Nancy Pelosi should resign
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Nancy Pelosi should resign
The House has its share of infamies, great and small, real and symbolic, and has been the scene of personal infamies from brawls to canings. But the conduct of Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the State of the Union address this week will go down as a day of infamy for the chamber as an institution. It has long been a tradition for House speakers to remain stoic and neutral in listening to the address. However, Pelosi seemed to be intent on mocking President Trump from behind his back with sophomoric facial grimaces and head shaking, culminating in her ripping up a copy of his address.
Her drop the mic moment will have a lasting impact on the House. While many will celebrate her trolling of the president, she tore up something far more important than a speech. Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition, decorum, and civility that the nation could use now more than ever. The House speaker is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address. A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress. The House speaker represents not her party or herself but the entirety of the chamber. At that moment, she must transcend her own political ambitions and loyalties.
Tensions for this address were high. The House impeachment managers sat as a group in front of the president as a reminder of the ongoing trial. That can be excused as a silent but pointed message from the Democrats. Trump hardly covered himself with glory by not shaking hands with Pelosi. I also strongly disliked elements of his address which bordered on “check under your seat” moments, and the awarding of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom inside the House gallery like a Mardi Gras bead toss. However, if Trump made the State of the Union look like Oprah, then Pelosi made it look like Jerry Springer.
What followed was an utter disgrace. First, Pelosi dropped the traditional greeting before the start of the address, “Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States.” Instead, she simply announced, “Members of Congress, the president of the United States.” It was extremely petty and profoundly inappropriate. Putting aside the fact that this is not her tradition, but that of the House, it is no excuse to note that the president was impeached.
Such an indignity was not imposed on President Clinton during his own impeachment proceeding, and anyone respecting due process would note that Trump has been accused, not convicted, at this point in the constitutional process. Pelosi proceeded to repeatedly shake her head, mouth words to others, and visibly disagree with the address. It was like some distempered distracting performance art behind the president.
My revulsion over this has nothing to do with impeachment. Six years ago, I wrote a column denouncing Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito for mouthing the words “not true” when President Obama used his address to criticize the court for its decision in the Citizens United case. I considered his response to be a disgrace and wrote a column criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts for not publicly chastising Alito for breach of tradition. Instead, Roberts seemed to defend Alito in criticizing Obama for his “very troubling” language and saying that it was unfair to criticize the court when the justices, “according to the requirements of protocol,” have “to sit there expressionless.” That was not unfair. That was being judicious.
I also wrote a column denouncing Republican Representative Joe Wilson, who shouted “you lie!” at Obama during his State of the Union address in 2009. Wilson should have been severely sanctioned for that breach. When I wrote those columns, I had never imagined that a House speaker would engage in conduct far in excess of those controversies. After all, House speakers often have been required to sit through addresses they despised from presidents of the opposing party. The House speaker is third in line of succession to the presidency and the representative of the chamber as a whole. She is not some Sinead O’Connor ripping up a photograph of the pope on Saturday Night Live while shouting aloud “fight the real enemy!”
Pelosi, like her predecessors, is supposed to remain stone faced during the address even if the president leaves her personally enraged. Indeed, House speakers have been the authority who kept other members in silent deference and respect, if not to the president, then to the office. However, Pelosi appeared to goad the mob, like a high schooler making mad little faces behind the school principal at an assembly. It worked as members protested and interrupted Trump. Pelosi became another Democratic leader, little more than a twitching embodiment of this age of rage.
This is not to suggest that the House has always listened to its better angels. More than 180 years ago, a confrontation between Democratic Representative Jonathan Cilley and Whig Representative William Graves led to a duel over what Graves viewed as a slight on the House floor. In February 1838, the two decided to meet in Maryland for a duel with rifles, and Graves killed Cilley after both missed each other twice. In response, the House quickly pushed forward antidueling legislation in Congress.
Pelosi has demolished decades of tradition with this poorly considered moment. Of course, many will celebrate her conduct and be thrilled by the insult to Trump. However, even those of us who disagree with his policies should consider what Pelosi destroyed in her moment of rage. She shredded the pretense of governing with civility and dignity in the House. Notably, she did not wait to rip up her copy of the speech until after she left the House floor. Pelosi wanted to do it at the end of the speech, in front of the camera, with the president still in the chamber.
That act was more important to Pelosi than preserving the tradition of her office. In doing so, she forfeited the right to occupy that office. If Pelosi cannot maintain the dignity and neutrality of her office at the State of the Union, she should resign as the speaker of the House of Representatives.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
83 visitors
As everyone knows, normally this is not the type of thing I would seed. Pelosi has done a great job for the Democratic Party and for America.
