The House Democrats Sit-In

[136or142]

Man this incident proves the media is liberal.

Old meme.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Republicans caused a shutdown of the government.  Nice try, though.

and that was all the blame of the republicans lol, what about obama and reid not budging on budget negotiations in 2013.

It wasn't an attempt to negotiate on the budget, which Obama has done his entire time as President with the Republicans in the majority, it was an attempt to reopen the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which was legislation that had already passed.

[136or142]

The Republicans say that a gun bill that prevents people from buying guns based on the inaccurate terror watch list and/or no fly list is unconstitutional. But, based on the United States vs Wheeler decision of 1920, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitutional protections of Freedom of Movement also included the freedom to travel without unreasonable restrictions. So, based on that, the inaccurate terrorist watch list/no fly list should already be regarded as unconstitutional, and the government should have long ago been required to make it as accurate as possible.

Yet, the Republicans didn't seem to care about this violation of Constitutional protections at all. (I believe the ACLU has taken the government to court over the violation of the right to travel) and only now is concerned that the watch lists seem to have a lot of problems. So, we know the Republicans don't really care about the Constitution, just about the votes of gun nuts and pleasing the psychopaths in the NRA.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Seriously though, don't you guys think this looks like a good time? I hope they all brought their Pj's, I'd kill to see a hundred plus congressional lawmakers rolled up on the floor of the House for nap time in their jammies.

[Ebsy]

They actually did manage to thwart Ryan's veto override, so they have accomplished something.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Yeah lets pass more spying and ignore due process by attaching gun ownership to an arbitrary watch list that the public can't see.

[SteveRogers]

Seriously though, don't you guys think this looks like a good time? I hope they all brought their Pj's, I'd kill to see a hundred plus congressional lawmakers rolled up on the floor of the House for nap time in their jammies.

My source on the Hill informs me that everyone is indeed having a pretty great time.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

House Democrats seem to be foaming at the mouth over gun control in response to the attack in Orlando. Why is it that these same Democrats aren't concerned about the murders taking place in Chicago? Why is it that gun control is only brought up in response to an ISIS attack?

This statement is patently nonsense. Democrats try to bring up gun control after every mass shooting. It's Republicans who take the "Gee, what are you gonna do? Stuff happens" approach whenever there's a mass shooting, except for when the shooter is a muslim. 

As for how this is different than Republicans abusing the filibuster or shutting down the government, that's easy. Republicans obstruct in order to prevent business from getting done, including even the most basic responsibilities assigned to congress (see refusing to even hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee, refusing to pass a routine budget that doesn't include a poison pill "repeal Obamacare provision, etc.). This sit-in is being staged to try to get something done, not to obstruct. And since the official policy of congressional Republicans is to never get anything done, I'm not sure what vital business anyone thinks is being held up because of this. 

This, however, is not a filibuster (which, however undemocratic, is part of the rules that neither party has wanted to give up for one reason or another).  The House doesn't have filibusters. 

This is an anarchic display of misconduct by folks that didn't have the numbers to get what they wanted done, and who passed on what would have been a compromise that represented achievement. 

In this, the Democrats forfeited some of the moral high ground they could once claim.  One of the things that has disgusted me about the GOP over the last 7-8 years is their desire to sabotage Obama's proposals to ENSURE that they fail.  Obamacare is a prime example; it is actually a Republican-based plan dating back to what the GOP was advancing in the 1970s, and a plan that, with ongoing maintenance and tinkering, could succeed, but they want it to fail.  Democrats are not wrong to point that out.  Compromise and achievement would be to the credit of the GOP on Obamacare, and it would have been to the credit of the Democrats had they voted in the Cornyn Bill.  Someone has to go first.

The GOP has earned Democrats' enmity.  They would "deserve it" if after Trump is elected (if he wins) they filibustered and blocked every single appointment Trump made.  They could do it, and it might play in today's environment.  But America doesn't "deserve it".  A republican form of government allows elected representatives to use their best judgement in legislating, but they are supposed to use their best judgement on behalf of the nation they serve, first, and on behalf of the constituency they represent, second.  There was none of that in the Democrats' action yesterday, and the way they went about it dealt a blow to the perception of stability in our democracy that the American people could have done without.

