Free Speech

Stripping House Member of Committee Assignments Doesn't Violate the First Amendment

|

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was stripped of committee assignments because of her pre-election-campaign statements embracing QAnon, 9/11 trutherism, claims that school shootings were faked, Rothschild space lasers, and executing Democrats. (She has apparently renounced most or all of the claims since.) Does that violate the First Amendment?

I think the answer is "no": Committee appointments are a political process, and are subject to political decisions, including ones based on a person's constitutionally protected speech. Just as the President is entitled to nominate cabinet members and judges based on past speech he likes—and reject possible nominees based on past speech he dislikes—so Congress can dole out committee positions the same way.

We see this in the longstanding practice of giving members of the majority party more seats on committees. Applied to low-level government employees, such partisan hiring decisions would violate the First Amendment. But when it comes to high-level executive decisionmakers, they are generally just fine, and likewise for Congress. You have a First Amendment right to belong to the minority party, but that means you're less likely to get the committee assignment you want (since your party has fewer seats on the committees).

Likewise, my sense is that party loyalists are more likely to get the best spots. Again, opposing the party leadership is constitutionally protected against criminal punishment or civil liability, but not against political decisions such as appointment to one or another committee (and, again, same with high-level Executive Branch appointments or judicial appointments). And it's true as to other speech protected by the First Amendment, recent or past.

There might be First Amendment limits as to other forms of discipline or expulsion (see dictum in Boehner v. McDermott (D.C. Cir. 2007)), whether or not courts could enforce those limits. But that's a separate matter, I think, from choice of Congressional leadership positions, or from committee assignments.

This having been said, such decisions might be a bad idea. In the words of Jonathan Rauch,

For all its New Testament rhetoric, Washington is an Old Testament city. It is a city which holds, with Beowulf, that it is better to avenge a friend than mourn him. The only rule of conduct is, "Do not unto me, for I will in return do worse unto you."

It might be better for the majority party to leave a freshman minority party Representative with her typical modest freshman assignments, rather than to invite an escalating tit-for-tat the next time party control flips. (Voters on both sides sometimes elect members who say some pretty offensive things.) But I can't speak to that; all I can say is that the Constitution doesn't prevent committee assignments from being a political process, based in part on members' political activity and political speech.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: February 5, 1793

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Who suggested there was a First Amendment violation?

    1. She regularly whines about her free speech being squelched. Heck she also said she was being ‘crucified.’

      1. “Heck she also said she was being ‘crucified.’”

        I mean, it’s very Christian of her!

        After all, do you know who else was persecuted by GIANT SPACE LASERS?

        …I just can’t.

        1. It’s amazing the GOP rush to defend her. Just denounce her as a nut and move on.

          1. You have to defend your teamates or they get picked off one by one.

            Dems protect Cortez and Omar and Tliab.

            1. Wait, did any of them call for a fellow member of Congress to be assassinated?

              Did Dems protect Al Franken or Katie Hill?

              1. Franken and Hill quit. Their choice, no votes to punish them were held.

                1. Don’t be dumber than you are.

                  They were forced out. That’s how it works. You can either ride it out, or the party helps nudge you along.

                  1. What about Robert Menendez? Country over party my ass. You people are all crooks.

                    1. That parties sometimes don’t hold members to account is not an effective retort to the proposition that they sometimes do and that, in this instance, they should.

                      Franken and Hill were forced out for conduct their party deemed unacceptable. What Marjorie Taylor Greene has said and done is worse than the words/conduct of both of those two.

                      “What about this guy over here who was left alone?” is not an answer to the proposition that the GOP should marginalize, ostracize, and push Marjorie out of relevance. As was said, call her a nut and move on.

                      Your “they’re all crooks” shtick just undermines what cleaning of the House there is. Basically, you are cheerleading for what you claim to abhor. Getting rid of one rotten apple doesn’t fix the whole barrel, but it’s a start and useful example that there are at least some limits.

            2. No, you don’t. You don’t defend a “teammate” when they do the wrong thing.

              It’s your terrible attitude that sums up so much that is wrong in this County. Want to know what’s wrong with politics? Right there. Want to know what’s wrong in police departments? “Well, I can’t turn on my teammate ….”

              You are, quite simply, the worst!

              Anyway-
              Katie Hill (forced to resign)
              John Conyers (forced to resign)
              Ruben Kihuen (forced to not run again)
              Al Franken (forced to resign)
              Robert Brady (forced to not run again)
              Elizabeth Etsy (forced to not run again)
              Patrick Meehan (forced to resign)

              There are so many more- remember Laura Richardson being reprimanded? Chuck Rangel?

              Look, there are GOP members on there as well. The only thing weird about this is that the Democrats (and some GOP reps) had to end up acting because McCarthy couldn’t.

              If the GOP had been able to keep their own house in order (literally, House) and made her issue an apology and perhaps removed her from education, nothing would have happened.

              1. Loyalty to family, clan, tribe, country, friends etc. has driven civilization since there has been civilization.

                Stand together or fall separately.

                1. Integrity and courage to stand against the group has also helped civilization.

                  Sometimes you worry me.

                  1. Integrity and courage to stand against the group has also helped civilization.

                    ### This Claim of Any Potential Value in Not Cheerfully Agreeing with the Popular Narrative Is Contested ###

                    1. Yeah, calling out liars can take some guts. Twitter stepped up.

                      You, apparently, cannot do the same.

                    2. “calling out liars can take some guts”

                      a law prof attacking Hawley takes zero “guts”.

                      Look at the applause he got here.

                2. Bob,

                  Holding up the mafia as a shining moral example. There are clearly advantages to sticking together to cover for crime, but the downsides are pretty obvious too.

                  I would say I know you’re better than that. Unfortunately, that would be a lie.

                3. “Loyalty to family, clan, tribe, country, friends etc. has driven civilization since there has been civilization. Stand together or fall separately.”

                  Fine by me.

                  Clingers can stick together, though bigotry and ignorance — the racists, the superstitious gay-bashers, the stale misogynists, the half-educated hayseeds, the nonsense-believing Republicans — and their betters will defeat them politically, culturally, economically, morally, and educationally.

          2. Like the Dems did with Omar and her anti Semitism?

            Or the way Dems demanded Northam resign.?

            1. Did the Republicans force the restroom stalker, Larry “Wide Stance” Craig out of the senate or did he relinquish his stall voluntarily?

            2. “Like the Dems did with Omar and her anti Semitism?”

              Anti-semitism or anti-Israel? Not interchangeable.

        2. “After all, do you know who else was persecuted by GIANT SPACE LASERS?”

          The people of Alderaan?

          1. James, they were not persecuted. They were vaporized.

    2. Republicans should start a lawfare department. Every Democrat politician should be subjected to nitpicking investigations, to take their time up and to drive them out. Trump should have had Pelosi arrested until she could explain how her net worth jumped so high, after her election as Speaker.

      1. “Trump should have had Pelosi arrested”

        Great idea. Then he could have been impeached for that and this would be his third kick at the cat.

      2. “. Trump should have had Pelosi arrested ”

        Just because the Constitution says otherwise is no reason to outright reject this claim.

