Vote blue across board.

We all need to vote straight Democrat from Harris/Walz all the way down to dog catcher!

They still can vote and can even be elected.

This election must be just the first step toward completely eliminating rightwingism.

She can arrest senators for not doing their duty. She can fire SC judges for corruption. She can nationalize the oil industry and the banks. Etc.

...and they know it too.

If we're for a dictatorship. I'm not. That sort of thing is extremist talk.

we need the House to neuter/censure the MAGA creatures...make their presence irrelevant so as to pass necessary legislation/fund the government .....we need the Senate to codify Roe v Wade...to modify or eliminate the filibuster, our judges confirmed without character assassinations...

and we need much larger majorities in the both the House and the Senate...

Jen O'Malley Dillon became the first woman to manage a winning Democratic presidential campaign in 2020, before her appointment as President Joe Biden's deputy chief of staff.

THREE DAYS! NC VOTES OCT. 17TH

Here’s what we need to do between now and Election Day:

●Reach every single undecided voter and make sure they know Kamala’s vision, values, and life story -- and the night-and-day contrast between her record of fighting for middle-class families and Donald Trump’s record of fighting for himself and his rich friends.

●Continue to build relationships with people who support us but may not have decided whether to vote, particularly people of color and young people. It’s on us to earn, not just count on, their vote, and make sure they know when, where, and how they can do it quickly and easily.

●Peel off Trump supporters where we can. Picture that person in your life who voted for Trump in 2016 or 2020 even though they know he’s dangerous and a liar, and who hasn’t yet been convinced that, yes, it’s ok to turn the page. There are pockets of these voters in critical states, they are gettable, and we will get them.

●Convert Harris supporters into volunteers and grassroots validators for this campaign. This is where you come in.

What you can do:

I’ll be blunt: We need more supporters to raise their hands and say they’re ready to volunteer, and we need those who’ve already done so to keep their foot on the gas. We know we have the best candidate. But without grassroots energy we could very easily lose this race and find ourselves facing another four years of Donald Trump. A Donald Trump that is more extreme than ever before.

We cannot let it happen.

There are lots of ways to volunteer -- on the ground, on the phone, even on social media -- and our team is here to make sure it’s a smooth (and fun!) experience.

VOLUNTEER
https://go.kamalaharris.com/?link_id=3&can_id=c79fccdff234f9c3dcb611224ea90fe2&email_referrer=email_2482066&email_subject=we-have-26-days-left-heres-how-were-going-to-win

LFG!
GOTV!!


❤️ pants

not to vote for a nominee selected by the President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment#:~:text=Almost%20every%20president%20has%20used,Court%20by%20President%20Dwight%20D.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201112023726/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?emc=edit_na_20140626&nlid=69033065&_r=0

Back during Obama's term in office Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in a majority opinion joined by the court’s four other more liberal members that such appointments generally remained permissible so long as they were made during breaks of 10 or more days.

So... the possibility of appointing SCOTUS members during a recess is either constrained or assisted by whom is the Speaker of the House.

Here's the rub though...



Here's to a BLUE tsunami turnout that expels the fascists from the halls of power!!!

thomas are considering steping down, and the repukes won't allow another Supreme Court nomination, that would leave a 4-3 court, which is better than a 6-3 court, and potential wild cards depending on the issue.

Why would the Speaker of the House have any say in SC appointments? Isn't that in the Senates duties?

Not since the SCOTUS ruling that smacked down the ability due to the Senate's codified Rules that include "Pro-forma" sessions.

And believe it or not, the reason for those "Pro-Forma" sessions? Shrub's recess appointment of Bolton!

Thus, if the GOP controls the Speakership they control whether or not an appointment is allowed during the recess.

As far as Alito and Thomas stepping down... I really doubt that.

I am unaware of any fascist that has ever voluntarily abdicated power.

There will have to be a great deal more pressure brought to bear upon SCOTUS which is a very tricky thing to achieve.

They are unfortunately largely insular from the world in which we live.
They are living in ivory palaces while we swim in our world of woe.

Which, in the case of the fascist majority is precisely what they desire:

It's straight out of the fascist playbook:
- Intimidation
- Incarceration
- Extermination

Here's to that Blue Tsunami!
Here's to a clean sweep!

As a routine matter that has been adopted in the Senate Rules is that they will call a "Pro-forma Session" where they will gavel in every 3 days and will be in a state of "Subject to the Call of the Chair".

Obama challenged that and the SCOTUS did a smack down, pointing to the Constitution's provision that indicates that Congress can set its own rules and if that was the Senate Rule, then that is unquestionable -

allocate more money to FEMA.

They are not going to miss their Christmas break.

It's literally a "bipartisan" agreement in the Senate to add the "gavel in every 3 days" sessions so that they can "look like they are in recess" but technically ARE NOT.

They will usually have a "local" Senator (from MD or VA or DE, etc) come in, call the Senate to order for "Morning Business", will go through the whole rigamarole with the pledge of allegiance, convocation, etc., then will declare that they are "in recess subject to the call of the chair", meaning they are NOT in a formal "recess".

Turn on CSPAN around 10 am ET when they are supposedly not around and watch for the day when they gavel in and then gavel out about 5 minutes later. 3 days after you catch that, check in again, same bat time, same bat channel... Wash. Rinse. Repeat..

And as a note, there is a "technical" time frame for "recess appoints" between Congressional session and Christmas is irrelevant.

Here's to a blue tsunami!!!

Recess appointments are ultimately controlled by controlling the Speakership while simultaneously being in the majority. There's more to it I know however that's the gist of it.

That is the only way I'm aware of that a recess appointment would be able to be made.

Both houses don't always simultaneously recess -- each house controls its own schedule.

which means SENATE, making what the House does, completely irrelevant.

Happy Monday!

we rly, rly need to storm the house if we r gonna get anything done, including seating president harris.
speaker jeffries v speaker moses is all the difference in the world.

college and gerrymandering Democrats are continually fighting uphill battles. There are almost always millions more Democratic votes but we lose because of this.

Is for Harris to tell the Reichwingers that they have 90 days to hold an up/down vote. If they don’t, she will consider that the Senate has abrogated its advise & consent duties, and have that person sworn in, regardless.

The president has no power to do that. And any actions taken by the unlawfully appointed officials could end up being nullified by the courts.

No responsible attorney would make such a suggestion.

It was just a proposal I’d read about - it’s not my idea. But it was suggested elsewhere as a way to 1) try to get the Repukes to do their jobs, and if not 2) provide a way around them and their intransigence. There would be a legal argument to be made that if the Senate Repukes are going to deny any/all appointments a vote, they have abrogated their constitutional duty, and leave the President with no other options.

There are literally thousands of positions in the federal government that are appointments, and thus require a Senate vote. Holding those up because they can means the government cannot function. The threat of going around them might make them hold an up/down vote instead.

Again, NOT my idea, nor am I saying that I advocate for it. I’m simply tossing out and explaining an idea that I had read about. And with that, I’m done, not going to continue a back and forth on this.

But it really is a ridiculous idea. And there is no constitutional "duty" to vote on nominations. There is power, but no obligation for the Senate to hold an up or down vote on any nominee.

And historically the Senate has not voted on hundreds of presidential nominees. In fact, at the end of most presidential terms, there typically are dozens of nominations pending but not acted upon. If you add in the number of nominees who haven't been voted on in 90 days, the number would be astronomical.