'Race to wokeness': Democrats pass new House rules over GOP outcry

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  3 weeks ago  •  56 comments

By:   Susan Ferrechio (MSN)

'Race to wokeness': Democrats pass new House rules over GOP outcry
Democrats passed a new rules package governing the 117th Congress after a bitter debate with Republicans, who accused the majority of imposing "Soviet-style" changes that will marginalize the minority.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



'Race to wokeness': Democrats pass new House rules over GOP outcry

Democrats passed a new rules package governing the 117th Congress after a bitter debate with Republicans, who accused the majority of imposing "Soviet-style" changes that will marginalize the minority.

© Provided by Washington Examiner

Among the key changes to the rules of the House is one that wipes out the GOP's only chance to amend legislation on the floor through a century-old procedure known as the motion to recommit.

A second change eliminates the use of pronouns and familial identities, such as mother and father, in House-written rules and replaces them with gender-neutral terms sensitive to all members, "including those who are nonbinary."

Democrats, who control a slim majority, passed the package after hours of debate with Republicans, who warned that the changes stifle the freedom of speech and undermine millions of voters represented by the GOP, which makes up nearly half of the elected members.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, accused Democrats of engaging in a "race to wokeness" that ignores an electorate who flipped more than a dozen Democratic seats to the GOP in the November election.

"The political and moral stakes are high, and American people know it," McCarthy said. "If censorship replaces open debate on this floor, serious deliberation of the most important issues confronting our country will become impossible."

The vote on the rules package kicked off the new Congress one day after Democrats ensured the reelection of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to a fourth, nonconsecutive term with the gavel.

The rules changes include many new provisions aimed at empowering the majority and reshaping House procedures to match its agenda.

The package includes language that would allow key Democratic priorities, such as legislation to combat climate change, to pass the House even if it adds to the deficit.

The package would also make it a violation of the rules of the House to spread on government social media accounts knowingly manipulated images such as "deep fakes," and it prevents retaliation against and the disclosure of whistleblowers.

Democrats also used the rules package to extend a special climate committee and create a new panel dedicated to "economic disparity and fairness in growth."

They argued it was necessary to change the motion to recommit because Republicans had been using it to undermine Democratic legislation that they would then vote against.

The rules change will change the motion to recommit so that legislation is sent back to the committee level, essentially killing it.

The GOP successfully amended eight bills in the last Congress using the motion to recommit, frustrating Democratic leaders.

"Since this legislative tool has not been used in good faith, it needs to be reformed," said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Pennsylvania Democrat.

But House Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana said the changes represent a "Soviet-style" rules package that will stifle debate and disenfranchise the 48% of the electorate who voted for GOP lawmakers to serve in the House.

"We don't always agree or see eye to eye, but the beauty is we get to have that debate here," Scalise said. "The rules package is attempting to yank away rights from millions of Americans."

House Democrats added language that will make permanent a newly created Office of Diversity and Inclusion, which aims to diversify the Capitol workforce.

On Sunday, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat, kicked off the opening day of Congress with a prayer that he ended with "amen and awoman," drawing backlash from Republicans.

Republicans said Monday the Democrats have gone too far in an effort to please the liberal base by eliminating the use of mother, father, and other familial and gender-identifying terms.

"In their quest to not offend anyone, they are offending almost all of America," said Rep. Debbie Lesko, an Arizona Republican.

Democrats said that nothing in the rules prohibits members from identifying themselves as mothers, fathers, or their own gender.

"This is not reality," said House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

I suspect that after a new Congress is sworn in in 2023, some Democrats will rue this day.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
1.1  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @1    3 weeks ago

Every time a new Congress takes over there are rule changes. Some make sense and some don't. This may come back to bite the Dems in the ass, but then again if Republicans had won the House they would be making rule changes in their favor too.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @1.1    3 weeks ago

The GOP may have, but would they have been rules with such effects as this?

Seems like Democrats changed some rules on judges a few years ago, and have been complaining when the GOP abided by the very rules Democrats put in place.

I suspect that will be the case again with these latest rule changes.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
1.1.2  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
Seems like Democrats changed some rules on judges a few years ago, and have been complaining when the GOP abided by the very rules Democrats put in place.