    3. I’d argue that it is a violation of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 — Georgia is entitled to a certain number of CongressCritters and in denying the State of Georgia the full benefit of its allotted membership, Georgia’s Constitutional Rights are being violated.

      But the bigger issue is the precedent being established, and Raphael Warnock comes to immediate mind as a likely victim of payback.

      And the other issue is if there is any limit on the number of members that the majority can do this to? I don’t see it and imagine what Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey could have accomplished had he merely removed all the Democrats from all the committees…

      1. I’d argue that

        Yes, but you’re — to use a technical legal term — an idiot. At least Brett just makes the common mistake of deciding the constitution means what he wants it to mean. You just pull stuff out of your nether regions.

      2. I’d argue that

        Yes, but you’re — to use a technical legal term — an idiot. At least Brett just makes the common mistake of deciding the constitution means what he wants it to mean. You just pull stuff out of your nether regions.

        Maybe you should try reading Article I, Section 5, Clause 2?

      3. “I’d argue that it is a violation of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3”

        And everyone else would add it to the list of things you were both stupid and wrong about.

      4. I a member fro any state is expelled, as both houses have a right to do the state could name a replacement by whatever their law says. In Georgia the Governor appoints someone and depending on the time remaining in their term either waits until the next election or calls a special election to replace the appointed member.

        Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was excluded from Congress in 1967 but won a special election to fill his then vacant former seat.

        In June 1969, in Powell v. McCormack, the Supreme Court ruled that the House had acted unconstitutionally when it excluded Powell, as he had been duly elected by his constituents.

        In November 1970 he lost his seat to Charles Rangel.

        1. I a member fro any state is expelled, as both houses have a right to do the state could name a replacement by whatever their law says. In Georgia the Governor appoints someone and depending on the time remaining in their term either waits until the next election or calls a special election to replace the appointed member.

          That is incorrect. States — depending on state law — can appoint someone to fill Senate vacancies. But not House vacancies.

          A1, S2, #4: “When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.”

    4. [This post was coauthored by Seth Barrett Tillman.]

      1. [This post was coauthored by Seth Barrett Tillman.] NTTAWWT.

    5. All Republicans should boycott all committee hearings. They are a neo-Marxist propaganda show of no validity whatsoever. If they do attend, they should bang Mao’s Little Red Book on their desks until ejected.

      1. Even better, all Republican senators should boycott the impeachment trial. The Democrats can’t convict them on there own, can they? CAN THEY?

        1. Even better, all Republican Senators should walk away from the Senate, entirely.

          1. Better Americans will continue to stomp conservatives’ ugly, stale aspirations in the culture war — shaping our national progress against Republicans’ wishes and efforts — and right-wingers will continue to comply with the preferences of others until replacement. That is the American way.

            The rest of this is just entertainment.

  2. When you attack a representative, you are really attacking those they represent. You are telling those voters they made a mistake. You are putting them figuratively in the back of the bus.

    It’s like being invited to a party, and disliking how the room is decorated, commenting loudly that the host clearly has no taste.

    1. Now tell us what it means you’re telling the voters who elected the President when you try to get state elections officials and members of Congress to overturn the election results.

      1. Is anyone alleging that MTG’s election was fraudulent and that her opponent actually received more votes?

        Because even though they are wrong in this case, that would be a legitimate reason to overturn election results IMO

        1. Hold up.
          The fact that someone alleges that an election was fraudulent and the opponent actually received more votes is absolutely not a legitimate reason to overturn election results. Don’t believe me? Ask President Gore.

          1. James,
            Be honest. In the post election study by the NYT, the answer was that Gore lost.

    2. I don’t think those voters made a mistake; I think they did it on purpose, which makes it even worse. Ignorance can be forgiven, but she’s been trumpeting her views from the rooftops for years.

      1. “The people have spoken, the bastards.”

        But the House aims to have the last word, anyway.

        1. Which the Constitution explicitly allows them to do.

        2. Brett,
          No rep. is entitled to a committee assignment.
          The House could have refused to seat Greene. But they didn’t. Of course, they could act subsequently. It may smell of partisanship, given rather outrageous and far more dangerous public statements by other members. But the action is entirely within the prerogative of the the members.

    3. This is my concern. I don’t care too much about committee assignments, but there was talk of expelling her from congress completely. That’s a bad move. We have a representative government. If a district votes in a lunatic (right-wing or left-wing) then they have the right to be represented by that lunatic. The representatives from the rest of the country shouldn’t be allowed to overturn the election.

      1. Considering Maxine Waters and AOC, I’d say Republicans have no monopoly on electing lunatics.

        1. Did anyone say that? Did anyone actually say that Republicans have a monopoly on electing loonies? And if no one did say that, then all you’ve done is create a distraction.

      2. That’s sort of why I think that Hawley shouldn’t resign from the Senate. As somebody once said about a less than stellar Supreme Court nominee (not an exact quote) even morons deserve representation. But, of course, the Senate already has Ron Johnson and Rand Paul.

        1. That was Senator Roman Hruska, a Republican (surprise!) and strident conservative (bigger surprise!) from Nebraska (shocker!).

          Attempting to defend one of Nixon’s nominees, Hruska said this on the Senate floor:

          “Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.”

          Hruska lauded Nixon even after resignation and disgrace and was an apt Republican-conservative predecessor to Marjorie Taylor Greene, who recently declared on the House floor: ‘I am allowed to believe things that are not true.’

          Yes, Marjorie, you are entitled to be a stupid, deluded, bigoted, superstitious person. And your fellow clingers from Georgia are entitled to send you to Congress. But you are not entitled to the respect of your betters, nor to a committee position.

          Carry on, clingers. Unless every dumb, superstitious, bigoted one of you is replaced.

          1. That should be “until.” There is no doubt it shall occur.

      3. “I don’t care too much about committee assignments, but there was talk of expelling her from congress completely”

        Summary execution. She wouldn’t object, having previously suggested it for other members of Congress.

  3. MTG is not even in the top 5 crazy members of the house

    1. I would say, “Name them,” but then I’d be very sad for you.

      1. Loki, I’d put Maxine Waters at the top of the list. She is just loony. AOC is showing her fascist stripes daily.
        But hey. Folks elected them, and deserve to have their “input” in the mix of the action.

    2. Sounds like you’ve been drinking bleach again.

  4. She has apparently renounced most or all of the claims since.

    No, she hasn’t.

    1. She was on the news, conceding that 9/11 happened. Almost as if denying reality was no longer a career booster.

      1. Great. You mean, just before the vote she admitted that she “was allowed” to believe some things that weren’t true?

        Besides how do you “renounce” having urged that people be executed?

        1. When and how did she “urge people be executed”? Exactly?

            1. That’s not an answer…

          1. She urged execution for treason. If there was an execution for treason, it would be preceded by a trial, no matter whether she mentioned a trial or not.

            Also, she liked a post that said “a bullet to the head would be quicker”, which is not actually a threat, or an urge for execution.

            She seems to be nuttier than crunchy peanut butter, so there’s plenty of opportunity to impugn her character without resorting to lying.

