comment: >
  
  Democrats have been trying for 20 years to insist that Republicans are not the enemy, and that they can work together.  And Republicans have spit in their face and declared them the enemy of the United States, and fought every single thing they wanted to do -  even if they agreed with it -  just out of principle.  Hell, Obama went out of his way to include them repeatedly and they did nothing but slap away his hand, turn to the cameras, and cry about how Obama was an evil dictator. 
  They have spent the last two decades establishing that Democratic presidents are illegitimate, laws passed by Democrat-led bodies don't count, decisions by left-leaning courts are invalid, and votes cast for Democratic candidates are fraudulent.  
  And now they're like "hey let's make a deal"?  
  Ehhhh....
  No.
context: Problem is, can you trust the GOP to honor any deals they make? >
  
  No >
  
  So how do you negotiate with someone that always negotiates in bad faith? >
  
  You don't.
  Let them sink. >
  
  Pirates make up rules and then say they were only suggestions. Arrg! >
  
  Democrats: "You are without doubt the WORST political party we've ever heard of"
  Republicans: "but you *have* heard of us!" >
  
  I work in an office that heavily frowns upon making any noise, fuck you. Fuck you good man, I had to audibly chuckle. >
  
  Where do you work...on the side of a mountain with a heavy buildup of snow? >
  
  Hilarious and no, I work in an extremely lucrative engineering "firm". So there's always people with their heads down balls deep into their work :P >
  
  An Audi engineering firm? >
  
  Just a word of advice, Dems: payment upfront + points. >
  
  Could they strike any kind of enforceable deal the Supreme Court wouldn't just declare unconstitutional after the fact when Republicans want to wriggle out of it? >
  
  The Supreme Court can’t do anything about internal rules determined by the houses of Congress. Just like Congress can’t tell the Supreme Court how to do their processes. >
  
  Congress can include court stripping in any bill they pass which literally let's them say that the supreme court is not allowed to rule on it >
  
  Really? Is that constitutional? Do you have any more info on that fact? My guess is the ability to do court stripping itself has not been tested. >
  
  It stems from article 3 of the constitution
  
  "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
  
  So to give a real quick rundown the court has original and appellate jurisdiction, original cases are cases that start at the Supreme Court, all others (pretty much most big cases you hear about) are appellate.  Meaning a lower court hears them first, it goes up and up on each appeal, and then it reaches the Supreme Court where the Court rules.
  Marbury v. Madison then fleshes out the Supreme courts appellate powers a little more.
  it's pretty clearly stated that in cases of appeal the congress can regulate, and exempt, and thus prevent hearing. It's been a long time since my college courses covering this, so I can't recall a major time this was used, if any, so it's a rarely touched power. But one they do indeed have for appellate cases
  Edit; after going back in forth in my head a bit, im pretty sure questions involving the court itself are not under original jurisdiction... but I can't remember completely. >
  
  So Congress could write an unconstitutional law, but include a line saying the supreme court couldn't evaluate it, and that's just it?
  I'm pressing X as hard as I can. >
  
  You have to remember that constitutional review wasn't inherently spelled out in the constitution, and was only really made a power by John Marshall in Marbury v. Maryland.
  The founding fathers gave congress tons of power, though it may not seem like it today because they are so divided.
  But its right there in article 3 that congress can make exceptions to their appellate jurisdiction, which is where most constitutionally divisive matters come from these days. >
  
  No deals for McCarthy. He had a chance to impeach Trump twice in light of overwhelming evidence, and he said no. Any meaningful inflation reduction acts, gas cost reductions, affordable healthcare, measures to fix the baby formula shortage, all staunchly opposed while he was minority speaker.
  Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. He chose to play with the clowns rather than make everyday American’s lives better, it’s his circus now and he can deal with it. >
  
  Also Republicans sent their zombie zealots with zip ties and military gear to go catch some House reps to try and hang them on the front lawn. Fuck these traitors >
  
  “There are two people I believe Putin pays… Rorhbacher… and Trump.” 
  
  Kevin McCarthy. 
  
  Yeah, he can get fucked. >
  
  If Kevin is it in the end I hope they curtail and clip his wings so hard he is referred to as “Speaker by title only” for every introduction on that floor. >
  
  The SINO >
  
  That’ll give him a Chinese association too, which would just be the icing on the cake. >
  
  No concessions. Republicans always make the claim they can govern without dems. Time to watch them eat crow. >
  
  I wonder what conversations happened overnight. I saw Lauren Boebert on television literally calling Kevin McCarthy a liar and saying she would never vote for him, there was no room for negotiation, no circumstance in which he deserved to be speaker of the house, and so on. Those kinds of statements seem pretty intractable. I don't know how Kevin McCarthy would even approach people like her. >
  
  I'm sure it was something like she wants to head a committee. If they get the crazies on board, it will be because Mccarthy gives them serious power in the house. >
  
  I know that politicians have no moral grounding but if some woman with a gun restaurant went on MSNBC and told the world that I was a liar and didn't deserve to be speaker of the house and that she would never vote for me, there's no way I would put her on a committee. Much less let her head it. I don't understand her end game. lol
  But it's really not just her, she's just a good example who's really visible. There are 20 or so others in the same position. >
  
  *the woman who used to have a gun restaurant.
  It closed permanently in July. Apparently she’s as good at business as Trump. >
  
  Well she went from broke to having a $20 million plus fortune. But she’s backed by the Kochs they pay politicians well. >
  
  That's the part I've always wondered about her, she was running a resturant in CO and suddenly decides to run for Congress?  There's no documented political activity by her and then she's a MoC?  Somebody saw something there and decided to back her with $$$ for very specific reasons. >
  
  Her ties to Ted Cruz, who apparently met her during her escorting days, and somehow she was connected with the kochs then and from there… Congress.   Republican family values  - what a sham. >
  
  I've heard the stories, but I wonder what the real story is with her.  How do the Kochs connect with a small-time restaurateur? >
  
  Sex work. >
  
  A deal to save you from yourself, GOP. And then you’re gonna bite the democrats and tell them it’s their fault. >
  
  This is right. 
  Maybe there was a time when the Republicans were the opposition but not the enemy, and deals could be made. But this is not that time.