[BlueSwan]

House Democrats seem to be foaming at the mouth over gun control in response to the attack in Orlando. Why is it that these same Democrats aren't concerned about the murders taking place in Chicago? Why is it that gun control is only brought up in response to an ISIS attack?

This statement is patently nonsense. Democrats try to bring up gun control after every mass shooting. It's Republicans who take the "Gee, what are you gonna do? Stuff happens" approach whenever there's a mass shooting, except for when the shooter is a muslim. 

As for how this is different than Republicans abusing the filibuster or shutting down the government, that's easy. Republicans obstruct in order to prevent business from getting done, including even the most basic responsibilities assigned to congress (see refusing to even hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee, refusing to pass a routine budget that doesn't include a poison pill "repeal Obamacare provision, etc.). This sit-in is being staged to try to get something done, not to obstruct. And since the official policy of congressional Republicans is to never get anything done, I'm not sure what vital business anyone thinks is being held up because of this. 

This, however, is not a filibuster (which, however undemocratic, is part of the rules that neither party has wanted to give up for one reason or another).  The House doesn't have filibusters. 

This is an anarchic display of misconduct by folks that didn't have the numbers to get what they wanted done, and who passed on what would have been a compromise that represented achievement. 

In this, the Democrats forfeited some of the moral high ground they could once claim.  One of the things that has disgusted me about the GOP over the last 7-8 years is their desire to sabotage Obama's proposals to ENSURE that they fail.  Obamacare is a prime example; it is actually a Republican-based plan dating back to what the GOP was advancing in the 1970s, and a plan that, with ongoing maintenance and tinkering, could succeed, but they want it to fail.  Democrats are not wrong to point that out.  Compromise and achievement would be to the credit of the GOP on Obamacare, and it would have been to the credit of the Democrats had they voted in the Cornyn Bill.  Someone has to go first.

The GOP has earned Democrats' enmity.  They would "deserve it" if after Trump is elected (if he wins) they filibustered and blocked every single appointment Trump made.  They could do it, and it might play in today's environment.  But America doesn't "deserve it".  A republican form of government allows elected representatives to use their best judgement in legislating, but they are supposed to use their best judgement on behalf of the nation they serve, first, and on behalf of the constituency they represent, second.  There was none of that in the Democrats' action yesterday, and the way they went about it dealt a blow to the perception of stability in our democracy that the American people could have done without.

But all they want is a vote. This whole idea of the Speaker controlling what gets voted on is deeply undemocratic. The "Hastert rule" ensures that even proposals that a majority of house members support, won't even get a vote of the majority of the majority party doesn't support it. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

What bollocks "(they've) forfeited some of the moral high ground they could once claim"

Ryan was determined to steam-roll them, they decided they wouldn't stand for it, but couldn't stop it through normal means. Good on them.

It seems Silly American and Fuzzy Bear are increasingly a self-supporting structure these days.

[SillyAmerican]

House Democrats seem to be foaming at the mouth over gun control in response to the attack in Orlando. Why is it that these same Democrats aren't concerned about the murders taking place in Chicago? Why is it that gun control is only brought up in response to an ISIS attack?

This statement is patently nonsense. Democrats try to bring up gun control after every mass shooting. It's Republicans who take the "Gee, what are you gonna do? Stuff happens" approach whenever there's a mass shooting, except for when the shooter is a muslim. 

As for how this is different than Republicans abusing the filibuster or shutting down the government, that's easy. Republicans obstruct in order to prevent business from getting done, including even the most basic responsibilities assigned to congress (see refusing to even hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee, refusing to pass a routine budget that doesn't include a poison pill "repeal Obamacare provision, etc.). This sit-in is being staged to try to get something done, not to obstruct. And since the official policy of congressional Republicans is to never get anything done, I'm not sure what vital business anyone thinks is being held up because of this. 

This, however, is not a filibuster (which, however undemocratic, is part of the rules that neither party has wanted to give up for one reason or another).  The House doesn't have filibusters. 