            1. But they resort to lying. Consistently.

              They took someone from CNN to search through not only every one of her facebook posts, but any posts she potentially liked in the past 4 years. Which is a little insane.

              1. ““She’s a traitor to our country, she’s guilty of treason. And it’s, uh, it’s a crime punishable by death is what treason is. Nancy Pelosi is guilty of treason.”
                That is not contemplating due process.

                Have neither of you any dignity? Or did you just not bother to look up what you’re defending?

                1. OOOHHH…. So now saying someone is guilty of treason is urging people to be executed…

                  Gosh, no good, upstanding member of Congress would EVER accuse another Congressperson or executive branch official of treason or treasonous behavior. That would be just like saying that you want to execute them. Only this really bad person would ever do that.

                  1. No, it’s the ‘crime punishable by death’ bit, you tool.

                    1. Oh no…. Accurately citing 18 U.S. Code § 2381.

                      You’ve got your panties in a twist because a legislator accurately cited the law now?

                    2. “You’ve got your panties in a twist because a legislator accurately cited the law now?”

                      Yeah, she accurately cited the law the same way all those known wankers and tossers running around the Capital chanting “Hang Mike Pence” were suggested that he be arrested and afforded all rights of due process. You are giving sophistry a bad name.

              2. “But they resort to lying. Consistently. ”

                By accurately reporting, the bastards.

        2. It’s hard to tell because there’s so much bullshit floating around, but were Green’s comments much different than, say, Madonna’s comments or the red-headed comedienne’s comments?

          I thought people over-reacted to both of those.

      2. You fell for it. She vaguely admitted that 9/11 happened. But she has not admitted that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, which was the specific thing she was previously caught on video as denying. So she hasn’t really retracted anything at all.

        1. I didn’t fall for anything. I’m not allowed to vote in her district, what with living in a completely different state.

          1. I’m thinking of moving to her district just to vote against her. What would be neat would be for every sane person in her district to sponsor a Puerto Rican tourist to rent a room for a couple months. It’s not as if the Puerto Ricans have a good reason to stay in PR to vote. Anyway, they could just vote absentee.

            1. Stella,
              You do realize that your comment is basically a racist slur?

              1. No, I don’t. Puerto Ricans are American citizens and if they reside in a US state they have all the rights of every other citizen residing in that state. Residing in Puerto Rico, they have no representation in the Senate or House and can’t vote in presidential elections. It’s not racist to suggest that Puerto Ricans might benefit themselves and the rest of the country by legally residing in a state and legally voting there. Besides that, nothing about any of this has anything to do with race any more than suggestions that people residing in other states might consider moving to Georgia, legally establishing residence there, and legally voting in the Senate runoff races that occurred on Jan 5. Those suggestions were made, perhaps as a joke, and they weren’t racist either.

              2. Oh, and if you don’t like my jokes, screw you, we’re from Texas.

  5. We have a statement that she “apparently has” and a rebuttal that “no, she hasn’t”. Neither felt the need to provide any actual links. So this conversation goes nowhere. (I know, Google it yourself if you care. That’s a cop out. If you make a statement arguing a point, shouldn’t the onus be on you to provide some sort of evidence for your claim?)

    That being said, sounds like she is a nutter, but this only ever goes one way. Rep nutters get condemned by the D party, by the media, and by their own party. Dem nutters get invited on CNN and no R ever says a word about what nutters they are except a few commenters on the interwebz.

    Also, ^^^ wreckinball. What he said!

    1. ” Dem nutters get invited on CNN and no R ever says a word about what nutters they are except a few commenters on the interwebz.”

      Selective memory can lead people to some odd conclusions.

    2. Dem nutters get invited on CNN

      Watched Fox lately? Nuthin’ but nutters.

    3. She’s not a nutter, she’s a naïve moron. From what I read she came out with an apology that amounted to “the internet made me do it”.

    4. Neither felt the need to provide any actual links.

      True, but if I claim someone said something, and you say she didn’t, whose job is it to provide links?

      What would you link to, exactly, to prove I was lying?

      Let’s try. I claim (purely hypothetically) that Liz Cheney said “Biden will be the best President ever.”

      You deny she said that. What link would you provide to prove you’re right?

      1. Now anytime somebody complains about Biden I’m going to say, but Liz Cheney said “Biden will be the best President ever.”

      2. Well suppose I found a source where the day after you claim she said “Biden will be the best President ever.” she said “Biden will be the worst President ever.”. I would think that would suffice.

        Not that I’m suggesting such exists in this specific case.

        1. “Well suppose I found a source where the day after you claim she said “Biden will be the best President ever.” she said “Biden will be the worst President ever.”. I would think that would suffice.

          Providing evidence that a politician flip-flopped in no way proves that they didn’t say something.

  6. As odious as MTG is, had the resolution been a resolution to expel her, I probably would have been against it because I take a pretty firm position that the voters are entitled to decide whom they want representing them. And it’s not like her views were any great secret before the election.

    This, however, is not that. The is the House expressing its disgust at her vile and despicable words and actions by limiting her ability to inflict further damage. In other words, the House is basically defending itself, and drawing a line in the sand at behavior that simply isn’t acceptable.

    1. I disagree. There are plenty of Democratic Representatives who have “odious views”…especially if you consider their pre-election statements.

      When the House flips, you can expect them to be stripped of their assignments. If not sooner.

      1. I am sure there are plenty of Democrats who would like to see AOC, Tlaib, and Omar marginalized and replaced on committees with more moderate Democrats. Much harder to campaign that your opponent is beholden to those three if they don’t actually have any power to do anything.

        1. Maxine Waters is in my opinion worse that AOC who actually seems to be growing up a little. I still don’t agree with her much but mostly she’s gotten better.

          1. “…AOC who actually seems to be growing up a little.”

            Except for knowing what building her office is in.

            1. AOC is still claiming her colleagues attempted to murder her. right?

              1. Control-V for victory!

              2. As if a link to cnn proves anything to the nutters!

      2. Why people who are doomed in the culture war — that’s you, clingers — would evoke ‘winner take all’ escalation puzzles me, but if I wanted to think like a Republican I would have avoided education, lived in a can’t-keep-up backwater, frequented faith-healing revival meetings, juggled a few rattlers, and joined the Klan.

        (I attended a Klan recruitment meeting, so I missed my chance at that one.)

      3. Making a specific threat against the speaker of the house is sui generis.

        1. What “specific threat” was made? Exactly, the wording of it, that was made by Greene?

          Again, you need to think critically about these things. From what the links appear to show, it was that Greene “liked” a poorly worded post on Facebook from before when she was elected.

          Is “liking” a post on Facebook a “specific threat”?

          1. If the facebook post is a specific threat then yes, liking it is probably a specific threat as well.

            1. Half-educated bigots (claim to) struggle with standard English, particularly when that flatters their ugly, stale politics.

            2. So, I want to be absolutely clear here.

              If someone puts a hyperbolic statement on Facebook 2 years ago that could be interpreted as a threat. And you or someone on your team hit the “like” button…. Just once. Any random statement.

