Swalwell says Speaker Johnson is refusing to seat newly elected Dem Tom Souzzi

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Harry Sisson
@harryjsisson
·
Follow
WTF??? Eric Swalwell just announced on MSNBC that Republicans are REFUSING to seat Tom Souzzi because their majority in the House is so small. Republicans are playing politics and denying representation to citizens in New York’s 3rd congressional district!


6:34 PM · Feb 23, 2024

[UTUSN]

1. MucketyMagatMike don't see his writing on the wall?

[DENVERPOPS]

62. As Butthead House Speaker

and other Republicans keep getting more ludicrous, and despicable, I believe that there will be more Republican House Members, and even some Republican Senators that will be bailing out, not wanting to be a part of this shit the Republicans are pulling.....

And return the majority in both the House and Senate to Dems.......

[Cha]

2. Magat Can't Do That.. According to This..

Link to tweet

[Nevilledog]

3. They don't believe the laws are applicable to them. They'll have to be forced.

[Cha]

8. Yes and I would love to see Rep Elect Tom Suozzi Force his way

into the Chamber!

[SergeStorms]

14. Might as well be packing...

in case he has to get into a shootout with Empty Green or Bobo Boebert. They're two pistol packing Mamas and would have no qualms about drawing down on Rep. Suozzi.

[oldsoftie]

71. I wish one of the retiring members would do the "motion to vacate"

They're leaving, why not?

[Trueblue1968]

20. I would take my place and dare them to remove me.

If the little speaker went so far as to try and harm our new dem, I would go for removing the speaker.... Like they did to Kevin.

[Maraya1969]

66. Yea, what would happen if he just showed up for work? If they wanted to say something about it at least

it would be on the record and maybe it will make the news!

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

21. exactly.. Mike only follows what the Bible tells him

[ancianita]

63. Stop. Mike's Bible says nothing about what he's doing. Nothing.

[krkaufman]

73. Your Bible might not...

… but who knows what twisted version he might have on his nightstand.

[keithbvadu2]

76. The Bible has all the answers... IF:

The Bible has all the answers... IF:
you cherry-pick the parts you like.
you resinterpret the parts that are inconvenient.
you ignore the parts you don't like.

[ancianita]

88. Sure. One doesn't even have to believe in the devil to know that evil folk can pervert scripture to make the Bible look

Last edited Sun Feb 25, 2024, 04:14 PM - Edit history (1)

like a book full of bullshit.

Of all the versions of Word of God, he can complete your list most easily from those versions on the right side of this translation spectrum.

[keithbvadu2]

90. Neat chart. Thanks. Is one of them the Catholic Bible, USCCB?

[ancianita]

91. Hard to tell. I've read that the Catholic Bible is also called the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition

NRSV? Or maybe the ESV?

[keithbvadu2]

92. Many Catholics/Protestants consider the other to be false Christians.

Franklin (and Billy) Graham say Mormons are not Christians

According to them, Catholics are not Christians either.

"We need something like what Jerry Falwell did in the 1980s. We need a “moral majority”-made up of Christians, Jews, Mormons, Catholics and many others of faith-to come together to take a stand for our religious freedoms and rights."

https://web.archive.org/web/20150222160421/https://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/october-2012/can-an-evangelical-christian-vote-for-a-mormon/

[ancianita]

94. Meh. It's a spiritual contest that's not at all in the spirit of Jesus' teachings. That's another

form of churchy dogma competition stuff, all the stuff the historical Jesus rejected in his pharisee run synagogues. He was on the receiving end of a lot of hostility from his home religionists, as we know. All that spiritual purity stuff is ego and pride that Jesus would call "o ye vile hypocrites!".

The only religion most Christian denominations consider a cult is Mormonism, because of its founding documents, etc. but I confess I've forgotten a lot about all that. I figure that as long as churches stay out of government, they have a chance to do more good than harm.