This is an anarchic display of misconduct by folks that didn't have the numbers to get what they wanted done, and who passed on what would have been a compromise that represented achievement. 

In this, the Democrats forfeited some of the moral high ground they could once claim.  One of the things that has disgusted me about the GOP over the last 7-8 years is their desire to sabotage Obama's proposals to ENSURE that they fail.  Obamacare is a prime example; it is actually a Republican-based plan dating back to what the GOP was advancing in the 1970s, and a plan that, with ongoing maintenance and tinkering, could succeed, but they want it to fail.  Democrats are not wrong to point that out.  Compromise and achievement would be to the credit of the GOP on Obamacare, and it would have been to the credit of the Democrats had they voted in the Cornyn Bill.  Someone has to go first.

The GOP has earned Democrats' enmity.  They would "deserve it" if after Trump is elected (if he wins) they filibustered and blocked every single appointment Trump made.  They could do it, and it might play in today's environment.  But America doesn't "deserve it".  A republican form of government allows elected representatives to use their best judgement in legislating, but they are supposed to use their best judgement on behalf of the nation they serve, first, and on behalf of the constituency they represent, second.  There was none of that in the Democrats' action yesterday, and the way they went about it dealt a blow to the perception of stability in our democracy that the American people could have done without.

Both sides are completely dug in, and there seems to no longer be any thought given to actually working things out in order to move things forward. The word "compromise" no longer represents a positive option, and the republic is suffering because of it. As you say, in the past, there was a recognition of our being one nation, where today the divide is seen as a chasm that simply cannot be crossed. It's sad, but that's where we're at.

[skoods]

Republicans want to allow people on terrorist watch lists to buy guns all because they are afraid of the NRA coming after them this fall. That's the embarrassing part and that's the part that Democrats should be taking advantage of.

Instead of pulling this stuff, they SHOULD be running ad after ad for every senator who voted against those bills calling them "soft on terrorism and soft on crime." That's what they are, after all. They don't care about limiting the sale of guns to criminals and terrorists all because Billy Bob in Alabama might be offended.

[SillyAmerican]

Republicans want to allow people on terrorist watch lists to buy guns all because they are afraid of the NRA coming after them this fall. That's the embarrassing part and that's the part that Democrats should be taking advantage of.

Instead of pulling this stuff, they SHOULD be running ad after ad for every senator who voted against those bills calling them "soft on terrorism and soft on crime." That's what they are, after all. They don't care about limiting the sale of guns to criminals and terrorists all because Billy Bob in Alabama might be offended.

A couple of quick points.

(1) It very interesting that Chicago’s staggering rise in gun violence and killings gets no attention whatsoever by gun control advocates, yet an attack from an ISIS goon results not in a discussion of how best to fight radical Islam but in an attack on an American's gun rights. Should we impose reasonable gun controls on people, especially those on terrorist watch lists? Yes, we should. Should gun control be the main topic of discussion when looking at the murders in Orlando? No, it should not.

(2) The Second Amendment of our Constitution applies to every American, not just Billy Bob in Alabama.

[136or142]

It seems Silly American and Fuzzy Bear are increasingly a self-supporting structure these days.

What do you expect?  One admits to being silly and the other uses fuzzy logic.

[136or142]

House Democrats seem to be foaming at the mouth over gun control in response to the attack in Orlando. Why is it that these same Democrats aren't concerned about the murders taking place in Chicago? Why is it that gun control is only brought up in response to an ISIS attack?

This statement is patently nonsense. Democrats try to bring up gun control after every mass shooting. It's Republicans who take the "Gee, what are you gonna do? Stuff happens" approach whenever there's a mass shooting, except for when the shooter is a muslim. 

As for how this is different than Republicans abusing the filibuster or shutting down the government, that's easy. Republicans obstruct in order to prevent business from getting done, including even the most basic responsibilities assigned to congress (see refusing to even hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee, refusing to pass a routine budget that doesn't include a poison pill "repeal Obamacare provision, etc.). This sit-in is being staged to try to get something done, not to obstruct. And since the official policy of congressional Republicans is to never get anything done, I'm not sure what vital business anyone thinks is being held up because of this. 