              That is a SPECIFIC threat BY the person hitting the like button? Really. Is that what you’re saying?

              1. Once again, endorsing a specific threat is itself a specific threat.

  7. Eugene,

    > rather than to invite an escalating tit-for-tat the next time party control flips

    Given this batch of Republicans’ conception of ‘canceling’ involves threatening their peers with murder and their followers killing cops to try to do it, I’m pretty sure they’re less concerned with tit-for-tat courtier snits.

    I realize Republicans like Eugene are invested in ignoring what happened, but the rest of the country isn’t.

    1. The officer died of a stroke.

      There is no evidence of him being hit with a fire extinguisher — no video (and people have looked) and nothing in the autopsy.

      1. So, your defense works out to be, “These guys couldn’t organize their way out of a paper bag”. Because they didn’t succeed at anything they wanted to to do, that’s proof that they didn’t actually want to do anything?

      2. “The officer died of a stroke.”

        Well, that’s OK, then.

  8. Whelp, now that we know that there’s a line, I suppose we can spend the text several terms figuring out where the line is. Maxine Waters proposed harassing members of the administration, AoC supported some of the summer rioting, etc.

    1. Swalwell threatened to nuke 2nd amendment supporters. Shrug.

      I don’t mind MTG being sanctioned like this because if she can spout this crap with a straight face she’s either clinically delusional, stupid beyond help, or monstrosity dishonest. I suspect it’s #3 but don’t know.

      Nice to see, though, that the Dems could find another slippery slope to start us down.

      1. Yup. The problem’s not MTG. Heck, if I thought this could be contained with just MTG, AoC, and Maxine Waters, I’d be fine. But it sounds like this is just a new political weapon.

        1. If all you’re looking for is new political weapons, then everything sounds like just a new political weapon.

          1. Well, if you’re in the majority and you want to avoid an escalating tit for tat, you should draw the line somewhere where it takes out one or two of your own nut jobs as well.

            1. How, exactly, does that prevent the guys who are out of power from drawing the line wherever they feel like when they manage to get back into power?

    2. Is it even conceptually possible for you guys to have a conversation without what-abouting?

      That said, Maxine, AOC and Swalwell aren’t even on point. MTG said she wanted to execute Nancy Pelosi. That’s a specific threat against a specific person. Maxine, AOC and Swalwell made generic comments that, while stupid, weren’t specific threats against specific individuals. And while I wish they hadn’t said what they said, saying something stupid is not the same thing as a threat directed to an individual.

      So if you’re going to what-about, please try to at least find something on point.

      1. Fuck your whatabouting.

        Accusing someone of whatabouting = “don’t talk about bad behavior from my side”. You could try to clean up your side, but you don’t want to.

        Swalwell threatened to nuke the majority of American citizens. The squad has expressed repeated hatred for an entire race/religion, one that has been the victim of a genocide attempt in recent memory. Nothing to see here, huh?

        The stuff Greene said was revolting, but if you want to excuse similar shit from your tribe then STFU. Zealotry is not a good look.

        1. “Fuck your whatabouting. ”

          No, fuck YOUR whatabouting.

          Attempting to excuse bad behavior because there exists someone who behaved even worse is wrong.

          “The stuff Greene said was revolting, but if you want to excuse similar shit from your tribe then STFU.”

          If you want to read more carefully, you’ll find that the actual claim was that the shit is not and was not actually similar.

          1. Please show me where I excused Greene’s bad behavior. As a centrist, I find her abhorrent. But show where I excused it. Not agreeing with you and your zealotry doesn’t make someone a conservative.

            But, sure, if you want to say that threatening to nuke citizens, even jokingly, is fine then just say so. If you want to say that wanting to “sweep Israel to the sea” because they have “all the Benjamins” is fine, just say so. You’re entitled to your opinion.

            1. Where did a Democrat say they wanted to “sweep Israel to the sea?”

              1. Yeah, you made that up I think.

              2. Rashida Tlaib Tweeted

                “ From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”

            2. First hit on a Google search of “sweep Israel to the sea” is bevis the lumberjack’s comment.

              Six other results, none of which appears to involve a Democrat.

              You sound like a dope, bevis the lumberjack.

            3. “Please show me where I excused Greene’s bad behavior.”

              Right after you show me where I said anything about you excusing Greene’s bad behavior.

        2. There is no requirement that one side be pristine before it is allowed to comment on or prosecute wrongdoing on the other. If that were the standard, then nobody could ever be called out on anything since one can always find a wrongdoer on the other side, even if one has to use someone who’s not on point.

          That said, if someone thinks AOC, Swalwell or Waters should be disciplined for what they said, fine, we can have a discussion about that. But as its own freestanding discussion, rather than as an attempt to derail this discussion.

        3. “The squad has expressed repeated hatred for an entire race/religion,”

          What the fuck are you smoking?

          1. Omar had to apologize for her bigotry, but yeah I’m smoking something.

            Try being something other than a partisan hack for 10 minutes. Open your fucking eyes, and your mind – if it’s still functioning through all the political distortion.

            1. Omar’s comments were’nt even close to what Greene did. She implied AIPAC has a lot of money, not that they were firing a Jewish Space Laser at us, *and* there’s the little thing about calling for people to be murdered.

              1. Yeah when I suggested opening your mind I really didn’t think you were capable of it.

                1. I’ll repeat because either you can’t read or don’t understand the words used: Omar’s comments were’nt even close to what Greene did. She implied AIPAC has a lot of money, not that they were firing a Jewish Space Laser at us, *and* there’s the little thing about calling for people to be murdered.

                  1. If it’s your opinion it must be right.

                    Discussion with zealots is like discussion with dogs. No point in it.

                    1. There’s no opinion to it, saying ‘push back’ isn’t remotely the same as calling for people to be murdered.

                      Your what-aboutism is distorting your ability to make simple distinctions.

                      It’s like your wife has a friend over and you have a friend over. Your friend takes a shit on the living room floor and your wife suggests he be barred from coming over and you say ‘but what about the next time your friend doesn’t use a coaster, do we want to start this tit for tat?’

                    2. “Discussion with zealots is like discussion with dogs. No point in it.”

                      But you keep pretending to be open to discussion.

      2. “That said, Maxine, AOC and Swalwell aren’t even on point.”

        We’re not talking about points, we’re talking about lines.

        1. Oh, good, a geometry lesson is breaking out.

      3. What specific threats were made? Exactly, the wording of them, and who exactly made the specific threats.

        1. MTG said that Nancy Pelosi should be killed.

          1. The specified method was ‘bullet to the brain,’ as I recall.

            Armchair Lawyer — demanding proof and feigning ignorance — is just flailing. That’s about all these bigoted, deluded culture war casualties have left. Middle fingers, bluster, tantrums, and whimpering.

            1. Did MTG say that? Did she write it? No.

              1. You are correct, but she did endorse the idea by “liking” it. Again consider the work place example. A co-worker post about a disliked colleague suggesting they would like to injure or kill them. You “like” the post. Do you think your employers not going to toss you out on your ear?

