So we are looking at 24 hours of debate then?
— Subtle Clever Username (@Noneya_Mindyers) January 3, 2021
Maximum of 2 hours of floor debate per objection
No requirement to use the whole 2 hours
@greg_doucette sure you've answered this question somewhere down the line but is there a 2 hour recess for EACH objection or are all objections handled under one 2 hour recess?
— ReediculousS (@Rbd9787) January 3, 2021
And each person only gets 5 minutes to speak (also probably per objection), so the long-winded halfwits (Gohmert) won't be able to drag it out very long.
— Mithras Angel (place blue checkmark here) (@mithrasangel) January 3, 2021
Who gets discretion on who talks. Is It just objectors or counterpoints may also be allotted time?
— WillisisCray (@WillisisCray) January 3, 2021
can pelosi just ignore everybody
— Michael Durkin (@mdurkin86) January 3, 2021
who adopts the rules in the senate
— Michael Durkin (@mdurkin86) January 3, 2021
In the past 20ish years, everything has been done in under an hour. That included verbal objections in 2001 and 2017, and written objections in 2005 https://t.co/VdznPJuVY9
Given the time required to debate, vote, and resume the count, how long could a single objection take to resolve?
— Nomads of The Fourth Turning (@generationalize) January 3, 2021
But if there isn't an individualized reason – just that they're each "illegitimate" – then individual objections would be dilatory / out of order https://t.co/0Mqcs1qmhx
Could they object to each elector or are the forced to to object to the entire slate?
— OgieOgilthorpe (@OgieOgilthorpe9) January 3, 2021
He's got a flight to catch though so won't let this drag on, or he'll hand it over to Grassley https://t.co/j3Edvj6Azn
Curious who gets to decide that objections to individual electors without reason is out of order? If its Pence then he has the power to drag this out if he wants to.
— Kathy Vullis (@KathyVullis) January 3, 2021
His statement today pretty clearly says he's not going to do anything outlandish https://t.co/T1YY369dpj
— Jrome G (@jrome56) January 3, 2021
More from T. Greg Doucette
No
No
https://t.co/9MgwobVvYS
Incitement is speech that is:
1️⃣ intended to cause, and
2️⃣ reasonably likely to cause
3️⃣ imminent
4️⃣ lawless action
It needs all 4 elements
If any of those 4 are missing, it's First-Amendment protected speech
And constitutionally protected speech is never sedition
No
Immediate is imminent
4 minutes from now is imminent
4 hours from now might be imminent but probably is not
4 days from now definitely is not
@greg_doucette Sedition finally? https://t.co/34vfNIPTPY
— grumpy_gator (@jonb13x) January 2, 2021
No
https://t.co/9MgwobVvYS
I know he\u2019s a blowhard, @greg_doucette, but this is inciting violence, no?
— ScubaVal #VoteGeorgiaVote (@MajikaZulJin) January 2, 2021
The audience has been standing by with itchy fingers. https://t.co/SpZ5XTNn7M
Incitement is speech that is:
1️⃣ intended to cause, and
2️⃣ reasonably likely to cause
3️⃣ imminent
4️⃣ lawless action
It needs all 4 elements
If any of those 4 are missing, it's First-Amendment protected speech
And constitutionally protected speech is never sedition
No
Um, this doesn\u2019t satisfy all four elements?
— Alex (@arg11) January 2, 2021
Immediate is imminent
4 minutes from now is imminent
4 hours from now might be imminent but probably is not
4 days from now definitely is not
Overturning the election would be a lawless action, wouldn't it?
— Harley Quinn (@HarleyVicQuinn) January 2, 2021
And what Trump is trying to get Pence and Congressional Republicans to do on January 6 is imminent, isn't it?
I would think this qualifies. But you're the expert.
Strongly desirable, but 0% likelihood IMO
I'd love for the President's pardon powers to be restricted to before the election
Very low
I won't put them at zero because you never know what could theoretically happen, but the last amendment was largely accidental and still 28 years ago
The last intentional amendment was ratified 49 years ago
No
People shouldn't end up with fewer rights by banding together, that's just
Don't know the precise verbiage, but it would require the Wyoming Rule for House seats and expand the Senate to 3 Senators per
Yes: that's the purpose of the House, and the # of electoral votes for President being rooted in the
I'd love for the President's pardon powers to be restricted to before the election
@greg_doucette What's the likelihood and desirability of a new constitutional amendment which says that presidents cannot pardon anybody in the last 100 days of each term?