This, however, is not a filibuster (which, however undemocratic, is part of the rules that neither party has wanted to give up for one reason or another).  The House doesn't have filibusters. 

This is an anarchic display of misconduct by folks that didn't have the numbers to get what they wanted done, and who passed on what would have been a compromise that represented achievement. 

In this, the Democrats forfeited some of the moral high ground they could once claim.  One of the things that has disgusted me about the GOP over the last 7-8 years is their desire to sabotage Obama's proposals to ENSURE that they fail.  Obamacare is a prime example; it is actually a Republican-based plan dating back to what the GOP was advancing in the 1970s, and a plan that, with ongoing maintenance and tinkering, could succeed, but they want it to fail.  Democrats are not wrong to point that out.  Compromise and achievement would be to the credit of the GOP on Obamacare, and it would have been to the credit of the Democrats had they voted in the Cornyn Bill.  Someone has to go first.

The GOP has earned Democrats' enmity.  They would "deserve it" if after Trump is elected (if he wins) they filibustered and blocked every single appointment Trump made.  They could do it, and it might play in today's environment.  But America doesn't "deserve it".  A republican form of government allows elected representatives to use their best judgement in legislating, but they are supposed to use their best judgement on behalf of the nation they serve, first, and on behalf of the constituency they represent, second.  There was none of that in the Democrats' action yesterday, and the way they went about it dealt a blow to the perception of stability in our democracy that the American people could have done without.

Both sides are completely dug in, and there seems to no longer be any thought given to actually working things out in order to move things forward. The word "compromise" no longer represents a positive option, and the republic is suffering because of it. As you say, in the past, there was a recognition of our being one nation, where today the divide is seen as a chasm that simply cannot be crossed. It's sad, but that's where we're at.

How could the Republicans compromise?  They and their partner here, the NRA, have done their best convincing Republican voters that Second Amendment Rights are absolute.  How can you compromise on something that you've told people is absolute, especially when, since I don't believe these Republicans are lying, many of the House Members themselves likely believe the Second Amendment is absolute.

[136or142]

Republicans want to allow people on terrorist watch lists to buy guns all because they are afraid of the NRA coming after them this fall. That's the embarrassing part and that's the part that Democrats should be taking advantage of.

Instead of pulling this stuff, they SHOULD be running ad after ad for every senator who voted against those bills calling them "soft on terrorism and soft on crime." That's what they are, after all. They don't care about limiting the sale of guns to criminals and terrorists all because Billy Bob in Alabama might be offended.

I don't see the contradiction.  I think the Democrats in the House know full well that the Republican majority in the House would have voted down the Democratic legislation on this.  They just want the Republican members of the House to have to record the vote, so that they could then run ads like you suggested against Republican House members as well.

Despite the history that even though nearly always more Americans favor gun control that the majority of voters who actually vote based on this issue vote against politicians who support gun control, I think Ryan is afraid that with the incredible increase in the number of mass shootings and now with this shooting, that maybe that history no longer applies, at least not right now, and he's desperate to avoid Republicans in marginal districts having to vote on this.

[Lincoln Republican]

A shameless publicity stunt on the part of the Democrats.

A crass money grab on the part of the Democrats, actually soliciting donations by using the Orlando tragedy as a fund raising effort.

Democrats exhibiting shamelessly pictures of the victims in Orlando, which at the very least is in extremely bad taste.    

A Republican governor literally put a woman under house arrest in order to exploit the public's irrational fear that she might have had Ebola, even though she never even presented a single symptom.

Every Republican governor in the nation vowed to try and prevent Syrian refugees from living in their state even though they have no authority to do so.

I don't post this to suggest 'both sides do it' because you've presented no evidence the Democrats are trying to fundraise over this as opposed to trying to force a vote.  So, only idiot Republicans (redundant, sorry) do this.

Edit: The DNC and Nancy Pelosi both sent out fundraising tweets.

Proves my statement.  You think I made this up?

I am, by the way, a strong proponent of strict gun control.