                1. I think it’s very different.

                  You think there isn’t any Democratic Politician anywhere who “liked” Kathy Griffen’s picture of a beheaded Trump?

                  1. “You think there isn’t any Democratic Politician anywhere who “liked” Kathy Griffen’s picture of a beheaded Trump?”

                    And the right time to complain about that is when it happens, not years later when someone’s criticizing a member of your preferred brand of politician.

                    1. “Years later”…

                      Remind me again when exactly MTG liked that Facebook post? Years ago….

                  2. Can you name any that did?

                2. Let’s add on a few bits for context.

                  1. MTG wasn’t actually a Congresswoman yet.
                  2. The speaker was a public figure, and hyperbole is regularly used.

                  For example…there have been lots of comments about “killing” Trump in one way or another. Hanging, “taking him out”, beheading, assassination. Often they are hyperbole. And these are from famous people, let alone randoms…

                  For example, regarding Trump: ““I will say if you take this kill shot, Democrats, you better not miss,” McCain declared. “You better hit his jugular. If there is a finger still moving at the end of it, you will ruin your chances in 2020 but you better do this well if you’re going to do it.””

                  But if any Democrat said they agreed with the sentiments…they should be gone, right?

                  1. “For example…there have been lots of comments about ‘killing’ Trump in one way or another.”

                    I’m sure you imagined it that way. Feeds right into your poor victim complex. And the media and the Big Tech bullies beat you up and took all your lunch money, too.l

                    1. I don’t think that any political figure said anything like this about Trump. Had that happened the Republicans would be howling about it to this day. Republicans are never quiet when things like this happen and they talk about if forever. There were two investigations in Russian interference in the 2016 election, Mueller’s and the Senates. There were 10 investigations into the Benghazi incident. Republicans would never let any Democrat get away with what MTB said. I don’t think you can prove otherwise.

                    2. “There were 10 investigations into the Benghazi incident.”

                      But… and this is the important part… not one where they actually wanted to find out what really happened.

                    3. “I don’t think that any political figure said anything like this about Trump.”

                      Bill Weld: (in regards to Trump) “That’s not just undermining democratic institutions. That is treason. It’s treason, pure and simple,” Weld said. “And the penalty for treason under the US Code is death. That’s the only penalty.”

                    4. To ACL. First Bill Weld is not a Democrat and at the time this statement was made he was challenging Trump for the Republican nomination for President.
                      Second while he did made this statement, including noting that treason can carry a death penalty, Weld remarked that he thought the correct punishment for Trump’s treasonous action (extortion of the Ukrainian President) was removal from office. So I don’t think this really qualifies. Do you have another case?

          2. Incorrect. She did not actually SAY that. And I challenge you to find where she actually put that into words.

            1. ” I challenge you to find where she actually put that into words.”

              When someone else puts something into words, and you say “I agree with these words”, you (or your apologists) don’t get to come back and complain that somebody else made the words that people are objecting to.

              1. She did not say “I agree with these words”

                Next attempt?

                1. Oh, revisionism is allowed? Then no, I don’t think you should try to impregnate your mother, and I don’t know why you would ask about that.

                  1. And now I see you’ve gone to childish insults. Adios.

    3. The inability to make basic, obvious distinctions tends to be a hallmark of conservative thought these days.

      1. I’m not a conservative, moron. Not in either tribe.

        Hard for you to comprehend, I know, but there are a lot of us out here.

        1. It’s moronic to not know the difference between someone who says ‘push back’ and someone who thinks Jewish space lasers are attacking us and urging people be killed.

          1. Show me where I said there was no difference. Because I didn’t say that.

            Someone mentioned, correctly, that this has now been weaponized and I merely pointed out some Democrats who are candidates for the treatment when the Republicans retake the house in 2022, which is inevitable.

            But your poisoned mind has to leap to the defense of your tribe’s fools without thinking about what someone actually said.

            1. It wouldn’t be ‘the same treatment’ because no one has said anything as egregious as she did. What-aboutism and slippery slope thinking puts you in a state of political Zeno’s paradox where you can’t make what to others are simple and obvious distinctions between things that are simply and obvious distinct.

              1. If, say, Ted Cruz made a joke about nuking New York City, you’d be so outraged that you’d literally shit your pants.

                But an idiot like Swalwell does it and he merits defending.

                Don’t lecture me about consistency, because you wouldn’t recognize it if it slapped you in the ass with both hands.

                1. You know, it doesn’t matter to the point, but I tend to vote more Republican than Democrat (granted its for people like Larry Hogan). So this obsession about my ‘side’ is quite funny.

                  There’s no side to this point, the lady is just wacky crazy egregious.

                  1. There. We can finish this with something we agree on. We’d be better off if demagogues like Greene were sent home to stay b

                    1. For the record I don’t think they should have stripped her, that’s just going to feed her victimization martyr narrative. They should have just censured her (that’s what they should have done re Trump as well). The Dems have forgotten about that tool in the box it seems.

                    2. Bingo. The Republicans had the chance to clean up the mess they caused. They refused. The Democrats have imposed adult supervision. Clingers whimper.

                    3. “For the record I don’t think they should have stripped her, that’s just going to feed her victimization martyr narrative. ”

                      As if her supporters needed the factual component of her narrative to be > 0%. She was always going to keep complaining that THEY are against her.

                2. Who’s defending what Swalwell said? I already said I think it was a stupid comment. But that’s a different issue from whether it precludes a conversation about MTG.

            2. “I merely pointed out some Democrats who are candidates for the treatment when the Republicans retake the house in 2022, which is inevitable. ”

              Frankly, they won that election in a landslide.

    4. And the best defense the libs around here can come up with is “not the same!!!!!” logical fallacy or “not as bad!!!!!!” because Jew hatin’ is fine when done by someone on the identity politics spectrum.

      For the party that just got done with a load of BS about unity they certainly are stoking the civil war fires all of the sudden.

      1. “I’m going to lead the country into despair and violence because liberals won’t let the lady who doesn’t think school shootings are real and actually harasses the victims of the shooting make education policy.”

        1. You mean the guy who wasn’t at school who used all those dead bodies to advocate for a cause and someone dared to confront him over that advocacy? That is pretty fresh seeing that Dems just spent the summer calling for acts of violence against Trump administration officials who dared to show their face in public. Engaging someone on a public street who advocates for controversial issues is not “harassment”.

          1. He was at the school. so your first statement is a lie. Engaging with someone who had his friends die at the hands of a gun by talking about how you have a gun is not good faith engagement.

            Seriously. If you think harassing shooting victims is a good thing….you’re just a bad person, okay? You’re just an asshole who supports other assholes. So stop being an asshole. It’s not that hard.

            1. It is simply not harassment to engage someone who place their own self in the public arena engaging in advocacy on an issue of public policy. You put yourself in the public eye advocating for controversial issue then expect to have some people disagree with you. It is funny that only liberals think that they should be “immune” from public discourse.

              1. He became part of the public eye because he watched his friends die. Also the controversial issue is “I don’t want to be shot at schools.” Get better morals. Seriously.