Again, those in the majority set the rules and those in the minority complain about it. You and I don't have to like it. All I know is that in the Senate bi-partisan moderates are going to rule for at least the next 2 years.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
1.1.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
The GOP may have, but would they have been rules with such effects as this?

Such as what? Using gender neutral wording? 

Seems like Democrats changed some rules on judges a few years ago, and have been complaining when the GOP abided by the very rules Democrats put in place.

No, the complaints have been about the shameless hypocrisy of the GOP and violating their own precedent. 

I suspect that will be the case again with these latest rule changes.

Again, the rules change all the time, frankly it has never had much effect.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
Such as what? Using gender neutral wording? 

No point in that crap.

No, the complaints have been about the shameless hypocrisy of the GOP and violating their own precedent. 

Ever amusing.

Again, the rules change all the time, frankly it has never had much effect.

I'll be around to remind you of that statement when Democrats start whining.

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
1.1.5  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

So far the gop is losing. In just two years the gop lost the House, Senate and Presidency...

Losers don't get to be the choosers. If you want to make the rules you must first win elections. The gop cannot seem to do that!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
1.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
he gop cannot seem to do that!

It's almost like you can't remember as recently as four years ago...

Watching a Democrat who finally wins an election is like watching the fabled  grasshopper who believes winter will never come and summer lasts forever. 

Haven't you figured out how this works yet? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.7  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

Foolish people will probably believe that the GOP is dead and will never win another election.

Yawn.

Heard all that crap before. When Obama won, it was going to be the death knell for the GOP and the GOP wouldn't see the WH for at least a generation, and the House and Senate were going to be firmly entrenched in Democratic hands.

All those bold predictions were proven ridiculous.

Some day people will realize that elections run in cycles. It is common for first term Presidents to lose seats in both the House and Senate.

Just remember how Democrats complained when the GOP went by the rules Democrats established.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.1.8  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.7    2 weeks ago
Foolish people will probably believe that the GOP is dead and will never win another election.

I'm going to need to see a link for that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.9  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.8    2 weeks ago

Your personal needs are no concern of mine.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.6    2 weeks ago
Haven't you figured out how this works yet? 

I just think you are wasting time trying to explain it to someone who believes that overall vote totals for Congress are meaningful, and seats won or lost are not.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Senior Participates
1.1.11  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

And yet, your need to interject your personal thoughts into every discussion knows no bounds...ad infinitum, ad nauseum. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.12  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

Gee, when you post, don't you inject your personal thoughts in your posts, or do you just parrot someone else's?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Senior Participates
1.1.13  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.12    2 weeks ago

Purely mine there, tex...informed and confirmed by every one of your incessant and puerile rebuttals. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.14  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

Then it seems childish and curlish to chastise me for posting what I think when you do the same.

Or were you just trying out trolling?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Senior Participates
1.1.15  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.14    2 weeks ago

curlish?

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.16  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

Oops--you caught a typo.

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

Churlish.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Senior Participates
1.1.17  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.16    2 weeks ago

Roget...over and out. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.19  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.17    2 weeks ago
Roget

Roget's Thesaurus:

#182 Place: Adj.   boorish clownish loutish lumpish cloddish clodpolish churlish carlish .

#819 Parsimony: Adj.   niggardly ,   niggard ,   penurious ,   grudging ,   mean ,   shabby ,   small ,   little ,   petty ,   cheap ,   churlish ,   curmudgeonly .

#851 Vulgarity: Adj.   lubberly ,   lumpish ,   cloddish ,   clownish ,   boobyish ,   bohunkish ,   boorish ,   churlish ,   carlish ,   loutish .

#895 Discourtesy: Adj.   surly ,   crusty ,   bearish ,   churlish .

#901 Irascibility: Adj.   spleeny ,   splenetic ,   iracund ,   churlish ,   bearish ,   irascible ,   snappish ,   irritable ,   waspish ,   cross ,   cranky ,   testy ,   crusty ,   huffy ,   patchy ,   cantankerous ,   cankered ,   crabbed .