On your quote? Meh. All that "take a stand" talk is political bullshit.
Christians need to actually read their Word of God to do any good for anyone at all. Religious activism isn't political, it's the biblical feeding the poor, housing the houseless, taking in the stranger, caring for the sick, the widows and orphans, protecting those criminalized by unjust laws. Just choosing to do what they know, and they know better.

[keithbvadu2]

96. Yep! Oftentimes, the method of religion is more important than the God of religion.

[sheshe2]

4. Full text from your link, Cha.

They can’t do that, according to this Never.
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker of the House could not exclude a duly-elected candidate for the U.S.

House of Representatives. In Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that the House's Constitutional authority to judge the qualifications of its own members was post facto and could only be exercised via expulsion after a 2/3rd affirmative vote. In other words, the House and Senate have no discretion when deciding whether to seat a candidate who has been duly elected under state law, but may take steps to expel that member after they have been sworn-in. The Court decided that the constitutional rights of the voters and the states takes precedence over the rights of Congress until the candidate is sworn-in as a member. Although this case involved the House of Representatives, there is no indication the Court would view a candidate duly elected to the Senate any differently

.....................................................

WTF!
He was elected by the people!

[Cha]

10. Thanks, she! Rep Elect Tom Suozzi doesn't strike me as

someone traitors can fuck round with.

I Want Major Backfire Blowback on this Idiot move.

[sheshe2]

13. I don't get it.

They wanted to seat a person that did not win the election. Then they refuse to seat a person that actually won an uncontested election because they have a slim majority?! How is this legal?!

[SergeStorms]

15. It isn't...

but since when have republicans obeyed rules or laws when it's to their advantage not to?

They're a criminal gang now, led by the Fradfather, Donnie Trump.

[rubbersole]

23. Who's led by putin.

[SergeStorms]

24. Oh yeah.

Putin has some dirt on Trump, something to make the Fraudfather dance when Pootie pulls the strings.

[TheKentuckian]

57. The Republicans are a white nationalist crime syndicate, theocratic domestic terrorist organization,

and an insane death cult.

That is almost always the answer.

[onenote]

48. This precedent is irrelevant. Suozzi hasn't been seated because the House went on recess on the 15th

Suozzi's election was on the 13th. The earliest date he could be sworn in was following the receipt by the House clerk of the formal certification of his election from the New York authorities. In most instances, that takes a few days. Moreover, the swearing in of a newly elected member doesn't occur when the House is in recess. It is the norm for there to be a lag between the date of a special election and the date the newly elected member is sworn in.

Suozzi will be sworn in on February 28 when the House reconvenes, as was announced back on February 15.

[bucolic_frolic]

72. That sounds true, especially in the modern era

It ignores 14A Sec 3 which posits a situation where an insurrectionist has been excluded from taking his seat and must seek a 2/3 majority to admit him, or her.

We are in for some litigation if this stuff unfolds in the wrong direction.

[unblock]

5. Yeah well, this Supreme Court doesn't seem to believe in precedents that don't benefit the right wing.

[Cha]

11. Yeah, I know... the fucking majority of the SC are Fucking Faccists.

We'll se

[CincyDem]

78. lol...don't hold back. What do you really think if SCOTUS? :-)

[Joinfortmill]

17. Wow, thank God.

[orleans]

22. thanks cha

i just want to put the whole tweet on here

They can’t do that, according to this Never.
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker of the House could not exclude a duly-elected candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. In Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that the House's Constitutional authority to judge the qualifications of its own members was post facto and could only be exercised via expulsion after a 2/3rd affirmative vote. In other words, the House and Senate have no discretion when deciding whether to seat a candidate who has been duly elected under state law, but may take steps to expel that member after they have been sworn-in. The Court decided that the constitutional rights of the voters and the states takes precedence over the rights of Congress until the candidate is sworn-in as a member. Although this case involved the House of Representatives, there is no indication the Court would view a candidate duly elected to the Senate any differently

[Cha]

58. Thank You, orleans!

[Frasier Balzov]

27. Adam Clayton Powell versus Mike McCormack.

I forget what Powell did that pissed off the Speaker.