[136or142]

A shameless publicity stunt on the part of the Democrats.

A crass money grab on the part of the Democrats, actually soliciting donations by using the Orlando tragedy as a fund raising effort.

Democrats exhibiting shamelessly pictures of the victims in Orlando, which at the very least is in extremely bad taste.    

A Republican governor literally put a woman under house arrest in order to exploit the public's irrational fear that she might have had Ebola, even though she never even presented a single symptom.

Every Republican governor in the nation vowed to try and prevent Syrian refugees from living in their state even though they have no authority to do so.

I don't post this to suggest 'both sides do it' because you've presented no evidence the Democrats are trying to fundraise over this as opposed to trying to force a vote.  So, only idiot Republicans (redundant, sorry) do this.

Edit: The DNC and Nancy Pelosi both sent out fundraising tweets.

Proves my statement.  You think I made this up?

I am, by the way, a strong proponent of strict gun control.

No, but you didn't present any evidence either.  So, it was natural for me to believe you just assumed they were engaging in fund raising off of this.

[Lincoln Republican]

The hour was late, I was watching the event on CNN, and it was a CNN political panel who were talking about the fact the Democrats were using this as a fund raising effort.  I didn't have any reference link at the time, there probably was no reference link until after.  I don't know.

The CNN panel as well believed it was in extremely poor taste to use pictures of shooting victims.

There was also even a phone number, 202-224-3121, to be seen on the screen, I assume for people to call into to donate money.

This whole publicity stunt on the part of Democrats was a shameless display.

You want to change the gun laws, do it through the legal legislative process, not by staging some type of a 1960's college sit in.

I support strong gun control laws and policies, but I do not support legislators circumventing the legal system.    

[Illiniwek]

You want to change the gun laws, do it through the legal legislative process, not by staging some type of a 1960's college sit in.

Kind of hard to do when your party does a "shameless display" of leadership every single time there is a tragedy. If it is a brown person who does the attack, they cry "radical islamic terrorism"; if it is a white person, they briefly blame "mental health". But in the end, they always do the same thing: THEY DO FRIGGING NOTHING. 80%+ of the country wants a No Fly-No Buy, and 90%+ want expanded background checks. But YOUR party won't lift a finger to even have a discussion on how to fix the situation. The Democrats sitting on the floor to draw attention to Congress' inaction is a hell of a lot more honorable than the Republicans waiting out until people forget about each and every tragedy.

If YOUR party actually wants to carry out the "People's business", then allow a frigging vote and let the voters decide what to do with Congressmen who act AGAINST the people's will and for the gun manufacturers.

[skoods]

We can say all we want. All this will accomplish is to rally progressives who consider gun control a major issue. It's a rallying cry for November.

[Hermit For Peace]

I don't know what to think about these latest Democratic antics, but it would seem that these Congress people are passionate about the gun control issue. Most of the country is behind some of the gun control proposals, and yet, the Republicans go tone deaf on all of it.

But it's just a matter of time before change MUST occur as the voices keep getting louder and the killings keep getting larger in scope. There is no stopping our country from having a new conversation about guns, eventually.

[Virginiá]

But all they want is a vote. This whole idea of the Speaker controlling what gets voted on is deeply undemocratic. The "Hastert rule" ensures that even proposals that a majority of house members support, won't even get a vote of the majority of the majority party doesn't support it.  

See, this is something I don't think is talked about enough. Speaker(s) of the House should not be running their chamber like this. Remember immigration reform? Boehner wouldn't even give it a vote. Why not? There was a pretty decent amount of support. Same with this - Congress is now being run as such where the majority party basically runs it as if they are the only people whose agenda matters and they only give in when absolutely forced to for PR reasons or even just to move on with business. Democrats and Republicans both need to acknowledge that they represent huge parts of America, of which both sides deserve to have their issues addressed, or at least given votes.

The Senate is a notorious example of this. 60 votes for cloture was never supposed to be used as a de-facto majority requirement to pass bills and now that is exactly what it has become, and it's crippling the ability of Congress to do anything. The filibuster needs to be changed so that bills can only be blocked for as long as people are actually willing to stand up talking, and bills in the House should be able to get a vote if a significant percentage of the House wants it - Maybe even 40% of the House.