I seeded this op/ed because I am amazed at the brazen hypocrisy of Jonathan Turley.
He wants Pelosi to resign the third highest office in the land (according to the line of succession ) because he says she violated "decorum" and propriety by mocking Trump at the State of the Union.
The first thing that comes to mind, is where is his call for Donald Trump to resign? Where have been his calls for Donald Trump to resign for the past three years?
Turley is affronted by Pelosi ? Trump's existence in office is an affront. He has lied to the American people thousands of times. He has called for his political opponents to be investigated by foreign governments, not once, but in both his elections. He has sent out literally hundreds of tweets that violate propriety, in fact does so on almost a daily basis. Trump has passed along messages from white supremacists on his social media.
Donald Trump has one chance to be re-elected, that is if he is perceived as normal by enough voters in November. That of course, would be a travesty. Nancy Pelosi knows this , Jonathan Turley seems to not know or not care.
We are in a war, and Pelosi was fighting back. She should be applauded for standing up to Trump, and emulated.
Yeah great job their approval rating is 23%, that's less than half of what Trumps is.
And? Can you spend it? Does it matter that it was 27% just 7 days ago in December 2019?
Or that it was 9% in 2013?
Or 84% in October 2001 when we had war fever?
Seems like a valueless bit of trivia...
Applauded for acting like a petulant little child? Only the TDS sufferers think her childish display was worthy of the speaker of the house. Most democrats I know are ashamed of her actions, the only ones that approve of it are the same ones that cried when Hillaryious Hillary lost.
It's rare that you seed such a good article. I thought for a moment you were taking a break from the extreme partisanship, but I should have known better.
This is the part that I found most hypocritical:
First of all, that's false. The SOTU is held in the HOUSE chamber and the Speaker has complete control over what occurs there. Without an invitation from Pelosi, Trump couldn't have spewed his BS.
Secondly, Trump ABUSED his 'guest' status and violated 'decorum' when he FORCED the Sargent at Arms to allow Sgt. Williams to enter the chamber during the SOTU AND had Melania present Rush with the Medal of Freedom, both for 'dramatic effect'.
Pelosi Screwed Up " ..... AGAIN ?
Sorry Dulay but nothing stipulates that the President of the United States has to have the speakers permission to give the SOTU. He could have chosen any other number of venues to give his speech.
Don't fear the truth or try to deny Trump's winning record.
The SOTU is given before a joint Congress. Nancy invited the President. She broke protocol in her introduction for the President. The SOTU satisfies a requirement for the President. Nothing can stop the President from giving a SOTU speech. The House may rescind its invitation, but Nancy did not do that.
Trump is allowed--like other Presidents--to have up to 24 guests at his invitation. How many do you claim Trump had over that limit?
Nowhere did I say that he couldn't. The seed is about the decorum of the House chamber. DO try to keep up.
Pelosi went against protocol in her introduction.
Aren't you terribly worked up over THAT, too?
Oh look, another one. The seed is about the decorum of the HOUSE chamber. There is no such 'protocol' for introducing the POTUS. The POTUS isn't 'required' to give a speech and didn't start giving the SOTU as a speech until 1913.
It's a little late to rescind an invitation once the drunk 'guest' pukes on your rug.
Deflection.
WTF does that have to do with the stunts Trump pulled? Hint: Not a fucking thing.
I didn't say he HAD to give a speech. The Constitution requires that the President report on the SOTU. Why the HELL are you trying to argue something I never claimed??????????????
There is CERTAINLY tradition at play.
From Wikipedia:
So there is that.
No one forced her to issue the invitation, and no one could have stopped her from withdrawing it. So that line of argument is stupid and rather pointless.
No more than I was 'worked up' when Trump didn't even wait to be introduced before he started his 2019 SOTU.
You didn't?
Well golly gee dulay It appears that is exactly what you said. Now get back to that spin.
Cheers
Your head must have exploded when Trump didn't wait to be introduced last year. /s
Again, since the seed is about the decorum in the HOUSE CHAMBER, it shouldn't have to reiterated in every comment.
Where did I argue any of this:
Hint: I didn't. Physician heal thyself...
What?? You couldn't feign some faux poutrage over the actions of your President?? Unbelievable!
I know what you wrote, and what you argued.
You will certainly have to do better than that.
Or not.
Not all things are possible.
Always.
SOSDD
But then again, we aren't surprised, are e?
Nor could you but 'PROTOCOL!'.
Yet you went off on a tangent and posted a strawman anyway.
You will certainly have to do better than that.
Sigh.
Always accusing everyone else of strawman arguments.
