"The House was in session at the Capitol on Thursday, but thanks to the latest procession of Republicans reporting for duty in front of a Manhattan criminal courthouse to show support for former President Donald J. Trump at his trial, the party risked ceding its control of the floor,” the New York Times reports.
“Almost a dozen House Republicans showed up at the courthouse on Thursday…”
“Republicans control the House by such a slim margin, 217-213, that just two defections can sink legislation if all members are present and voting — and just a few absences can erase their majority altogether. The show of support for Mr. Trump from such a large group of members meant that for much of Thursday, the G.O.P. may have handed the floor over to Democrats, leaving themselves exposed on the House floor.”
They know the Democrats don’t have the balls to try and sneak legislative actions by when they’re not there. They’re too focused on decorum and wanting a strong Republican party to undermine the Republicans.
“Sneak” is a loaded term. I think what you mean is “do their job like they’re supposed to and vote like they usually would.” It’s not like they’re holding a secret/special session under the Republicans noses. They’re just at work when they’re supposed to be and others aren’t. The alternative to “sneaking” legislative action in this case is just not doing their jobs for the day because a bunch of people decided not to show up. 12 people don’t show up, so they send the other 400+ home for the day? Is that the moral expectation?
Good call. I fell for the trap I was upset about, it’s literally just their job, but they won’t do it the same way they didn’t want to confirm judges near the end of Barrys second term.
This was not about being scared and more of a social contract
They would not select judges on the end of a presidents turn, based on the trust that the other party wouldn’t either
As soon as one party stops holding to this unwritten agreement (as Republicans did under Trump), there is little to no incentive for the other party to continue abiding to it
Im sorry but “I made a tacit verbal agreement about choices that deeply shape the law of the entire country with an untrustworthy group of people who went on to break it when everyone was warning they would break it” isn’t better. In fact that changes the narrative from ‘Dems being too stuck to principles to make the right choice’ to ‘Dems are simply not intelligent enough to make the right choice’, and either way they got played.