#901a Sullenness: Adj.   spleeny ,   splenetic ,   iracund ,   churlish ,   bearish ,   irascible ,   snappish ,   irritable ,   waspish ,   cross ,   cranky ,   testy ,   crusty ,   huffy ,   patchy ,   cantankerous ,   cankered ,   crabbed .

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Senior Participates
1.1.20  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.19    2 weeks ago

No charge, texie...always a worthy endeavor in expanding one’s vocabulary. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.21  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.20    2 weeks ago

I already knew what it meant, I just posted it to help you out a little!

You're welcome!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.1.22  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.17    2 weeks ago
Roget...over and out.

Damn, you're good.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1    3 weeks ago

Why? The House rules change every time it switches hands. You are bitching about nothing. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
1.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.2    3 weeks ago

to some people the political pendulum should only swing in one direction. their collective appetite for the words they uttered just 4 years ago seems to have turned sour. I believe the phrase "tough shit" is most appropriate. while reminding a few here that if they're unhappy with the results of the last election, they should probably try to focus on winning the next one.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.2    2 weeks ago
You are bitching about nothing. 

Always amusing--and wrong, of course.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
1.2.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

Not wrong at all. You aren't really complaining about anything here, you are just making noise. And aside from this I haven't seen one single article or anything discussing outrage to the new rule changes, so obviously they aren't anything really noteworthy. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.2.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.2.3    2 weeks ago
You aren't really complaining about anything here,

Gee, dude, in one post you tell me I am bitching and then in the next you tell me I am not.

Can't quite have it both ways, you know.

BTW, please tell me where I bitched--I just know you can actually quote me instead of yakking about it.

When you can not do so, will you at least retract your false claim?

Rhetorical, I know you can't do that.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Senior Participates
1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 weeks ago

The Dems are on a fast and misguided track to lose the House come 2022. Won't surprise me if they lose a few Senate seats also.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.3.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3    2 weeks ago

Lots of Democrats get all giddy over every election, and every election they win is the death of the GOP.

Hell, the GOP has been killed off and buried so many times by Democrats by now, but somehow, the GOP keeps on going.

Political novices and sheep believe all the nonsense and parrot what they have been told--"The GOP Is dead, dead, dead!!!!!!!"

LOL!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

I am trying to muster up a yawn as a response to this story. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

I have had the same feeling on many of your seeds, too!

Looky there, something in common!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

As America suffers in agony via the worst of the pandemic, the first act of the House in the 117th Congress is to install a college campus style progressive program of abstract idea's, political correctness and identity politics.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
3.1  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    3 weeks ago

As America suffers in agony donald golfs and calls to harass people trying to overturn an election.

Where is your outcry?

The first thing the house does every term is set the rules. Don't act like it is a new thing. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.1    3 weeks ago

I hope you remember that when the GOP wins the House.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
3.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

Every new congress does it, there is nothing to "remember". The House rules change every 2-4 years, stop wetting your pants.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

yes, rules change.

very, very good.

now, about the effects of some of these changes.

Democrats would do well to remember how the last time they made such changes, it bit them in the ass.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
3.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    2 weeks ago
Democrats would do well to remember how the last time they made such changes, it bit them in the ass

Lol, I think you are confusing the house and senate. 

The house changed the rules 2 years ago to no apparent effect.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
Lol, I think you are confusing the house and senate. 

I never mentioned a specific House of Congress, so it is obviously you who are confused.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
3.1.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.5    2 weeks ago
Democrats would do well to remember how the last time they made such changes, it bit them in the ass.

You seem to be alluding to the change in the Senate that allowed judicial nominees to be appointed by a simple majority vote. And if that is not what you are referring to then you are just saying shit just to say it and I gave you WAAAAY too much credit. While I don't think that is the case I wouldn't be surprised. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.7  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

I have confidence you'll figure it out on your own eventually.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
3.2  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    3 weeks ago
As America suffers in agony via the worst of the pandemic....

Trump continues to whine and focus on losing the election. And probably plays golf somewhere.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
4  Thrawn 31    3 weeks ago
A second change eliminates the use of pronouns and familial identities, such as mother and father, in House-written rules and replaces them with gender-neutral terms sensitive to all members, "including those who are nonbinary."