[Voltaire2]

28. He was considered corrupt.

He wasn’t convicted of any crimes. Basically he was too ‘flamboyant’, or really ‘uppity’. If you were going to be black while in congress you needed to keep a low profile and Powell did the opposite. He likely was misusing his power, but he certainly wasn’t the only representative putting family on the payroll, the specific allegation that was used to justify trying to exclude him.

[former9thward]

41. Powell was duly elected but was almost never there.

He was called "the Representative from Bimini" (Bahamas) because that is where he spent almost all of his time rather than in DC.

[Irish_Dem]

32. Everyone keeps saying the GOP can't do this or that.

Then the GOP goes right ahead and does it. Most times no one stops them.

The laws and rules don't seem to apply to them.

[bluestarone]

50. THIS could be our first test of the House

Onenote (reply# 48) has stated that he will sworn in on Feb 28th. THIS is what to watch for. As of now i fully believe this to be true. We shall see if these house members believe in House rules.

[Irish_Dem]

51. Yes time will tell.

We know they are fully capable of refusing to refuse to seat a new Dem member.
Let's see what they decide to do.

[Scrivener7]

54. Right? It's like Lucy and the football.

[Irish_Dem]

56. I know, people here for years have said Trump can't do this or that.

Of course Trump does exactly that and no one stops him.

We have found that most of US law and rules seems to be just
a gentleman's agreement. Nothing that will be enforced when it comes
to the rich and powerful. The ruling class does what it wants to do.

[Cha]

59. And, that's why I wrote "According to this"..

we'll see what actually happens.

[Irish_Dem]

67. Yep. Time will tell.

[Cha]

69. I've read since that Suozzi

Doesn’t get sworn in until the the 28th so it seems that would be a good day to be seated.

💙🌊🇺🇸🕯️

[BlueKota]

79. This is what I am afraid of

Everyone keeps quoting laws, but the Republican party has stopped obeying them. I feel the majority on the Supreme Court isn't interested in protecting the Constitution either, or they would have ruled on the stay and immunity cases by now. It seems they really are going to delay it to protect their golden idol.

At some point the leaders on our side maybe left with no choice but to start breaking the rules too, to protect the rest of the country from these lunatics, and I hope they understand that.

I feel like the country is in a runaway car just about to drive over a cliff and not enough is being done to stop it. We can't just sit around hoping they will play fair.

Sorry I know there are a lot of people who think this is an over reaction, but I'm scared it isn't and I don't have any where else to voice my fears.

[Irish_Dem]

85. I think this is a core issue which needs to be discussed.

How should we fight back against the PutinGOP and Trump?

Yes everyone keeps telling us that Trump and the GOP cannot do this or that.
And quotes the laws and rules to prove their points.

When we know this is a ludicrous argument.
Quoting the law is not the answer to your question.

Trump and the GOP do not follow the laws, rules or customs.
And the criminal justice system is either afraid to enforce the laws,
or is stymied by the GOP underhanded tactics, or is complicit and works for Putin too.

So how do we fight back? We can feel like we are in a no win situation.
If we remain passive, the Putin GOP wins.

If we use underhanded tactics we become like the GOP.
And then Putin has won. The US is now a lawless society like Russia.

There must be a way to play hard ball, to defeat the Putin GOP, but remain
true to the US rule of law and democracy.

We must first understand that the PutinGOP is at war with us. Funded by our enemies,
Russia, China, Iran, Saudi, NK. They wish to be the global superpower and are
trying to damage western democracies. The GOP has aligned with them to destroy
democracy in our country. Their goal is what Putin has in Russia. Total permanent power
and access to all national financial assets.

So we must fight back, and fight back hard.
Or lose our democracy. It is a simple choice.

But how do we do that?

