ringwiss
@ringwiss.bsky.social
🏳️🌈 🇪🇺 🇵🇱 🇬🇧 He/him.
Armchair parliamentarian.
I type at 140 wpm.
Armchair parliamentarian.
I type at 140 wpm.
He could presumably even do it after the resolution removing him is adopted and before the motion to reconsider is tabled:
November 24, 2025 at 6:27 PM
He could presumably even do it after the resolution removing him is adopted and before the motion to reconsider is tabled:
It happened literally today.
November 22, 2025 at 3:05 AM
It happened literally today.
❓
A bizarre claim. Obviously not true.
A bizarre claim. Obviously not true.
November 21, 2025 at 1:26 AM
❓
A bizarre claim. Obviously not true.
A bizarre claim. Obviously not true.
Good! Members will then have no choice but to turn to more interesting ways of bringing up their bills...
www.axios.com/2025/11/21/m...
www.axios.com/2025/11/21/m...
November 21, 2025 at 1:26 AM
Good! Members will then have no choice but to turn to more interesting ways of bringing up their bills...
www.axios.com/2025/11/21/m...
www.axios.com/2025/11/21/m...
Yes, the chair (in their capacity as a member) may object to a unanimous-consent request.
November 21, 2025 at 12:55 AM
Yes, the chair (in their capacity as a member) may object to a unanimous-consent request.
This is not a trivial issue. Here’s an instance in which a member spectacularly failed to have another member censured, because he tried to do it with a ‘motion’:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBLB...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBLB...
November 20, 2025 at 2:25 AM
This is not a trivial issue. Here’s an instance in which a member spectacularly failed to have another member censured, because he tried to do it with a ‘motion’:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBLB...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBLB...
The House is doing this so often that you’d think members would have learnt the proper terminology by now.
November 20, 2025 at 2:21 AM
The House is doing this so often that you’d think members would have learnt the proper terminology by now.
Two months later, the Senate has agreed to this request.
November 20, 2025 at 1:05 AM
Two months later, the Senate has agreed to this request.
The resolution has to allege that there has been an unreasonable delay.
November 19, 2025 at 2:21 PM
The resolution has to allege that there has been an unreasonable delay.
The good news is that at that point, a member could offer (as a question of privilege) a resolution dealing with the matter – no need for another discharge petition.
November 19, 2025 at 2:13 PM
The good news is that at that point, a member could offer (as a question of privilege) a resolution dealing with the matter – no need for another discharge petition.
They put Mr. Bean in the chair immediately before him, I guess to make Moore look less bad in comparison.
November 19, 2025 at 2:12 PM
They put Mr. Bean in the chair immediately before him, I guess to make Moore look less bad in comparison.
Another one of those times where I wonder whether a resolution removing a designated speaker pro tempore would qualify as a question of privilege.
November 19, 2025 at 3:05 AM
Another one of those times where I wonder whether a resolution removing a designated speaker pro tempore would qualify as a question of privilege.
It’s always startling when the majority loses a voice vote.
November 19, 2025 at 2:23 AM
It’s always startling when the majority loses a voice vote.
OK, that makes sense: they’ll pass Khanna’s bill under suspension of the rules and adopt a rule tabling Massie’s rule.
I like how they now have to specify ‘upon transmission to the Senate’, as opposed to ‘upon passage’. 😁
I like how they now have to specify ‘upon transmission to the Senate’, as opposed to ‘upon passage’. 😁
November 18, 2025 at 12:52 AM
OK, that makes sense: they’ll pass Khanna’s bill under suspension of the rules and adopt a rule tabling Massie’s rule.
I like how they now have to specify ‘upon transmission to the Senate’, as opposed to ‘upon passage’. 😁
I like how they now have to specify ‘upon transmission to the Senate’, as opposed to ‘upon passage’. 😁
November 15, 2025 at 1:18 AM
Just to be ultra-pedantic: It’s the committee that gets discharged from consideration of the measure (in this case, a special rule for consideration of the bill), not the other way around.
November 13, 2025 at 1:55 PM
Just to be ultra-pedantic: It’s the committee that gets discharged from consideration of the measure (in this case, a special rule for consideration of the bill), not the other way around.
A legislative day begins when the House convenes after an adjournment and continues until the House adjourns – nothing to do with whether the House conducts legislative business.
November 13, 2025 at 1:49 PM
A legislative day begins when the House convenes after an adjournment and continues until the House adjourns – nothing to do with whether the House conducts legislative business.
Fun fact: The House is still in a district work period today.
November 12, 2025 at 5:06 PM
Fun fact: The House is still in a district work period today.
Ah, the House is back.
November 12, 2025 at 5:05 PM
Ah, the House is back.
Only one thing to do in that scenario...
November 12, 2025 at 12:47 AM
Only one thing to do in that scenario...
Just to be pedantic: a motion to table would not be in order.
November 12, 2025 at 12:35 AM
Just to be pedantic: a motion to table would not be in order.
It seems that there were intended to be supplements to Deschler’s too, but nothing ever came of that (they just started again at the beginning).
November 11, 2025 at 4:43 PM
It seems that there were intended to be supplements to Deschler’s too, but nothing ever came of that (they just started again at the beginning).