Otherwise, Congress is never going to be able to do anything when govt is divided and one side can effectively nuke a proposal either by denial of cloture or by the Speaker refusing to let a bill get a vote. It's too much power for one side.

[Lincoln Republican]

You want to change the gun laws, do it through the legal legislative process, not by staging some type of a 1960's college sit in.

Kind of hard to do when your party does a "shameless display" of leadership every single time there is a tragedy. If it is a brown person who does the attack, they cry "radical islamic terrorism"; if it is a white person, they briefly blame "mental health". But in the end, they always do the same thing: THEY DO FRIGGING NOTHING. 80%+ of the country wants a No Fly-No Buy, and 90%+ want expanded background checks. But YOUR party won't lift a finger to even have a discussion on how to fix the situation. The Democrats sitting on the floor to draw attention to Congress' inaction is a hell of a lot more honorable than the Republicans waiting out until people forget about each and every tragedy.

If YOUR party actually wants to carry out the "People's business", then allow a frigging vote and let the voters decide what to do with Congressmen who act AGAINST the people's will and for the gun manufacturers.

Hey, if I had my way, my party would introduce and pass sweeping gun control laws.

I deeply oppose the stand of my party on this issue.

However, I still see this sit in as a Democratic publicity stunt and self righteous bombast.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Lol.



Dems hustlin hard to get that Trump money. Just like Hillary at her paid speeches.

[OSR stands with Israel]

House Democrats seem to be foaming at the mouth over gun control in response to the attack in Orlando. Why is it that these same Democrats aren't concerned about the murders taking place in Chicago? Why is it that gun control is only brought up in response to an ISIS attack?

This statement is patently nonsense. Democrats try to bring up gun control after every mass shooting. It's Republicans who take the "Gee, what are you gonna do? Stuff happens" approach whenever there's a mass shooting, except for when the shooter is a muslim.  

As for how this is different than Republicans abusing the filibuster or shutting down the government, that's easy. Republicans obstruct in order to prevent business from getting done, including even the most basic responsibilities assigned to congress (see refusing to even hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee, refusing to pass a routine budget that doesn't include a poison pill "repeal Obamacare provision, etc.). This sit-in is being staged to try to get something done, not to obstruct. And since the official policy of congressional Republicans is to never get anything done, I'm not sure what vital business anyone thinks is being held up because of this.  

This, however, is not a filibuster (which, however undemocratic, is part of the rules that neither party has wanted to give up for one reason or another).  The House doesn't have filibusters.  

This is an anarchic display of misconduct by folks that didn't have the numbers to get what they wanted done, and who passed on what would have been a compromise that represented achievement.  

In this, the Democrats forfeited some of the moral high ground they could once claim.  One of the things that has disgusted me about the GOP over the last 7-8 years is their desire to sabotage Obama's proposals to ENSURE that they fail.  Obamacare is a prime example; it is actually a Republican-based plan dating back to what the GOP was advancing in the 1970s, and a plan that, with ongoing maintenance and tinkering, could succeed, but they want it to fail.  Democrats are not wrong to point that out.  Compromise and achievement would be to the credit of the GOP on Obamacare, and it would have been to the credit of the Democrats had they voted in the Cornyn Bill.  Someone has to go first.

The GOP has earned Democrats' enmity.  They would "deserve it" if after Trump is elected (if he wins) they filibustered and blocked every single appointment Trump made.  They could do it, and it might play in today's environment.  But America doesn't "deserve it".  A republican form of government allows elected representatives to use their best judgement in legislating, but they are supposed to use their best judgement on behalf of the nation they serve, first, and on behalf of the constituency they represent, second.  There was none of that in the Democrats' action yesterday, and the way they went about it dealt a blow to the perception of stability in our democracy that the American people could have done without.

Don't forget Dems obstructed bush on everything he tried to do after Medicare Part D was passed.Also dont forget that reid also refused to vote on any of the proposals the house voted on from 2010-2014.