Yawn.
It is far past old coming from you.
But typical when someone points out how you attempt to argue stuff no one states.
You have to get personal because you can't deny that YOUR comment was a strawman and that you're desperate to ignore that the topic is about the House Chamber.
Ok, well that's obviously not true. He can spew whatever he wants at any time. That's the First Amendment. He doesn't need Pelosi's permission for that.
But secondly, he actually has authority to be in the Capitol building whenever he likes. He doesn't need Pelosi for that either. Rules of the House:
Also, delivering the SOTU is a requirement of the Constitution, so it would seem to be unconstitutional for the Speaker to interfere with that process.
Finally, the Constitution gives the President the authority to convene or adjourn the Congress:
So, on the whole, I would say invitations from Pelosi are not necessary.
Watch out or your facts will become strawmen to someone!!
There are people here that pride themselves on specializing in that.
He sure can, but NOT at the podium in the House Chamber.
Being allowed in the Capital and being allowed on the House floor are 2 different things.
Yet before 1913, it was delivered in writing, WITHOUT a speech.
Oh and BTFW, didn't you just say that spew whatever he wants at any time? So it how could the Speaker be interfering?
Yet that STILL doesn't allow him to go into the House Chamber so your 'point' is moot.
You're wrong. I note that you've avoided the Speaker's authorities in your scenerio.
Oh and both Houses have to pass a Resolution agreeing on a time and date for the speech.
As there are those that pride themselves in posting strawmen.
She should resign. But the Dems will lose the House in a few months from now and she will retire in disgrace and return to her palatial palace in SFO, gated to keep the homeless poopers and pissers out, and protected by armed guards. Talk about acting like an angry and petulant middle-schooler. She's not normal and unfit to hold any kind of office, and besides, the far left loons are in firm control of the remnants of the Democrat Party
If you can't understand or deny why the Dems are falling into total chaos and failing to win back the voters, there is no hope for what ails you.
Still subscribing to fake news?
Nancy Pelosi just finished about a 15 or 20 minute press conference. She gave an OUTSTANDING defense of her reasoning for tearing up Trump's state of the union address.
I suggest anyone interested search it out later when it comes out as a video.
Basically she says Trump's speech was full of lies (the Washington Post counted and laid out 31 falsehoods in Trump's speech) , and the President and his followers were the ones who broke decorum (they chanted "four more years" ) and that it was inappropriate to use the state of the union speech as a campaign speech.
Pelosi is so much more intelligent and articulate than Trump, its not even funny.
And as I told someone (who subsequently disappeared to no one's surprise) yesterday, the NYT had a difference in opinion............
for your edification...............
Lot of "true's" in there......................and it's the Times.
"Pelosi has done a great job for the Democratic Party and for America. "
What a line of pure unadulrtrated BULLSHIT.
This hapless clod has done nothing for the country. Look at her own district. That alone is proof enough she doesnt care and hasn't cared about this country in a very long time. She should have been recalled years ago.
Hey man, the dudes on human poop patrol are doing great.
Careers in Scatalogical Engineering
184k plus a year .... yeehaw!
Nicest areas of SF...
Based on what pray tell? Your opinion?
She averages winning elections in the former 8th and current 12th district by 84% of her constituents.
A recall is just wishful partisan hooey.
[Deleted]
You should pay attention to the WHOLE district.
So tell me Jeremy where do you get your fake news from in NC?
Funny enough, right here on NT. About 90% of the false flag news I see is posted right here on this site. And all of that are usually by the anti-Trump crowd. They are usually from sources like CNN, MSNBC, and most other third party sites that resemble shows like the Kardashians than anything reputable. Very rarely is there research done or actual documents posted to back up such fantasy claims.
[Deleted]
Think you forgot to put the "/S" behind your question.
Yes, been there, done the research, lived on base there for 4 years.
SF has reportedly 300,000 dogs, 150,000 cats and large flocks of large parrots that shit everywhere and apparently, more often than not, people don't pick up after their dogs in spite of a ridiculous fine of $320 for not picking up after your animal or having "suitable containers" on your person.
The $184,000 includes ( supposedly ) $112,000 in benefits, ergo a salary of $72K in a city where the average home is worth 1.3 million. There are less than 10 people on poop patrol and that includes the people "servicing" the Pit Stops, about half of which always seem to be out of order.
Are there homeless people there? Yes, and they present the same challenges to every big city across the country that they have since I can remember. I remember the department of streets and services in 1950 & 60's Philadelphia - basically poop patrols for all of the recreation centers and Parks. I also remember horse drawn fruit and vegetable vendors that came down the streets and driveways all summer long, talk about poo patrols!!! ( The farmers usually cleaned up most of it, but did they carry it around all day, NOT! )
Street sweepers, both the large trucks and gangs of men came around and swept the sidewalks and streets monthly regardless of what neighborhood you lived in.