                1. Perhaps you should take your own advice because banning guns is not going to achieve that end and trying to sell people on infringing on their rights using dead kids is pretty god-aweful sick.

                  1. No what’s sick is thinking that your right to have weapons to kill people with at a later time is more important than dead kids. Or wounded children. Paralyzed people. Emotionally devastated families. You think liberals are “using” dead kids as a prop because you don’t actually value them as humans. You think they are objects that can be used transnationally in political games for power. But this isn’t about power. It’s about human lives and how the gun nuts don’t give a fuck about them at all. I mean you don’t even change your minds when “a good guy with a gun” couldn’t do anything like in Las Vegas, or when he was there like in Dayton but several people still died.

                    You pretend to be pro-life, but there is no amount of dead humans that you would make you reconsider the value of your right to be able to kill people. That’s what is sick. It doesn’t matter how many people are murdered so long as no government can tell you you aren’t allowed to have the ability to fire a projectile at high speeds into someone’s body and watch them bleed out and die. This is the sick stuff you support.

                    Get morals. Get psychological help. Do something, anything, to better yourself, but don’t you dare try to say we’re using these kids and that its sick. You know it just isn’t true.

                    1. May I point out that you just used dead kids as a prop while claiming you weren’t doing so. That suggests that you are a sociopath incapable of understanding common morality which means you should really get some psychological help before you actually harm someone.

                    2. “May I point out that you just used dead kids as a prop while claiming you weren’t doing so.”

                      No you may not because you’re the one who thinks they are props. I think they are human lives. Have you ever seen autopsy photos of murdered kids? Their wounded bodies? Their pulverized organs? A youthful face with the light of life extinguished? Because I have. I’ve seen the emotional toll on the parents and friends and teachers of those children. It is devastating. And this is just from the sidelines. I cannot even begin to imagine the toll of personally knowing a victim. And that’s not even getting to the reality of being shot and dying and having your hopes and dreams extinguished in pain.

                      You are an odious person who is trying to gaslight me into thinking I am incapable of empathy and morals and capable of violence. Your trollish attempts will not succeed.

                      Again, you are the one who thinks they are props, that can be used to take away your precious guns. I think they are precious human lives whom people of good character should decide are worth more than all the guns in the world.

                      I have never once suggested violence as a response to anything. I have no desire to physically or emotionally harm people. As for psychological help, the only thing I need is zoloft. Please, sincerely, become a better person. It will do wonders.

                    3. Dude, you need some help.

                    4. Dude, I already have it. Now it is your turn.

                2. You’d think he’d have been more annoyed at the cops who refused to help. Instead, he supported the sheriff who kept them out.

                  I guess YMMV.

              2. It’s harassment to harass someone. The motive doesn’t change that. “Engaging” him does not involve chasing him down the street and yelling that he’s a coward.

            2. “He was at the school”

              Well, he was on the campus but its a multi building campus and he was in a different building.

          2. No, he means the student who survived the Parkland shooting hiding in a closet with other students and then became the leader of a gun control advocacy group, leading Marjorie Taylor Greene to call him “#littlehitler” and make a video of herself harassing him while he was walking down the street in front of the Capitol.

            What guy do you mean?

            1. “who survived the Parkland shooting”

              He was in a different building.

              1. I’m sure there’s a reason you think that’s a worthwhile comment, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why.

                1. Bob doesn’t want his ability to carry a tool for killing children to be limited, and reacts poorly to suggestions that maybe it should be.

                2. He was never in danger, didn’t “survive” any more than you did.

                  If the house across the street burns, that doesn’t make you a fire victim.

                  1. “He was never in danger, didn’t ‘survive’ any more than you did.”

                    Crisis actor?

              2. “He was in a different building.”

                Were any of the buildings armored/bulletproof? No? Then what difference would THAT make?

      2. Like I said, an inability to make distinctions is a current hallmark of conservative thought.

        1. The ability to be duplicitous and full of hypocrisy is the hallmark of liberal thought.

          1. It’s also a hallmark of conservative though to be fair. I mean the pro-life party didn’t care about the global pandemic and gave up pretending to care about mass shootings. The family values party elevated Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump and Denny Hastert to the highest levels. This is in addition to opposing things like paid parental leave and guaranteeing health insurance for children. This is also the party of blocking Garland on behalf of the American people before an election and then telling the American people to screw off by pushing ACB through during an election. The party of limited government and “free speech” trying to use federal power to regulate internet content. Etc. Etc. Etc.

            1. That is really doing some torturing of logic, but nice to know that is all you got…

              1. How is it torturing logic? Which part isn’t an example of hypocrisy?

          2. “The ability to be duplicitous and full of hypocrisy is the hallmark of liberal thought.”

            You’ve been a liberal this whole time?

        2. “Like I said, an inability to make distinctions is a current hallmark of conservative thought.”

          The problem is everybody is always making the wrong distinctions.

      3. I don’t think you understand what a logical fallacy is. Pointing out that someone else is attempting to draw a false equivalence isn’t it.

        1. Yes false equivalency is a logical fallacy.

          1. Drawing a false equivalency is a logical fallacy, yes.
            Pointing out that someone else is doing so is not, no.

      4. Jimmy the Dunce has showed up to project his opinions onto those darn libs again.

        “For the party that just got done with a load of BS about unity”

        Uh, Jimmy, that was the other guys. They’re big fans of unity when they lose elections, but not so big when they happen to win some.

        1. So all that stuff about Biden being a President for all Americans….

          You can call people names, but when you are doing so to cover up for your own lack of intellect it is readily apparent to everyone else but you…

          1. You don’t care about unity. You never have. No one buys that you do now.

            You’re just a sad liar throwing verbal bombs to try and feel like your guy didn’t lose.

            1. “You don’t care about unity. You never have. No one buys that you do now.”

              The United States was the most united its been in my lifetime on 9/12/2001. By the time team Bush/Cheney left the public stage, they’d squandered all that unity (and the budget surplus they got from Clinton).

          2. “You can call people names”

            Pointing out the obvious and calling people names are not quite the same thing, Jimmy.

  9. Who minds Republican tit-for-tat, so long as they pick on a Democrat who does what Greene does. Be a service to everyone. Oh, EV said, “escalating tit-for-tat,” so yeah, it’s Republicans. Never mind.

  10. It might not violate the First Amendment, but considering democrats just complained about democracy being in peril for the last four years, it does show, again, just how much they are full of it. As anyone who knows anything about how DC works, those committee assignments are where any rep, especially a junior one, is going to get any real work done.

    The DC elite strip rural Georgians of effective representation because they don’t like some things that she said. I’m sure some people will try to dance around how that isn’t fascism, and that is going to be fun to see.

    1. “I’m sure some people will try to dance around how that isn’t fascism”

      It’s no hard question where people like Greene come from…

    2. It’s not fascism because stripping her of her committee assignments has nothing to do with trying to get the wholesome members of the “nation” who are victims of the cosmopolitan elite to return to its glorious and mythical past.

      “Fascism” isn’t just a word for bad things, even authoritarian things.