I suggest that instead of wringing our hands, and falling further into despair and depression
we start asking ourselves and our leaders, what is the plan?

How do we save our democracy and rule of law?

It is not enough to say go vote. We know that the GOP is working to take away voting rights
and manipulate the election system.

I may make your question and my answer a longer OP, are you OK with that BlueKota?

[BlueKota]

86. Thank you

Yes I am okay with that

[Midnight Writer]

53. I reckon we could take them to court. We may get a final decision in three or four years.

Republicans make up their own rules and wait for us to get outraged enough to sue them, then they delay, obstruct and appeal until it is no longer relevant.

[Scrivener7]

55. This. We have lots of laws on the books. We also have a judicial system that can be manipulated to

delay decisions so far out as to render them useless.

[Cha]

61. I know... We'll see what our Dems Do about it.

[3Hotdogs]

64. That was N.Y. representative,

Adam Clayton Powell.

[limbicnuminousity]

6. Magic Mike is an embarrassment to both sides of the aisle.

His weird brand of theo-bro evangelical MAGA-tism disgusts the left. On the right -- this man is from Louisiana. I feel confident that Edwin Edwards would label this man a scoundrel and a spineless snake, unfit as a companion at the poker table or in a brothel.

[canetoad]

7. Poor little Speaker Mike

Thinks he can win against Eric Swalwell. This will be good.

[brooklynite]

9. I think you're misinterpreting this...

He's not saying Johnson won't seat him; he's saying Johnson won't seat him until the House comes back in two weeks.

[WarGamer]

12. that changes the whole thread...

[W_HAMILTON]

16. You are misinterpreting it as well.

Swalwell says that Suozzi won his election back when the House was not in recess. Johnson refused to seat him later that week, even though there was time to do so before their recess.

[ShazzieB]

18. And either way, Johnson is in the wrong!

He is a fascist, and he's the worst kind of fascist: the kind who thinks all their acts are ordained by God!

[W_HAMILTON]

19. Hell yeah, he is!

[malaise]

26. Correct

Rec

[Jose Garcia]

29. Was the election certifed before the House went into recess?

[bottomofthehill]

31. Nope

And the House went out early that week as they had to pull their Intel bill because they did not have the votes so the week got shorter.

[brooklynite]

38. When he won the race and when the win was certified by election officials aren't the same thing.

[W_HAMILTON]

74. Feel free to tell us the date of certification.

[onenote]

82. May not have been been certified yet. Definitely not certified by the 15th.

From the New York Board of Elections website:

Statement on the Unofficial Nature of Election Night Results
The unofficial election night results displayed on this web site are based on the unofficial results reported to us by each County Board of Elections and as such, are posted on the web as a convenience to the public. New York State Election Law requires a complete recanvass of all votes cast on Election Day and the canvass of all valid absentee, special, and affidavit (provisional) ballots before any election results can be certified. Once all ballot counting tasks have been completed (usually within 15 days for a primary and within 25 days for a general election), each County Board certifies their respective election results pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable sections of New York State Election Law (see NYS Election Law, Sections 3-222, 9-200, 9-208). Those certifications are then sent to the State Board for aggregation, certification and publication/posting.

[brooklynite]

83. I'm not sure it even has been.

There's a minimum 7-day period after the election for mail-in ballots to be received, and the bipartisan State Board of Elections isn't listing it as certified.

[eShirl]

25. They will refuse to seat any (D) ever again.

[Liberal In Texas]

33. I think you have it. They're going to dispute every election a Democrat wins. Every one.

This is going to make it interesting (to say the least) after the November election when we get the House back. If we win an overwhelming majority, they will create chaos yelling about how all the elections they lost were rigged. Every one.