The implication that these 10 or 11 people are getting rich searching out poop, is just ludicrous nonsense ripe
for partisan poop flinging, nothing more.
Was that the implication SP? That they were getting rich?
Very informative (and typical) that you would take it in a "partisan" direction but wrong. If you must glean some sort of serious intent from a comment that was intended largely to just be humorous i guess we could point to the ridiculously high benefit package the poop patrol gets.
Bennies costing nearly 160% of wage shows just how bad it is in SF when in most places in the US fringes cost in the 30-50% range of wage.
So yeah, that is pretty wack.
Everything in SF, San Mateo & Marin is whack, I sold a row style condo in SE Jersey for $45K and moved to
the Bay area in the 80's and the same exact 1500 sq ft condos by the same builder were $410,000 in San Raphael.
The economy there never made sense to me, but that is why a 2 hour or longer commute is normal around SF & Oakland, and for what? It's not that nice at all.
Were you stationed at the Presidio or just find a way to live on base?
I was originally on Yerba Bueno until the earthquake, then they moved me up to Hamilton AFB.
Ah, never got up there. Spent a little time in between assignments at the Presidio bunking with a buddy doing language school.
Now there is a nice duty base. Loved that golf course. Many cigars and beers were consumed there.
Took the kids there every weekend. Beaches and exploring the old batteries & Fort Point never got old.
Fog brought down the Eucalyptus tree sap all over the cars there, always had to be careful of parking.
I wasn't being sarcastic. It was a genuine question that apparently the answer to is a resounding "YES".
Well, you see John you've got a problem there.
If you think Trump has behaved poorly and should resign, a truly fair and unbiased mind would feel the same about Pelosi. Thus demonstrating the clear bias you put out saying Pelosi should be applauded and emulated for her actions.
I know you want to have your cake and eat to but it doesn't work that way in the real world.
I'm questioning her ability to actually read it.
I have said for a while that Jonathan Turley is like a more mild mannered version of Alan Dershowitz. They are both Trumpsters, although up until now Turley has been more laid back.
Seriously, where the hell is his call for Trump to resign?
You can say it all you want, but it won't change the documented facts that neither man voted for Trump.
How much you want to bet they do in 2020?
Pelosi's petty, childish behavior at the 2020 SOTU address was a national embarrassment and disgrace: facial/mouth grimaces, smirking, not acknowledging/applauding for honored guests, and ending with her ridiculously dramatic paper stunt.
To boot ... today, at her press conference, she did what she does best - ramble with incoherence. But, she reached a new low today. She said that at the SOTU, Trump spoke as if he were "drugged" and "sedated". Really, Nancy?
LOL. Nancy Pelosi was brilliant today.
Thanks for offering a cyber bet, but I'll pass. Whoever they choose to vote for in November is their business, not mine.
then why even mention it?
Yet not one word of condemnation about the many nasty things donald has done and said.
You really didn't expect one did you?
I forgot. Only one side is allowed to demean people...
Now you're getting it!
You'll have to ask the person who posted comment 2, because I was replying to his comment.
These aren't your words?
It's clear that we have different standards for "brilliant", so we shall have to agree to disagree.
You think everyone who isn't frothing at the mouth to hang Trump is a Trumpster.
I don't think Pelosi should resign. Does that make me a Pelosister (or whatever the hell you might call a supporter of hers)?
I agree that it is hypocritical to demand a resignation for decorum's sake and give Trump a pass. The proper response to Pelosi would be a couple of "tsk tsks" and then we all get back to our lives.
What should he resign for?
Lying? Then ALL politicians need to resign.
Beating the Democrars on EVERY level? That's to be celebrated. This President has accomplished more than he promised as well as things Democrats have promised for DECADES.
Hurting your feelings? Sorry, reality sucks.
regardless if she resigns or not.
she will not be speaker of the house for long
her time has almost expired.
I don't know. I think this last little stunt, and the impeachment, may have bought her a reprieve from the hard left.
for this session? agreed.
the next session? not so much.
[deleted]
"Nancy Pelosi should resign"
I don't " Feel "
that way.
It's more fun to see her lose "The Gavel", and have to sit back and be a "Spectator".
Jesus.
Pelosi in talking right now and is butt hurt as HAYULL. Bringing up Charlottesville ............again?! What a language mangling, blabbering fool.
The blabbering fool is speaking right now.
