Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Nevilledog

(55,140 posts) Mon Nov 9, 2020, 06:00 PM Nov 2020

196

Stuart Stevens: ... House has an obligation not to seat any of the newly elected Republicans. [View all]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
stuart stevens
@stuartpstevens
If there is massive voter fraud as Republicans claim, obviously the House has an obligation not to seat any of the newly elected Republicans.
2:43 PM · Nov 9, 2020

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Stuart Stevens: ... House has an obligation not to seat any of the newly elected Republicans. [View all] Nevilledog Nov 2020 OP

This made me LOL Ferrets are Cool Nov 2020 #1

Me too. KentuckyWoman Nov 2020 #26

All members of the House -- those newly elected and those reelected - are sworn in en masse. onenote Nov 2020 #2

I guess that means Mitch Mcconnell doesn't have a job now. Maraya1969 Nov 2020 #28

Huh? Care to explain? onenote Nov 2020 #32

According to the OP seats that were re-elected should not be seated because Maraya1969 Nov 2020 #33

OMG! You're right! Amy McGrath MIGHT have won Kentucky, after all! BComplex Nov 2020 #37

Fighting back feels good! nt 42bambi Nov 2020 #3

They didn't think this through, did they? C_U_L8R Nov 2020 #4

Bwahahahaaaaaa! Never seen that! 😄 electric_blue68 Nov 2020 #27

Ha! Brilliant. 😄 crickets Nov 2020 #5

The Speaker of the House can deny any rep to be seated Wanderlust988 Nov 2020 #6

Yes, that is correct, we have to start dishing it out just the way they do /nt bucolic_frolic Nov 2020 #9

It is not correct, see below. tritsofme Nov 2020 #11

This is not true. The issue was settled in the 1969 case Powell v. McCormack tritsofme Nov 2020 #10

That's a 53 year old ruling, precedents are made to be tested bucolic_frolic Nov 2020 #14

Because there is absolutely no legal basis to overturn it, it is not under serious dispute tritsofme Nov 2020 #31

They can dispute the election on the Floor of the House though. bottomofthehill Nov 2020 #21

Yes, each chamber can decide disputed elections, but they cannot disqualify tritsofme Nov 2020 #29

Agreed. The Speaker can not block bottomofthehill Nov 2020 #35

It is the republicans saying they dispute the results questionseverything Nov 2020 #36

Especially the part where there was "voter fraud" in Kentucky. Amy McGrath might have won! BComplex Nov 2020 #38

Republicans would NO DOUBT use this with us !!! NO DOUBT !!! uponit7771 Nov 2020 #13

Love it! Sogo Nov 2020 #7

Yes, Dems committed massive fraud to elect Biden, DeminPennswoods Nov 2020 #8

AND allowed traitor Mitch to be reelected? SledDriver Nov 2020 #19

Now that is awesomesauce! Brainfodder Nov 2020 #12

Same for the Senate so that means Collins, Graham and Moscow Mitch did not cstanleytech Nov 2020 #15

Wep! No double standards. StarryNite Nov 2020 #16

K&R x 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ffr Nov 2020 #17

Lindsey and Moscow Mitch should absolutely agree with this. keithbvadu2 Nov 2020 #18

Interesting. Look at the Senate. The republicans ... Whiskeytide Nov 2020 #20

I think they should float the idea out there just for the response they would get. LiberalArkie Nov 2020 #22

Exactly. BTW, if there was massive voter fraud why didn't all the senate races go to Dems. nt iluvtennis Nov 2020 #23

Fuck them! warmfeet Nov 2020 #24

+1000 hadEnuf Nov 2020 #30

They were chosen on the same ballots as the Presidency treestar Nov 2020 #25

Suck it, fuckos! Blue Owl Nov 2020 #34

I take this ias a serious idea. BobTheSubgenius Nov 2020 #39

yes samsingh Nov 2020 #40