        1. It’s not dancing. It’s actually understanding the politics and ideology of fascism. There is a lot you can say negatively about stripping Greene of the assignments….but you can’t call it fascism because it has nothing to do with the concept.

          1. This. Fascism has become a dumb hyperbole.

            1. I agree that all the rhetoric about Trump and “fascism” was pretty dumb. Glad to hear all the libs getting on board with that.

              1. A lot of that was dumb. It’s become the way a lazy person says ‘something political that I don’t like.’

                Fascism is an actual thing dealing with nationalist, chauvinist, militaristic, will over intellect with a cult of personality leader figure. It’s not ‘something political that I don’t like.’

              2. Well except for the part where Trump’s entire shtick is based on a politics of returning the people of the chosen nation to the their glorious and mythical past and they won’t be victims of cosmopolitan elites who are stealing their rightful status from them through nefarious means like voting.

                1. Ah, so if YOU do not like it, it is fascism. Nice definition.

                  1. Dude explained why he thought it was fascism. Maybe he’s wrong, but show your work.

                    1. *Sarcastro says while displaying his new gas powered lantern*

                    2. Show your work Jimmy.

                  2. You have it completely backwards. I’m not calling it fascist because I don’t like it. I don’t like Trumpist rhetoric precisely because it has so much overlap with the rhetoric and ideology of past fascist movements.

                  3. “so if YOU do not like it, it is fascism. Nice definition.”

                    If it walks like a fascist, and quacks like a fascist, but you don’t want it to be fascist, it’s suddenly a duck.

              3. “I agree that all the rhetoric about Trump and ‘fascism’ was pretty dumb.”

                You agree with yourself. Great!

    3. “It might not violate the First Amendment, but considering democrats just complained about democracy being in peril for the last four years”

      Funny how, what with the closing “accomplishment” of the Trump Presidency being an attempt to overthrow the results of an election that he lost, people remember Trump as not a fan of democracy.

    4. “The DC elite strip rural Georgians of effective representation”

      Or, looked at from a different perspective, the rural Georgians waived effective representation by electing a delusional nutbag as their Representative.

      1. One solution would have been to make Georgia an unincorporated territory after the Civil War.

        I can’t fault the decent Americans who extended undeserved courtesies to the southern states after that war, however, at least not too much. They beat the bigots, traitors, and losers when it counted.

        1. Does that mean sending back their two Dem senators? Could get on board for that one.

          1. It would have precipitated a century or two of American progress with no senator from Alabama or Texas, no representative from Florida or Louisiana, no electoral delegate from Tennessee or South Carolina, far less grief from Alabama or Mississippi. . . in other words, a substantially better America.

            1. with all those people thrown under the bus, would there still have been restrictions on where people could sit?

  11. Is this really a first amendment issue? Maybe it is a workplace issue? You can feel however you like about your fellow employee, but you can’t directly or indirect threaten to kill them. Representative Greene has broad latitude to criticize Democrats, up to an including referring to them with vulgarities. That is her first amendment right. She does not have a right to threaten their lives. It may be good politics, but it is also beyond her first amendment rights.

    1. The first amendment does not cover slander.

    2. Marjorie Taylor Greene has every right to spew belligerent ignorance, superstitious nonsense, and ugly bigotry . . . and better Americans have every right to hold her accountable for it, regardless to the degree to which conservatives whine about it.

      1. It seems that being Conservative means doing and saying crazy stuff, but nobody’s allowed to call you crazy.

  12. Remember when Republican’s whole thing was: government needs to be run like a business? I think about that a lot and how they completely abandoned that idea in 2016 and beyond when they elevated people you would never actually hire at a business because they would cause so many HR problems.

    Like imagine if your coworker had a poster up in their office of them with an AR 15 and you there being unarmed and looking suspicious.

    Or they liked posts calling for one of your supervisors to have a bullet in their brain or be hung.

    That would be really messed up and that person would obviously suffer workplace consequences for that.

    1. You are just full of the logical fallacies this morning….

      1. What’s the logical fallacy? I don’t think you know what that term means.

        And I’d rather engage in the occasional logical fallacy than have terrible morals like you do. At least at the end of the day I know that I haven’t sunk to your level of depravity.

        1. Yeah terrible morals like believing people ought to not have their elected representatives stripped of the ability to provide that service by the DC elite because those elite don’t like what that rep says. Or that someone who chooses to engage in controversial public advocacy should expect to have their beliefs challenged in that public arena. Those terrible morals….

          1. It’s helpful when you leave out key facts and speak in generalizations to pretend you are morally righteous. But it is also known as lying and is yet another moral failing. This is in addition to your selfish disregard for the value of human life and your selfish disregard for the feelings of others. Bravo.

            1. You were just using dead kids as your political prop above and do so again (all while claiming you didn’t do so). So there ya go….

              1. Stop saying I am using kids as props. Trying to get you to understand the value of human life is not using anyone as props. The fact that you think humans can even be props in the first place says way more about you than it ever could about me.

                1. You are doing it again. Use dead kids to press your point but trying to say you are not doing so because blah blah blah. Can’t have it both ways. Either you use the dead kids or they are out of bounds. What is it?

                  1. That “blah blah blah” is an explanation of the value of their lives and the pain of their suffering and the suffering of their friends and family. That you dismiss it as blah blah blah says more about you than me.

                    Again. They are not props. You keep calling them that because you think humans can be props for someone. That’s on you, dude. Maybe ponder why you think humans can be props and then get back to me.

                    1. If they are not props why do you keep on using them as such?

                    2. I am not. I am explaining to you how human beings have worth and how suffering and pain is real. You refuse to acknowledge their worth and pain. It’s easy not to care about others when they’re just a “liberal prop.” Props can be ignored. This lets you avoid uncomfortable truths and justify your callousness and lack of empathy.

                    3. The person talking about “dead kids” over and over appears to be you, Jimmy. Like it tickled some fetish you’re failing to constrain.

                    4. Keep on using those dead kids are props. If you can’t see what you are doing then you are probably a lost cause…

                    5. Jimmy,

                      The only thing I see is a selfish and callous man who can’t accept that humans care about other humans without some ulterior motive.

                    6. Then stop describing dead kids and linking them to your latest political ploy!

                    7. The “ploy” is to get you to even try to give one flying fuck about human life and admit that having guns isn’t worth all this death. But you can’t. And it’s because you’re mean. And selfish. And callous. And you lack empathy. Your inability to care about other people other than yourself degrades you.

                      There is likely no limit to how much death you can tolerate so that your selfish desires are fulfilled.

                2. Oh, the Parkland kids couldn’t have been props more without being inanimate.

                  1. The bullets made some of them inanimate.

                    Gun nuts prefer to avoid that point.

                    That’s why they will lose in the American culture war.

          2. “terrible morals like believing people ought to not have their elected representatives stripped of the ability to provide that service by the DC elite because those elite don’t like what that rep says. Or that someone who chooses to engage in controversial public advocacy should expect to have their beliefs challenged in that public arena”

            These are mutually exclusive. Pick one and stick with it.