— Evergreen JM \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 \U0001f310 (@ElectronJ2) December 24, 2020
Very low
I won't put them at zero because you never know what could theoretically happen, but the last amendment was largely accidental and still 28 years ago
The last intentional amendment was ratified 49 years ago
What's the chances we ever see a Constitutional Amendment in our lifetimes, at this rate?
— Jeremy (@11JustBreathe11) December 24, 2020
No
People shouldn't end up with fewer rights by banding together, that's just
This one maybe: https://t.co/apWQyLD2i3
— Evergreen JM \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 \U0001f310 (@ElectronJ2) December 24, 2020
Don't know the precise verbiage, but it would require the Wyoming Rule for House seats and expand the Senate to 3 Senators per
If you could unilaterally add an amendment, what would it be?
— KJJBAA (@KJJBAA) December 24, 2020
Yes: that's the purpose of the House, and the # of electoral votes for President being rooted in the
Yes Wyoming rule. No on 3 senators. The senate is broken now that CA has 39M people and Wyoming has 500k. Adding more senators doesn\u2019t fix that. Need to add some semblance of balance.
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) December 24, 2020
We all have a merry chuckle as they're voted down and we watch preparations for Biden's inauguration continue
Trumpists don't have enough votes in either chamber
Sort of
You'd only get Acting President Nancy Pelosi if the vote counting wasn't done by January 20th when Trump's term ends
1/
Basically, if e.g. Arizona's Biden votes were thrown out, Dems would object to Arkansas or some other state soon after Arizona
When the chambers separate to consider the objection, the House would refer the question to committee first
2/
@philski68
And the committee would intentionally never meet, unless / until there was some deal worked out to let the vote-counting continue without issue
So definitely possible, a point of leverage for Dems, but still exceptionally unlikely
3/3
@philski68
Congress can do whatever it wants – if both chambers agree to it
Trumpists don't have enough votes in either chamber
What would the legal result of the proposed objections by the six Senators (need House & Senate) be?
— Alexa O'Brien (@alexadobrien) January 2, 2021
Sort of
You'd only get Acting President Nancy Pelosi if the vote counting wasn't done by January 20th when Trump's term ends
1/
And if they do manage it Pelosi takes over? Is that right?
— Phil Wheatley \u26bd\ufe0f (@philski68) January 3, 2021
Basically, if e.g. Arizona's Biden votes were thrown out, Dems would object to Arkansas or some other state soon after Arizona
When the chambers separate to consider the objection, the House would refer the question to committee first
2/
@philski68
And the committee would intentionally never meet, unless / until there was some deal worked out to let the vote-counting continue without issue
So definitely possible, a point of leverage for Dems, but still exceptionally unlikely
3/3
@philski68
Congress can do whatever it wants – if both chambers agree to it
Cruz\u2019s call for a ten day audit/election committee... there no legal authority for this to even occur correct?
— Justin Rakowski (@JustinRakowski) January 3, 2021
The midterm Congress doesn't matter; it would be the Congress elected in 2024 that takes office on 3 January 2025
But yes, both chambers of Congress acting together have always had the power to install a President. See Hayes-Tilden 1876
Someone has to have the power. Would you rather it be the President? 5 justices of the Supreme Court?
It's functionally impossible to have an election where one party wins the presidency but neither chamber of Congress, and 218 Representatives + 51 Senators agree to toss results
The issue is who is responsible for counting the electoral votes and confirming they're legit. Congress exclusively has that power, and the sheer volume of people that have to be convinced to ignore the results confirms it's the right branch to have it
@Pogman42
If people want to abolish the Electoral College, go for it
But it requires 2/3 of the House + 2/3 of the Senate + 3/4 of state legislatures. It's not an attainable goal, and will not be an attainable goal in our lifetimes
Meanwhile, that energy could be better used elsewhere
Likely unconstitutional, and unenforceable even if it were not
But yes, both chambers of Congress acting together have always had the power to install a President. See Hayes-Tilden 1876
So if the house had a Republican majority\u2014which it may well in 2022, especially given the gerrymandering and structural minority bias\u2014would they legally be able to stop the transition in 2024 of a Democratic president-elect? https://t.co/L2o4ZVdfXO
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) January 2, 2021
Someone has to have the power. Would you rather it be the President? 5 justices of the Supreme Court?
