A) Pelosi said today the House would remain in session until there is a bipartisan agreement on coronavirus.

The Speaker may say that – because she is getting a lot of pressure from different rank and file members who want to do something before the election.
B) But it’s really not happening. The House is already scheduled to be in session for a few weeks. However, nothing changed.
C) This is window dressing by the Speaker. She has to say something to settle unrest in her caucus. In short, the House of Representatives will not be hanging around, day after day, to get a deal.
D) The House is in Washington, meeting now. Members have about two-plus weeks of work ahead. But once that floor traffic is exhausted, leaders won’t keep members waiting around for a coronavirus bill.
E) You just don’t keep members in DC unless a deal is imminent. All that does is make members cranky, And, you often lose their support for legislation. Next, it’s doubtful that Pelosi would tether members to Washington six weeks before an election.
F) She wants them back in their districts. Finally, the last thing they want to do is keep a bunch of members in Washington in the middle of a pandemic – unless there is something to vote on. That completely flies in the face of social distancing.
G) In short, the House, once the current legislative docket is expired, will remain status quo. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) reiterated today that members would remain on 24 hours notice to return to Washington if there is an agreement.
H) Frankly, it’s unclear if anything could pass the House right now. It’s not even certain the House could re-pass the $3 trillion coronavirus measure it advanced in May.
I) And, other proposals, say from the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus , don’t seem to have the votes to pass, either. Coronavirus bill negotiations remain at a stalemate. The only factor which will alter this equation is the election.
J) That said, here is what Pelosi and others are starting to hear from moderate Democrats who are pushing for a coronavirus package:
K) Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), who opposed the $3 trillion bill in May and flipped a district from red to blue in 2018, criticized Pelosi’s resistance to a smaller pkg.

“What the House put forward months ago isn’t moving forward. Didn’t get us a deal,” said Spanberger.
L) Other moderate Democrats, like Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL), say members are starting to push the leadership to do something.
M) “You are seeing a level of anxiety rise within the members for there to be a deal. For there to be progress toward getting the deal done. Hopefully with that increased pressure, we will start to see negotiations start anew and start moving our way towards that,” said Murphy.
N) So, nothing really moved today. There will likely be more pushes to get a deal over the next couple of weeks. But the calculus never really changed.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Chad Pergram

Chad Pergram Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ChadPergram

21 Sep
A) As we always say, it’s always about the math on Capitol Hill.
B) Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Cory Gardner (R-CO) today signaled they believe the Senate should forge ahead and fill the Supreme Court vacancy this fall.
C) Gardner’s statement was silent on specific timing. Just saying that he would “vote to confirm” if/when President Trump puts forth a qualified nominee.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) said she would “evaluate” the nominee, but did not go as far as Gardner.
Read 10 tweets
21 Sep
A) Grassley: Over the years, and as recently as July, I’ve consistently said that taking up and evaluating a nominee in 2020 would be a decision for the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate Majority Leader.
B) Grassley: Both have confirmed their intentions to move forward, so that’s what will happen. Once the hearings are underway, it’s my responsibility to evaluate the nominee on the merits, just as I always have.
C) Grassley: The Constitution gives the Senate that authority, and the American people’s voices in the most recent election couldn’t be clearer.
Read 4 tweets
21 Sep
1) The general read on CapHill is that Trump will announce his SCOTUS pick on Saturday. There is concern about alienating Jewish voters. Thus, the family of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would sit Shiva (the seven day mourning period) through this coming Friday evening.
2) Nothing is etched in stone, but it’s possible the Senate Judiciary Committee could try to conduct a confirmation hearing either the week of Oct 4 or Oct 11. The nomination would not hit the floor for debate and a final vote until either the week of Oct 18 or Oct 25
3) The House Rules Committee today is prepping an interim spending bill which runs through December 11. The government is only funded through September 30. The House plans to consider the bill this week.
Read 8 tweets
21 Sep
1) Manchin: For the sake of the integrity of our courts and legal system, I do not believe the U.S. Senate should vote on a U.S. Supreme Court nominee before the November 3rd election.
2) Manchin: For Mitch McConnell and my Republican colleagues to rush through this process after refusing to even meet with Judge Merrick Garland in 2016 is hypocrisy in its highest form.
3) Manchin: Pursuing an overtly partisan approach to confirming a Supreme Court Justice will only deepen the political tribalism we are witnessing across this country.
Read 4 tweets
20 Sep
1) There is a supposition, suggesting that the House of Representatives could try to impeach President Trump again or impeach Attorney General Bill Barr to inhibit the Senate from moving expeditiously to confirm a Supreme Court Justice.
2) It’s hard to see how any such scenario could impede the Senate. 

Let’s hypothetically that the House does impeach the President or Barr and appoints House managers to handle a Senate impeachment trial.
3) Senate Impeachment Rule I requires the Senate to approve a resolution to receive and exhibit the articles of impeachment. Impeachment Rule II establishes the formal beginning to the trial.
Read 7 tweets
20 Sep
1) The confirmation of the next Supreme Court justice will hinge on two things: timing and math.

How fast can President Trump settle on a nominee? How fast can the administration vet that individual?
2) How fast can the Senate consider the nominee and provide Constitutionally-mandated “advice and consent?” Finally, would a nominee have enough votes?

For starters, everything is on the cusp – ranging from the timing of a confirmation hearing to the roll call vote itself.
3) It is extraordinary to have a Supreme Court vacancy this close to an election. And, past is prologue. Supreme Court nomination battles are always intense. But the melee over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh exacerbated an already malignant situation.
Read 30 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!