The Schumer shutdown slithers on

Poor Richard Saunders said:
You provided cult fabrications.
Was Tom Campbell elected on Dec 12th and then sworn in on Dec 15th of 1995? Yes/No

Who should we believe? A cult member like you or the Congressional record from 1995?
View attachment 62528

As to your other 2 examples.
Katherine Clark - elected on Dec 10, 2013. Sworn in Dec 12, 2013 (2 days)
www.congress.gov

Congressional Record

www.congress.gov

Fred Keller - Elected May 21, 2019, sworn in June 3rd, 2019. (12 days)
www.congress.gov

Congressional Record

www.congress.gov
Click to expand...



The previous response from me stating that Rep.-elect Tom Campbell's certification and swearing-in were delayed until January 3, 1996, due to the government shutdown was incorrect, and I apologize for the error. It stemmed from a mistaken conflation of historical timelines and procedural details during my research process.To clarify based on verified records:
  • Campbell won the special election on December 12, 1995, to succeed Rep. Norman Mineta (D-CA) in the 15th district. The second 1995 shutdown didn't begin until December 16, so the election itself occurred before any closure.
  • The House received his certificate of election on December 15, 1995, and he was sworn in that same day—prior to the shutdown starting. This is documented in the House Journal and biographical records from the Office of the Historian. The House had adjourned sine die on December 20 but had conducted business (including oaths for special elects like Campbell and Rep.-elect Jesse Jackson Jr.) in the days immediately following their elections.
  • January 3, 1996, marked the reconvening of the House for the second session of the 104th Congress, after a partial funding deal helped end the shutdown on January 6. However, this date had no bearing on Campbell's earlier swearing-in; his service officially began December 15, 1995, and he participated in votes and proceedings before the adjournment.
The inaccuracy likely arose from overgeneralizing the shutdown's broader disruptions to congressional operations (e.g., furloughs affecting non-essential staff and delayed business in some cases) and incorrectly linking them to Campbell's timeline, while overlooking the specific pre-shutdown window when the House was still active. Shutdowns can complicate logistics, but they didn't prevent Campbell's prompt entry. In hindsight, this was a failure to cross-check primary sources like the House Journal against secondary summaries.
 
Diogenes said:
The previous response from me stating that Rep.-elect Tom Campbell's certification and swearing-in were delayed until January 3, 1996, due to the government shutdown was incorrect, and I apologize for the error. It stemmed from a mistaken conflation of historical timelines and procedural details during my research process.To clarify based on verified records:
  • Campbell won the special election on December 12, 1995, to succeed Rep. Norman Mineta (D-CA) in the 15th district. The second 1995 shutdown didn't begin until December 16, so the election itself occurred before any closure.
  • The House received his certificate of election on December 15, 1995, and he was sworn in that same day—prior to the shutdown starting. This is documented in the House Journal and biographical records from the Office of the Historian. The House had adjourned sine die on December 20 but had conducted business (including oaths for special elects like Campbell and Rep.-elect Jesse Jackson Jr.) in the days immediately following their elections.
  • January 3, 1996, marked the reconvening of the House for the second session of the 104th Congress, after a partial funding deal helped end the shutdown on January 6. However, this date had no bearing on Campbell's earlier swearing-in; his service officially began December 15, 1995, and he participated in votes and proceedings before the adjournment.
The inaccuracy likely arose from overgeneralizing the shutdown's broader disruptions to congressional operations (e.g., furloughs affecting non-essential staff and delayed business in some cases) and incorrectly linking them to Campbell's timeline, while overlooking the specific pre-shutdown window when the House was still active. Shutdowns can complicate logistics, but they didn't prevent Campbell's prompt entry. In hindsight, this was a failure to cross-check primary sources like the House Journal against secondary summaries.
Click to expand...
Thank you for acknowledging your error. Now can you admit that no one has ever been refused to be sworn in because of shutdown until the GOP is doing it now. It has been 24 days since Adelita Grijalva was elected.

Of the three you cited the longest period of time from election to being sworn in was 12 days but of that 12 days the House only gavelled in for 4 of them.
 
IBDaMann said:
Why the sudden pivot to irrelevance?

At issue is Schumer's Draconian control over Senate Democrats as well as the 60% approval needed to keep the government operating.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Click to expand...
Democrats have 45 seats.

You guys have over half.

How is this Schumer's fault?

(it's not)
 
Crepitus said:
Democrats have 45 seats.

You guys have over half.

How is this Schumer's fault?

(it's not)
Click to expand...


Sigh.


The 60-vote requirement for passing a Continuing Resolution (CR) in the U.S. Senate stems from the Senate's cloture rule, which is designed to end debate on a bill and proceed to a vote. A CR, which temporarily funds the government to prevent a shutdown, is typically subject to this rule like most other legislation.

Under Senate Rule XXII, a cloture motion to end debate requires a three-fifths majority of the Senate, or 60 votes (assuming all 100 senators are present and voting). This threshold exists to prevent filibusters, where senators could indefinitely delay a vote by holding the floor with extended debate. Without 60 votes to invoke cloture, debate can continue, stalling the CR's passage. The 60-vote rule often requires support from both parties when one party doesn't hold a supermajority.

Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are preventing a majority of their caucus from voting in favor of the clean CR by maintaining a unified filibuster.

Schumer has instructed Democrats to block the bill, effectively holding government funding hostage in an attempt to extract concessions.

Schumer's leadership and caucus discipline have kept the party line intact, with no additional defections as of October 18.
 
Crepitus said:
Democrats have 45 seats.
Click to expand...
Any budget resolution to keep the government open requires 60% approval.

Schumer is forcing all Democrats to be obstructionist and to ensure the 60% mark is not reached.

