Again, this is very bad, but I strongly caution against using the term "unprecedented" and then citing data that only goes back to 2015!

Canadian House of Commons Hansard: November 5, 1982

Periodic reminder that a member’s resignation does not invalidate their signature on a discharge petition:

I guess we’re even now.

Not en bloc? 🤔

It’s really funny how quickly the opposition’s attendance in the Lords diminishes in the evening.

This is more of an argument for requiring a supermajority for passage of legislation.

That reminds me, the House still hasn’t elected a chaplain...

It’s not that often you see members sign discharge petitions during pro-forma sessions.

Verdict: ’

Initially it was done first-come, first-served. Upside, encouraged members to arrive before noon on Day 1. Downside, sometimes scuffles erupted. So in the 1840s the House decided, by resolution, to assign them by lottery. But even then it could become contentious, as it did on Oct 15, 1877… 5/

I was waiting all week to make my customary ‘Without objection 🤦‍♂️’ comment, but the Senate has denied me that opportunity... 😳

These are starting to get more intricate now. 🙂

These constitutional authority statements are getting vaguer and vaguer.

14 senators signed the discharge petition but voted against the motion to proceed. 🤔

Just one?! Probably a matter of mindset rather than rule, but (as recent events have highlighted) the House should really separate the roles of speaker and party leader.

What one rules change would you have a new Democratic majority in the House in the 120th Congress?

They’re learning!

How come the Senate hasn’t agreed to this request yet? 🤔

This will not be privileged in the House.

It happened again today…

Tbf, requiring unanimous consent to have a vote by the yeas and nays sounds like a rule the Senate would come up with.

Not much [Laughter.] now.

I found out about this that time I missed the first hour of the Senate’s proceedings.

Presumably another one of those shell bills for use with a discharge petition in the future.

When procedural manuals came with Shakespeare quotes.

Fun fact: A senator acting on behalf of the majority leader has priority in recognition.

The precedents of the House: Precedents of the US House (2017 series) Deschler's Precedents (1936-2013) – Vol 1 published 1973 Cannon's Precedents (1907-1936) Series published 1936 Hinds' Precedents (1789-1907) – Series published 1907 Gateway to all of them: www.govinfo.gov/collection/p... 1/

Since so many folks—including "legal experts"—insist on claiming that so many others (judges, notaries, their drinking buddies) may officially administer the oath of office to a Rep.-elect, here's a flow chart to help you understand if you, yourself may swear in someone newly elected to the House:

A flurry of articles in the old guard papers today on the weakness and cowardice of Congress. Notably, more than in the past several months, the blame is being leveled at the majority who do nothing and cede their power. www.nytimes.com/2025/10/23/b... www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...

❓

Don’t you just love the Senate...?

It’s interesting that Thune helped Merkley out like this; he would have lost the floor at 1pm otherwise.

More fun stuff, all from today 🧵

It feels unfair that to break the record *for an Oregonian specifically*, Merkley is going to have to give a longer speech than one that set the overall record when it was given. (Also this whole Merkley episode has been weirdly low-key by marathon speech standards and I'm not really sure why.)

I read a post on the other site recently and thought I'd reply, along w/ an image of the Appropriations Clause. So I opened my handy pdf of the Constitution, took a screenshot, closed the pdf. Only then did I notice the asterisk after the word "Law". 🤔 Then, at the bottom, a tiny line of text? 1/

AZ's lawsuit re: Grijalva. It won't work, for reasons that were already settled black-letter law before this immediate context. This is a case of awful but lawful, so to speak. The political and normative context is bad, but the legal question isn't a close call or even all that interesting.

Inadvertently 😉

Thinking of replacing my profile banner with this...

For those wondering, he is formally debating the nomination of Rebecca Taibleson (to be a circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit).

1. ‘The moment the Pledge of Allegiance was over...’ Why did he wait until after the House had got through all its routine business? Anything oath-related takes precedence over everything else.

Since we’re involving the courts in these things now, I have also taken legal advice. 😉

I’m not sure this is accurate anymore.

And my second-favourite genre of clip.

My favourite genre of clip.

The motions to reconsider are starting to pile up, because Thune keeps entering them *and* filing new cloture motions.

I *think* this will be the most cloture votes ever had on one matter.

This photo accompanying a news story about the heist at the Louvre is perfection.

Seven legislative days later, a member who signed the petition will be able to give notice of their intent to call up the discharge motion. At a time determined by the speaker within two legislative days of that, that member will be able to call up the motion. After up to 20 minutes’ debate...

Good piece.