Funny that people can call Pelosi every name in the book yet donald is right now calling people names and demeaning people and that is cheered on.
What is that called again? Oh yeah....
Those 150 or so people that are in the room with him right now, all laughing at his idiocies and nonsense , should all be ashamed of themselves.
What the fuck has happened to the United States of America?
Why are the major networks showing this crap?
And people say the media doesnt help Trump. He is giving a stream of consciousness pile of nonsensical self serving bullshit and the major networks are showing it live.
America is fucked unless everyone anti-Trump, and the moderates and independents come to their senses and activate to get rid of this pestilence.
Kind of a disgusting display. Them congratulating each other and patting themselves on the back.
Really weird. Even him talking about Jordan being buff and using the gym. Puke.
Had to turn it off.
Lost? They proved he is a criminal. America has lost.
Seriously, why are ABC, NBC and CBS showing this shit? They need to be ashamed too.
I swear he loves to hear himself talk. He drones on and on and on....
He just will not shut up.
And really says nothing except how he thinks the other side is crooked.
He needs to quit because I don't want another call from my mother that he is taking over General Hospital.
He's not on a teleprompter and he's mentally ill.
The networks should be ashamed of themselves for showing this idiocy for an hour.
He called people sleazebag and scum yet OMG look at Pelosi....
Blind partisanship.
I think you are right, he is not mentally stable. Something seriously wrong with him.
Because they can't resist pointing a camera at Trump and just letting it go. He provides free content for at least an hour and they can all go get a coffee or something. That's how he got elected.
When are Americans going to rise up about this?
Where are the independents and moderates?
I'm tired of pointing this shit out every day, as are you and others who oppose him. We need EVERYONE to speak up.
[deleted]
I gave it a few minutes. I got a thrill when he used the word "bullshit" but other than that it was a boring rant and I had to shut it off.
It's an embarrassment to this country. Why do you pretend having a mentally ill, vindictive, idiotic president is nothing?
[deleted]
When did I ever say it was nothing? I have said many times that I don't approve of a lot of the things he says and does. I have said many times that I voted for someone else in the primaries. The only time I voted for him was when it was a choice between him and Hillary.
I don't get to have everything the way I want it but I don't try to blow up the system just because the president behaves like he's in the 6th grade.
He does get more free publicity than anybody.
You must have hit rock bottom if you are paying attention to Jen Rubin. She's the answer to how would a crazy, unmedicated blogger behave?
Maybe if Democrats hadn't spent 20 years attacking every single prominent national Republican in similarly hysterical terms, Americans might care what the Pelosis of the world thought. Americans outside the progressive bubble understand that Democrats are going to denounce whoever the face of the Republican party is at the time as the WORST PERSON IN HISTORY who is going to destroy the country etc.etc..
It's tremendously ironic to see Democrats praising Romney after their viscous attacks on him just a few years. McCain was a Nazi warmonger, and now he's saint. After Trump retires, Democrats will compare him favorably to whoever the next Republican leader is.
Omg. Now who are the snowflakes again?
have you spotted a rightwinger screaming at the sky? show me, id love to see it.
thanks in advance
They don't scream at the sky, just everyone else.
This is a silly op-ed. I'm not a fan of Nancy Pelosi, and I don't approve of her behavior at the SOTU, but if she were ever to resign, this is not the reason.
Politicians have been rude and petty to each other since the beginning of time. That "traditional" quality doesn't make it ok, but it does make it normal.
There is so much hypocrisy and self-delusion in political outrage. People feign outrage about something a political opponent said or did and pretend that "normally" they're all so respectful and civil and this latest offense shatters all precedent. It's not true. It has never been true.
Yep! I was about to say as much.
From what I am seeing in Pelosi's behavior is that she knows she and her party is toast in the House.
She resisted for some time to impeach, but the radicals on the left finally got to her and she went over the edge.
Unfortunately, she relied on Schiff and Nadler to handle the impeachment, which was a huge mistake. She could not take it back once it was realized early on.
Since she realized she made a mistake, she started going off the ledge and hoped beyond hope that SOMETHING, ANYTHING, would come out that would justify her screw up. Nothing ever did.
Now, she knows the loons in the radical left hate her because she was not able to get the President removed, so she engaged in going against House protocol to make a spectacle of herself, trying to get back into the graces of those loons.
The House is lost to the Republicans in November, and she knows it. That's why she continues to insult the President and not take responsibility for her party's failures. There are many.
bugsy - don't you mean that the House is lost to the Democrats in November?
Maybe how I wrote it could be a little confusing. I'm saying that the Republicans are going to take the House from the Democrats, and Pelosi is well aware of it.