Crepitus said:
You guys [don't have 60%, na-na-na-na-na].
Click to expand...
FTFY.

Crepitus said:
How is this Schumer's fault?
Click to expand...
He is being an obstructionist, forcing the government to remain shut until Republicans approve $1.5 Trillion for illegal aliens.

The longer the government remains shut down, the more Schumer's support erodes. I say we keep the government shut down long enough for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to successfully run against Schumer, take his Senate seat and force him into retirement.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Just when you think cult members couldn't be any stupider along comes Diogenes to prove they can be. The Constitution doesn't set any time for when Congress has to be in session. If Congress was actually in session it would be required to swear in new members.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The GOP is only protecting pedophiles by hiding the Epstein files.
Click to expand...
What 'Epstein files'?
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Leave it to a cult member to claim military pay is a stunt. Except of course those same cult members think it is OK for their dear cult leader to violate the law and pay those same military members with funds not appropriated by Congress as required by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
They are appropriated by Congress.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The GOP is prioritizing hiding the Epstein files.
Click to expand...
What 'Epstein files'?
Poor Richard Saunders said:
This is a violation of the Constitution since only Congress can decide what money is spent where.
Click to expand...
Nope. the President can decide where to spend money given to his branch.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Unless you want to admit that a President AOC can take the funding from ICE and use it to pay for health care for anyone she wants to.
Click to expand...
AOC is not President, Poorboy.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The House has refused to meet to pass a bill to pay the military during the shutdown.
Click to expand...
Lie. They already passed it.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
They are refusing to meet because then they would have to actually seat the Dem House member that won her seat weeks ago and it would then require them vote on releasing the Epstein files.
Click to expand...
What 'Epstein files'?
Poor Richard Saunders said:
So basically, the military isn't getting paid so that the GOP can protect the names of pedophiles becoming public.
Click to expand...
The military is getting paid. Your conspiracy theories are getting wackier.
 
Diogenes said:
Sigh.


The 60-vote requirement for passing a Continuing Resolution (CR) in the U.S. Senate stems from the Senate's cloture rule, which is designed to end debate on a bill and proceed to a vote. A CR, which temporarily funds the government to prevent a shutdown, is typically subject to this rule like most other legislation.

Under Senate Rule XXII, a cloture motion to end debate requires a three-fifths majority of the Senate, or 60 votes (assuming all 100 senators are present and voting). This threshold exists to prevent filibusters, where senators could indefinitely delay a vote by holding the floor with extended debate. Without 60 votes to invoke cloture, debate can continue, stalling the CR's passage. The 60-vote rule often requires support from both parties when one party doesn't hold a supermajority.

Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are preventing a majority of their caucus from voting in favor of the clean CR by maintaining a unified filibuster.

Schumer has instructed Democrats to block the bill, effectively holding government funding hostage in an attempt to extract concessions.

Schumer's leadership and caucus discipline have kept the party line intact, with no additional defections as of October 18.
Click to expand...
YOu're the party nominally in charge.

The republicans are on recess and have been for weeks.

Democrats are there and trying to work.

This is the tRump shutdown and everyone knows it.

Including you.
 
IBDaMann said:
Any budget resolution to keep the government open requires 60% approval.

Schumer is forcing all Democrats to be obstructionist and to ensure the 60% mark is not reached.


FTFY.


He is being an obstructionist, forcing the government to remain shut until Republicans approve $1.5 Trillion for illegal aliens.

The longer the government remains shut down, the more Schumer's support erodes. I say we keep the government shut down long enough for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to successfully run against Schumer, take his Senate seat and force him into retirement.
Click to expand...
The minority Democrats are in charge, sure.

LMAO!!!

All three branches of government and you guys can't even keep the lights on!

What a buncha losers!!!
 
Crepitus said:
YOu're the party nominally in charge.

The republicans are on recess and have been for weeks.

Democrats are there and trying to work.

This is the tRump shutdown and everyone knows it.

Including you.
Click to expand...


Senate rules are what they are, and Schumer is keeping his caucus in line, so far.
 
Diogenes said:
Senate rules are what they are, and Schumer is keeping his caucus in line, so far.
Click to expand...
I reiterate:

The minority Democrats are in charge, sure.

LMAO!!!

All three branches of government and you guys can't even keep the lights on!

What a buncha losers!!!
 
Crepitus said:
I reiterate:

The minority Democrats are in charge, sure.

LMAO!!!

All three branches of government and you guys can't even keep the lights on!

What a buncha losers!!!
Click to expand...


Nobody said the minority party in in charge.

The 60 vote hurdle is real, and Schumer is determined to hold the line to prevent any more defections from his caucus.

We'll see how long he can keep it together.
 
... The best synthesis of the reporting is that responsibility for the shutdown is politically contested and presented differently by competing actors; several outlets and polls show public blame skewing toward Republicans, while administration and some agency communications vigorously blame Democrats. Independent economic estimates document measurable costs and risks that amplify political pressure. The available coverage therefore supports the conclusion that Democrats were a focal point of blame in messaging, but it does not establish that Democrats alone legally caused the shutdown.

www.factually.co/fact-checks/politics/democrats-government-shutdown-896bd8
 
Taichiliberal said:
... The best synthesis of the reporting is that responsibility for the shutdown is politically contested and presented differently by competing actors; several outlets and polls show public blame skewing toward Republicans, while administration and some agency communications vigorously blame Democrats. Independent economic estimates document measurable costs and risks that amplify political pressure. The available coverage therefore supports the conclusion that Democrats were a focal point of blame in messaging, but it does not establish that Democrats alone legally caused the shutdown.

www.factually.co/fact-checks/politics/democrats-government-shutdown-896bd8
Click to expand...


Odd, since only one Republican voted "no" on the Continuing Resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top