
November 9, 2025 at 1:32 PM
Let’s just change the team name to the Almost Redskins and make everybody happy.
Smart move. ICE will never find him now.
October 31, 2025 at 7:55 PM
Smart move. ICE will never find him now.
Ahh, I was wondering
October 29, 2025 at 11:01 PM
Ahh, I was wondering
What originalist will save me from this troublesome amendment?
October 29, 2025 at 10:52 AM
What originalist will save me from this troublesome amendment?
Well, no longer than January when the next session starts, but in theory until then, yes.
October 25, 2025 at 1:17 PM
Well, no longer than January when the next session starts, but in theory until then, yes.
I don’t think they can do anything until they come back into session. I don’t think, for example, they can start a new discharge petition. Note: that’s my guess, I am not sure.
October 25, 2025 at 1:11 PM
I don’t think they can do anything until they come back into session. I don’t think, for example, they can start a new discharge petition. Note: that’s my guess, I am not sure.
Last post should have been 3/3. 🤦♂️
October 25, 2025 at 1:08 PM
Last post should have been 3/3. 🤦♂️
(Which is presumably correct because no business is supposed to be conducted in pro forma sessions). But I guess if enough members showed up they could try to bully the presiding officer into entertaining a motion to reconvene. AFAIK that’s the closest to an available procedure. 4/4
October 25, 2025 at 1:07 PM
(Which is presumably correct because no business is supposed to be conducted in pro forma sessions). But I guess if enough members showed up they could try to bully the presiding officer into entertaining a motion to reconvene. AFAIK that’s the closest to an available procedure. 4/4
to gain control of the floor (as they have tried to do with regard to the swearing in of Grijalva). But the problem there is the speaker designates the member presiding over the pro forma session and that member is going to just ignore any attempts to transact business 2/
October 25, 2025 at 1:04 PM
to gain control of the floor (as they have tried to do with regard to the swearing in of Grijalva). But the problem there is the speaker designates the member presiding over the pro forma session and that member is going to just ignore any attempts to transact business 2/
Good question. I believe the adjournment resolution leaves it up to the speaker so ordinarily there would be no way of the House convening to act without his ok. But they still continue to hold pro forma sessions (as a Noel Canning legacy). So theoretically someone can try to use those sessions 1/
October 25, 2025 at 1:00 PM
Good question. I believe the adjournment resolution leaves it up to the speaker so ordinarily there would be no way of the House convening to act without his ok. But they still continue to hold pro forma sessions (as a Noel Canning legacy). So theoretically someone can try to use those sessions 1/
Based on the President’s inherent authority under Article II, I believe Lindsey now has to change the spelling of her name.
October 22, 2025 at 9:11 PM
Based on the President’s inherent authority under Article II, I believe Lindsey now has to change the spelling of her name.
Whether that constitutes an extreme conservative position or not, it seems to me to make more sense than severability, particularly since the executive has little incentive to agree to agency reforms once the Court hands full control to the president.
October 22, 2025 at 12:24 AM
Whether that constitutes an extreme conservative position or not, it seems to me to make more sense than severability, particularly since the executive has little incentive to agree to agency reforms once the Court hands full control to the president.
The position that I am gravitating toward is that the Court should take the independence of the agency as a given, and, to the extent it considers the agency to be exercising an executive power that it cannot constitutionally have, strike down that power rather than the agency’s independence.
October 22, 2025 at 12:21 AM
The position that I am gravitating toward is that the Court should take the independence of the agency as a given, and, to the extent it considers the agency to be exercising an executive power that it cannot constitutionally have, strike down that power rather than the agency’s independence.
My understanding is that she has not yet received the formal credentials from the state which entitle her to be seated. Once that happens, if they still refuse to seat her when the House reconvenes, she should absolutely sue.
October 20, 2025 at 8:34 PM
My understanding is that she has not yet received the formal credentials from the state which entitle her to be seated. Once that happens, if they still refuse to seat her when the House reconvenes, she should absolutely sue.
Because a court has no means to compel the House to seat her or count her vote. Fortunately, I don’t think we need to worry about this at the moment- there are more than enough things we do need to worry about.
October 20, 2025 at 12:14 AM
Because a court has no means to compel the House to seat her or count her vote. Fortunately, I don’t think we need to worry about this at the moment- there are more than enough things we do need to worry about.
I think if the House were to refuse to seat her following the presentation of her formal credentials, she could get relief under Powell through an action for salary against the Sgt at Arms (or maybe the CAO- they may have changed the pay system). As a practical matter, that’s as good as she can get.
October 20, 2025 at 12:12 AM
I think if the House were to refuse to seat her following the presentation of her formal credentials, she could get relief under Powell through an action for salary against the Sgt at Arms (or maybe the CAO- they may have changed the pay system). As a practical matter, that’s as good as she can get.
I don’t think Powell allows a court to order the House to perform a legislative act (seating a member and allowing her to vote) or to circumvent that by ordering an officer to do the same thing. Similar things have been tried so far w/o success.
www.pointoforder.com/2012/08/06/c...
www.pointoforder.com/2012/08/06/c...
Common Cause’s Impossible Dream - Point of Order
When Common Cause filed this lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the filibuster, the legal establishment scoffed. Critics called it “ridiculous,” “specious,” and “frivolous.” They said the co...
www.pointoforder.com
October 20, 2025 at 12:00 AM
I don’t think Powell allows a court to order the House to perform a legislative act (seating a member and allowing her to vote) or to circumvent that by ordering an officer to do the same thing. Similar things have been tried so far w/o success.
www.pointoforder.com/2012/08/06/c...
www.pointoforder.com/2012/08/06/c...
I agree with everything you said except the part about suing. A court could order that she be paid (though it is highly unlikely it would do so before she has even received formal credentials), but I don’t think it can or would direct she be seated or allowed to vote.
October 19, 2025 at 10:59 PM
I agree with everything you said except the part about suing. A court could order that she be paid (though it is highly unlikely it would do so before she has even received formal credentials), but I don’t think it can or would direct she be seated or allowed to vote.
I think the member-elect has to be sworn by the speaker or someone else designated by the speaker or the House. If the House were in session, there might be ways of presenting the issue directly to the House, but I don’t see how that could work until the House is back.
October 19, 2025 at 9:51 PM
I think the member-elect has to be sworn by the speaker or someone else designated by the speaker or the House. If the House were in session, there might be ways of presenting the issue directly to the House, but I don’t see how that could work until the House is back.
I suspect these are her orders, not a personal preference or strategic decision.
October 18, 2025 at 12:38 AM
I suspect these are her orders, not a personal preference or strategic decision.
Are you thinking of a specific example? (I am not sure that this gets around the problem of lack of a personal injury, but I would like to think more about it).
October 15, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Are you thinking of a specific example? (I am not sure that this gets around the problem of lack of a personal injury, but I would like to think more about it).