• Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Because they do have power if they’re willing to use it. It can slow them down. For instance,

    Chuck Schumer had that power last week. Look how well that turned out. That’s what you’re basing your hopes on?

    They have subpoenas. Make republicans have to spend all their time talking about all the horrible things they’re doing to the floor. Remove all their time to do said horrible things because they’re too busy testifying

    Actually, no. Democrats have no subpoena power or ability to hold official hearings while in the minority.

    If they don’t testify, they can put people in contempt of congress which can be enforced by the Sergeant at Arms. This is something that did happen to Steve Bannon when he refuesed to testify for the Jan 6th committee. Not just a hypothetical power

    I wouldn’t exactly use Steve Bannon as a prime example. It took years for him to see any consequence at all, and he got a bare minimum. He got, what, 4 months? For the amount of money Bannon is making off of riding Trump’s dick, I’d sit in a jail cell for 4 months too.

    And I’ll counter your argument with Jim Jordan. Ignored subpoenas. Didn’t even get so much as a censure in the house for ignoring their own subpoena, let alone any form of punishment at all. If you for half a second think a Republican-led House is going to charge a prominent, full-throated MAGA member and chair of the Judiciary Committee with contempt, order his arrest, and have him jailed for non-compliance, I have beachfront property on Mars you may be interested in.

    Your rationale goes on the premise that traditional norms and laws still apply. They do not. When the people who are in charge of enforcing those laws and norms are actively telling you that they’re not going to enforce them, those laws aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Chuck Schumer had that power last wee

      And the senate would not need to be involved here. All but 1 house dems did vote against it when there was a real chance to stop it (it wasn’t 100% certain that republicans had the vors in the house)

      House dems are livid at Schumer. The house has been better at opposing - it’s just that their powers are much more limited while in the minority are more limited compared to the senate.

      Democrats have no subpoena power or ability to hold official hearings while in the minority

      The context was in flipping the house. They would be in the majority in that scenario

      If you for half a second think a Republican-led House

      Again the context was flipping the house

      • Catma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Ok and assumming they flip the house what are they going to do? They can do all the hearings and pass out a metric fuckton of subpoenas, what makes you think anyone in this administration listens or shows up? I am pretty sure they did that the first time around, and people shook their fingers and sent very mean letters to no avail.

        Whose to say Ttump then doesnt just dismiss congress? Whose gonna fucking stop him?

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          If they don’t testify, they can put people in contempt of congress which can be enforced by the Sergeant at Arms. This is something that did happen to Steve Bannon when he refuesed to testify for the Jan 6th committee. Not just a hypothetical power

          The Sergeant at Arms is part of the house, not the executive

          If Trump tries to illegally dismissing congress, they could just still meet and direct the Sergeant at Arms anyway