        2. “What’s the logical fallacy? I don’t think you know what that term means. ”

          A logical fallacy is when your logic makes sense and he doesn’t have any actual way to challenge what you had to say. Go back, and see if using this definition doesn’t help explain all the “arguments” that poor Jimmy wants to make. The poor fellow just wants to be as smart as everybody else, it’s not his fault (probably) that he just can’t do it.

          1. Pollock – “let me make up some stuff and then make up some more stuff…”

            1. Pretending that your words came out of my mouth doesn’t improve your argumentation any.

    2. “Remember when Republican’s whole thing was: government needs to be run like a business?”

      They made the mistake of putting a guy in charge of the government who doesn’t actually know how to run a business. (Normally, a person who made so many mistakes would have learned from them… not this guy. He learned how to blame other people for them.)

      1. There is sometimes an argument that is so stupid it isn’t worth a response. And this is one of them…

        1. “There is sometimes an argument that is so stupid it isn’t worth a response. And this is one of them…”

          And yet, I will respond to your stupid argument. It’s nice to see some honesty out of you for a nice change of pace. Have you decided to get better at making arguments, or will you just be continuing to admit that you can’t?

          1. Shouldn’t you be using some dead kids as a political prop somewhere else?

  13. I am going to comment of the actual article.

    Regardless of what a court might say I seriously doubt “There might be First Amendment limits as to other forms of discipline or expulsion”.

    The plain language of the Constitution:

    “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members”

    “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

    I don’t see any limits on that except the super majority requirement that 2/3 of the members concur in expulsion of a member.

    Following the Civil war the Senate refused to seat a number of Senators elected from Southern states, even some who were Unionist Republicans who were in favor voting rights for former slaves.

    This seems to me to be a not justiciable issue which the Constitution leaves each house to handle for itself. Just like the basis of any impeachment.

    Where does any court get the authority to overrule the Legislative Branch of the government operating in accordance with an express power given it by the Constitution? By interpreting some other part of the Constitution as superior to the express power given to the other branch?

    1. Agreed.

      On the merits, this seems like a deeply silly article by Professor Volokh, when the correct article would be:

      Does Stripping a House Member of Committee Assignments Violate the First Amendment?
      No.*

      *But see the forthcoming deeply unserious 10-part magnum opus by Tillman & Blackman.

      This whole spectacle is bizarre; not that the Democrats eventually moved to remove her from certain committee assignments, but that it ever got to that point. In the before times, the GOP had enough institutional integrity that she would have never run, and if she had run, they would have either forced her resignation (it’s a safe seat!) or made her apologize and lay low for a little while.

      But hey, when you get some exciting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories mainlined straight into the mainstream of your party, why not, right?

      Jewish Space Lasers. And I was thinking the thinly-veiled blood libel of Democrats drinking children’s blood was a little too … on the nose. Ahem. On the nose.

      Good times! Gotta make sure we stick it to the rootless cosmo… um, coastal elites, right?

      So, how long until Prof. Bernstein reminds us that Democrats are the real racists?

      1. I live in Louisiana and we had “Open Primaries” that is anyone can run and label themselves anything the wanted. That often lead to a very liberal black Democrat and a very conservative white Republican making it to the general election. The parties had no control over who ran for which party.

        I’m not familiar with Georgia but it seems similar at least in the recent senate Senatorial Special Election.

        1. The issue of weakening party control has been around for some time. It’s not fully accurate to say that the parties control who wins, so much as it is to say that typically, the party would be able to focus its resources and keep the most undesirable people off the ballot.

          It’s interesting in some ways because while traditionally the GOP has been considered the party that has more discipline (Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment), I would say that as disorganized as the Democrats are (and they are!) they are more successful at keeping the absolute looniest people out of the federal government. So much so that the usual angst is about the House and Senate members that are too conservative. Yeah, I know. The irony (given most of the people here).

          1. The problem is that the people doing the choosing don’t necessarily choose wisely, especially in basically one-party states. The party might prefer to avoid nominating an opportunistic nutjob, but if the party’s voters don’t see any downside to doing so, guess what they get?

    2. “I don’t see any limits on that except the super majority requirement that 2/3 of the members concur in expulsion of a member. ”

      Scroll down until you hit the part that starts with “Congress shall make no law…” Find it? Ok, keep reading to see a list of things that Congress is expressly forbidden to do. This was an amendment, which means it changes what was there before, which had no such limits on Congress.

      1. I don’t see how the courts can interfere into the operation of either house.

        By the way and expulsion is not an law.

        Even if a court told either house to let someone back in they could simply order the Sargent at Arms to not let them in the building or send them a check. Who can force them to do anything else?

      2. How Congress runs Congress isn’t a law.

  14. Why should the folks in rural Georgia govern those in downtown San Francisco? Why should folks in New York City govern those in Montana? And vice versa?

    1. “Why should the folks in rural Georgia govern those in downtown San Francisco?”

      They should not.

      “Why should folks in New York City govern those in Montana?”

      There’s more voters in New York City. In a democratic system, such as the one we currently enjoy, having more voters means having more votes means getting your way.

        1. The insurrection failed, so the winner of the election is still the one with the most votes.

          1. There was no insurrection to fail. One did not happen so there was nothing to succeed or fail.

            1. The attempt failed.

      1. We very much aren’t a democracy. Democracies will not have protections for minorities.

          1. We are whatever the liberals want to call us at the time it is convenient to use a label. Same works with everything else. Need a “riot” you got one. Need to change up “free speech” sure that is flexible. Fascism, all the same. Even works with gender. Great little rhetorical trick they use.

            1. “Great little rhetorical trick they use.”

              As opposed to your little trick, of ascribing your own bad traits to others.

            2. Volokh is a liberal now?

              Your persecution complex is really out of control.

        1. “We very much aren’t a democracy.”

          Duh. Did someone tell you otherwise?

    2. ML, you may not like it, but we’re a Union of states, not a Confederacy of same.

  15. Oh noes, she is not going to be on a committee.

    As a minority first term-er, she was going to have no impact on anything in committee anyways.

    Now she can run on “they want to silence you, I’m just in the way”.

    She should send Pelosi a fruit basket.

    I wonder if Swalwell and The Squad value their committee appointments? They ought to enjoy January, 2023

    1. I doubt the half-educated, superstitious, disaffected, bigoted, downscale Republicans of that district need more reason to cling to Marjorie Taylor Greene.

    2. Maybe send a few masks to Pelosi’s house instead of a fruit basket. She seems to not have any to wear out when she is not (knowingly) on camera.

  16. I think the “bridge too far” was Greene’s placement on the education committee after asserting that several school mass shootings were fabricated. Note that three South Florida Republicans whose districts were in the vicinity of Parkland’s MSD high school (and within the same media market) voted for her removal. Two of the three had previously voted to challenge the electoral vote count on January 6th, so they are hardly never Trumpers. The third had not been sworn in on January 6th due to testing positive for Covid.

    1. Who placed Rep. Green on the education committee?

      Republicans.

      Who removed her?

      Democrats and a few decent Republicans.

      Carry on, clingers — but always just so far and so long as your betters permit.

Please to post comments