[Irish_Dem]

35. Like not letting Obama appoint a SC justice.

[onenote]

42. Would you like to make a bet on that.

Suozzi will be seated on February 28 when the House returns, just as was announced on February 15,

This has been blown way out of proportion. It is normal for there to be a lag between the date of a special election and the date a member is sworn in. The swearing in cannot occur until the official certification of the election is transmitted to the House. Suozzi was elected on February 13. The House went into recess on the 15th. It is unlikely that the formal certification had been transmitted to the House before the House went into recess. Which is why, as early as February 14, it was announced that Suozzi's swearing in will occur on the 28th when Congress returns. The idea that this was a plot to prevent Suozzi from voting on February 15 makes no sense: there were only five votes that day and none of them were particularly close.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/14/congress/suozzi-swearing-in-scheduled-00141481

[bottomofthehill]

30. Let's deal with what is real

The House is not in session this week or part of next week. Members take the oath of office when the House is in session. The House comes back on 2/28. He will be sworn in at around 6:30 on 2/28. Please see below from Leader Jeffries.

Democrat Tom Suozzi will be sworn into Congress on Wednesday, Feb. 28, the first day that lawmakers return from Presidents Day recess, according to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' office.

When Suozzi is sworn in to replace ousted Republican Rep. George Santos, the makeup of the chamber will shrink to 219-213, meaning Republicans in the majority can only lose two votes on major legislation

[BlueKota]

81. Why would Swalwell

say Johnson was refusing to seat him then?

[onenote]

84. You'd have to ask him. But why hasn't Jeffries made the same claim?

On February 14 it was announced that Suozzi would be sworn in on February 28 after the House reconvened.
On February 21, Hakeem Jeffries confirmed the scheduling of Suozzi's swearing in for February 28, and made no comment about that swearing in having been unduly held up or "prevented."

Two days later, on February 23, Swalwell made his statement on MSNBC accusing Johnson of "refusing" to seat Suozzi. He also claimed that in the past, republican speakers have seated their own party members as soon as they've been elected. In fact, more often than not there is a lag time of anywhere from a week to several weeks between the date of a special election and the date the winner is sworn in. This is the case for members of both parties and without regard for who is speaker.

Per the House rules, a newly elected member is sworn in after the Clerk of the House receives the formal certification of the election from the state in which the election was held. New York has a somewhat convoluted process for certifying elections that can result in a delay of up to two weeks in the results being finalized and transmitted to the House. With the House going on recess less than 48 hours after the special election, there's nothing particularly nefarious about the swearing not taking place until the House reconvenes on the 28th. It certainly did not have any significant impact -- there were only a few votes on the 15th and none were particularly close.

Which probably explains why Jeffries hasn't expressed any concern.

[Emile]

34. He had time to seat him before they took another vacation.

[Lovie777]

36. That is correct...............................

taking a vacation at this point in time was an extremely bad move. But alas, GQP can't and will not govern. Their main goal is to create chaos and fuck up the USA.

[onenote]

43. The official certification of his election would have had to be transmitted to the House first.

The election was on the 13th. It usually takes a few days before the formal certification is issued. There has been no indication that the certification was received before the House recessed on the afternoon of the 15th.

There almost always is a several day delay between the date of a special election and the date on which the newly-elected member is sworn in.

[Emile]

45. With all the unfinished business in the house, why

are they going on vacation?

[onenote]

46. Because they repubs don't know what the fuck they're doing. But it's not to keep Suozzi from being sworn in.

[Emile]

47. You know that for a fact ehh. . .

[onenote]

49. Yes. I do. Because looking at every special election held the last couple of years, there has been at least a week lag

Last edited Sat Feb 24, 2024, 12:17 PM - Edit history (1)

between the election date and the date of swearing in, even when Congress is in session -- for members of both parties, no matter who was speaker.

Moreover, the idea that they went on recess to avoid swearing in Suozzi makes absolutely no sense logically. Yes, it would prevent him from voting. But it prevents everyone from voting, so where exactly is the advantage from recessing before swearing him in?