Really? If that is one of the big problems then this is just a yawn.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
4.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4    2 weeks ago
If that is one of the big problems then this is just a yawn.

Well, the undeniable fact is that Democrats felt it was a large enough problem to address.

I guess there was nothing else going on in the country more important than addressing this terrible, horrible, life-changing problem, right?

Lol!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
4.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    2 weeks ago
Well, the undeniable fact is that Democrats felt it was a large enough problem to address.

Again, if that is all you have to whine about then the rules changes aren't anything special.

I guess there was nothing else going on in the country more important than addressing this terrible, horrible, life-changing problem, right?

The first thing a new house majority does is set the rules. That is standard practice, and none of our current problems can be addressed by the house rules anyways. And once Senate leadership changes hands then perhaps the Democrats can do what they always have to do and start cleaning up the GOP's mess. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
4.1.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
Again, if that is all you have to whine about then the rules changes aren't anything special.

I didn't whine, I pointed out a fact.

Now, if you have something you would like to dispute about that fact.....go for it!

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
5  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)    2 weeks ago
They argued it was necessary to change the motion to recommit because Republicans had been using it to undermine Democratic legislation that they would then vote against.

The rules change will change the motion to recommit so that legislation is sent back to the committee level, essentially killing it.

The GOP successfully amended eight bills in the last Congress using the motion to recommit, frustrating Democratic leaders.

256

So... because they're frustrated with how things are / have been going, their answer is to trash it? Nice.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
6  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)    2 weeks ago
House Democrats added language that will make permanent a newly created Office of Diversity and Inclusion, which aims to diversify the Capitol workforce.

So... bringing back minority quotas in which may eliminate the actual best candidate.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
6.1  evilgenius  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @6    2 weeks ago

Minority quotas? Is that the term you are going with? You totally misrepresent what diversity is about and how it works. Corporations with good diversity programs are shown to increase  profit since they appeal to a larger market. The basic concept also applies to other workforces, which would then mean it wouldn't be eliminating any actual best non-minority candidate for one of color. The one of color would then most likely BE the best candidate to add their specific experiences and ideas to the group. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Senior Participates
6.1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  evilgenius @6.1    2 weeks ago

They’ll be screaming for such quotas in the not too distant future when those entrenched in hoping for a return to the past find themselves on the short end of the stick.

Always better to adjust to the reality than to stick one’s head in the sand. We’re all better when we are all playing on a level field. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
6.1.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  evilgenius @6.1    2 weeks ago
Corporations with good diversity programs are shown to increase  profit since they appeal to a larger market.

I love the company I work for and they're the most diverse company I've EVER worked for and they always promote within. I have nothing against diversity. However, do NOT simply put someone in a powerful position just because they're a part of a minority group. That's all I'm trying to say.

The company I work for even sponsors employee's families to become US citizens. The way that quote came across to me is they're not beyond putting people from minority groups in the Capitol just because they're minorities. That is just my opinion; take it for what it's worth.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
6.1.3  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  evilgenius @6.1    2 weeks ago

Oh... and I'm a minority in my field and have been since I was 16. If anyone would want to push for appropriate diversity... I'm one of them.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.2  Kavika   replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @6    2 weeks ago

I would like to ask them their face have then forgotten the centuries that we people of color were not allowed to even try for a position and you can bet that many of us were much qualified than those the got the job. 

Wow, minority quotes, talk about missing the point.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
6.2.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Kavika @6.2    2 weeks ago

Kav, you should know me by now [between here and NV]... that's how I perceived that quote from the article. I AM one of those minorities. I certainly wouldn't want to be put into a Capitol position just because of my minority status, because I certainly don't know enough to be in such a position. Qualifying candidates are important... not just minority status.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Kavika   replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

Yes, I do know you from NV and NT that is why I found your comment to be totally missing the point.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
6.2.3  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Kavika @6.2.2    2 weeks ago

I just think there should be careful wording in any policies regarding diversification of the Capitol. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


igknorantzrulz


32 visitors