It's functionally impossible to have an election where one party wins the presidency but neither chamber of Congress, and 218 Representatives + 51 Senators agree to toss results
Historically, why is this sort of outcome allowed to be a thing? Maybe it's a failure in my imagination, but why would congress be allowed such power?
— Pogman42 (@Pogman42) January 3, 2021
The issue is who is responsible for counting the electoral votes and confirming they're legit. Congress exclusively has that power, and the sheer volume of people that have to be convinced to ignore the results confirms it's the right branch to have it
@Pogman42
If people want to abolish the Electoral College, go for it
But it requires 2/3 of the House + 2/3 of the Senate + 3/4 of state legislatures. It's not an attainable goal, and will not be an attainable goal in our lifetimes
Meanwhile, that energy could be better used elsewhere
It\u2019s just weird to me that we\u2019re able to elect senators and congressman themselves without this level of confusion but the electors create some kind of unique challenge requiring resolution by congress in some instances
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) January 3, 2021
Likely unconstitutional, and unenforceable even if it were not
What about the NPVIC? https://t.co/arg8V3QPih
— Phil Traum (@TraumPhil) January 3, 2021
More from For later read
The #worldwildlifeday2021 theme is Forests and Livelihoods: Sustaining People and Planet aligning with UN Sustainable Development Goals 1, 12, 13 and 15. So, what are the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) & how can children begin to learn about them & get involved ?
https://t.co/8ICvHxE9QL is easy & fun to follow for our smallest of people #EYFS. Early childhood is the perfect stage to introduce the core concepts of what it means to be a global citizen. For our reception & KS1 children please take a look at this fabulous free resource
https://t.co/tZx8UIS58Q Storytelling is a powerful communications tool and helps children remember lessons and virtues that they will use in everyday life. The idea is to simplify the lessons of the (SDGs) so young children can relate to – and better understand – the SDGs.
For older children here’s a board game that aims to help teach children around the world about the Sustainable Development Goals in a simple and child-friendly way
This is a lovely free book for children to enjoy flicking through themselves https://t.co/ScMbQCfpjl Elyx, the United Nations’ digital ambassador, uses various expressions and actions to help demonstrate the meaning of each Sustainable Development Goal.
https://t.co/8ICvHxE9QL is easy & fun to follow for our smallest of people #EYFS. Early childhood is the perfect stage to introduce the core concepts of what it means to be a global citizen. For our reception & KS1 children please take a look at this fabulous free resource
https://t.co/tZx8UIS58Q Storytelling is a powerful communications tool and helps children remember lessons and virtues that they will use in everyday life. The idea is to simplify the lessons of the (SDGs) so young children can relate to – and better understand – the SDGs.
For older children here’s a board game that aims to help teach children around the world about the Sustainable Development Goals in a simple and child-friendly way
This is a lovely free book for children to enjoy flicking through themselves https://t.co/ScMbQCfpjl Elyx, the United Nations’ digital ambassador, uses various expressions and actions to help demonstrate the meaning of each Sustainable Development Goal.
You May Also Like
✨📱 iOS 12.1 📱✨
🗓 Release date: October 30, 2018
📝 New Emojis: 158
https://t.co/bx8XjhiCiB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥰 Smiling Face With 3 Hearts https://t.co/6eajdvueip
New in iOS 12.1: 🥵 Hot Face https://t.co/jhTv1elltB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥶 Cold Face https://t.co/EIjyl6yZrF
New in iOS 12.1: 🥳 Partying Face https://t.co/p8FDNEQ3LJ
🗓 Release date: October 30, 2018
📝 New Emojis: 158
https://t.co/bx8XjhiCiB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥰 Smiling Face With 3 Hearts https://t.co/6eajdvueip
New in iOS 12.1: 🥵 Hot Face https://t.co/jhTv1elltB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥶 Cold Face https://t.co/EIjyl6yZrF
New in iOS 12.1: 🥳 Partying Face https://t.co/p8FDNEQ3LJ
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