[DFW]

37. So, this is the new norm for the House?

And when there is a Democratic majority, probably sometime around January 3 of next year (after the Republican riot has been put down), will the Republicans be cool with it if Speaker Jeffries declines to seat ANY Republican? Oh, no, they will scream bloody murder about the Democrats refusing to honor democracy and the will of the voters of the districts where Republicans won.

Republican motto: no one is allowed to cheat except Republicans! (some animals are more equal than others)

[dalton99a]

39. Not only is it allowed, it is a must

[onenote]

44. No, this is the old norm.

See post #42.

This story has been blown ridiculously out of proportion.

[GiqueCee]

40. When, when, oh WHEN...

... will people learn NEVER to trust a Republican? Conservatives think kindness, generosity, and honesty are weaknesses to be exploited, not virtues to be emulated.

[Attilatheblond]

52. Maga Moses Mike's behavior pretty much proves Joy Reid's concerns about House GOP being dangerous to election security

They don't care about rule of law, morality, or the Constitution. They only care about staying in power and the way that enables them to make money.

[bdamomma]

60. This

is disgusting, Johnson is disgusting. He has some skeletons in his closet too. Doing the Orange Pus job's and Putin's bidding.

[Evolve Dammit]

65. Marching orders from Orange Julius with Vlad as consult. So corrupt

[spanone]

68. K&R

[Ford_Prefect]

70. Effing idiots do not know how it all works and listen to a Russian foil who pretends he knows everything.

Vlad has disabled the House.

[dai13sy]

75. Johnson is corrupt

Isn't it against the law to do this and can't Souzzi be seated anyway? I do love the way Johnson is telling voters to go to hell. He makes me want to puke on my shoes!

[Initech]

77. This bullshit has gone on long enough!

The MAGA assholes need their sorry asses kicked repeatedly. And they need to be treated like toddlers - take their talk show toys away from them. Stop going on Steve Bannon and Sean Hannity. Do your fucking jobs. Playtime is over.

It's time to stop playing nice with these fucks who would rather burn down the country than do the right thing. And Sean Hannity needs to be charged with criminal obstruction now.

[RainCaster]

80. Do nothing has a whole new meaning

A new low for the GOP.
No money for the budget.
No money for Ukraine.
No vote for a crooked Republican replacement.

[brooklynite]

87. Now that everyone has had a chance to rant, here's the Board of Election list of certified election wins...

https://www.vote.nyc/page/election-results-summary

...you'll notice that there's an election missing.

And before you start ranting that the Republicans are refusing to certify the race, a reminder this is NYS, which the Republicans don't control.

[onenote]

89. Is Suozzi's district in New York City? I didn't think so and this is a NYC Board of Elections list.

I think the third district is in Nassau County. The Nassau County Board of Elections website has posted the "unofficial" results of the special election, but it doesn't provide any information about the certification of those results. But as a general proposition, given the process for certifying election results in New York, there is virtually no way the results were certified before the House adjourned on February 15 (less than 48 hours after the polls closed).

So the point stands: there is nothing nefarious going on with the Suozzi certification. If there was, we'd be hearing about it from Hakeem Jeffries who, two days before Swalwell's tweet, confirmed that the swearing in would occur on February 28.

[brooklynite]

93. The district is split between NYC (Queens) and Nassau.

[onenote]

97. Thanks for the info.

Interestingly, when I checked the archived certifications for the 2022 general election, the results for the 3rd District are included, but only that portion that is in Queens. Presumably, the certified results from Queens would have to be combined with the certified results from Nassau County before a final certification could be issued by the state to Congress. Which further undercuts those who think the certification could have been issued to Congress before they adjourned on the 15th.

[Sympthsical]

95. Well, I appreciate your efforts

Watched this one, and it was the age old internet game.

Spend 10 seconds googling basic facts or listen to the tv telling us to be outraged? (or listen to other outraged people and also be outraged, like a herd of cortisol-laced adrenaline scampering up a hillside)

Outrage will always win. I was entertained, tho.

Hey, you tried.