US House GOP bans DC Mayor from House Floor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

Is there a single thing a governor needs to do that requires them to be on the House floor? OTOH, DC has no voting representation in Congress despite the fact that Congress can control the DC budget and exercise a veto over legislation and how DC taxes are spent. It’s good old fashioned Jim Crow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The House also tries to meddle in the individual governance of DC more than any other city in the country, so it is kind of messed up.

Not tries - they do.

We are also disenfranchised so they can miss me with the BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

Why is this the priority? Why is this an action item at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

Why is this the priority? Why is this an action item at all?

Are you asking why passing the house rules is an “action item”?

Without the rules they cannot seat committees, hold votes, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

Is there a single thing a governor needs to do that requires them to be on the House floor? OTOH, DC has no voting representation in Congress despite the fact that Congress can control the DC budget and exercise a veto over legislation and how DC taxes are spent. It’s good old fashioned Jim Crow.

The DC congressional representative can vote on legislation in committee and in fact, Holmes Norton was a subcommittee chair in the last Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will not just impact Mayor Bowser but all future DC Mayors until it’s overturned. Puerto Rico is also affected.

WASHINGTON (DC News Now) — D.C.’s mayor is now banned from being on the U.S. House floor.

It’s one of several changes Republicans made in their new House Rules package passed Monday night.


Democrats call this a punishing move targeting the mayor, but Mayor Muriel Bowser says it won’t affect much of her day-to-day activity.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

On Monday Bowser reacted to the rules change barring her from the U.S. House floor. It also takes away privileges for governors of U.S. territories, like Puerto Rico.

“The rules continue to grant governors and 16 other categories of people including foreign ministers floor privileges,” said D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

All but one House Republican voted 220 to 213 to pass the new House rules package where this change was made.

Gov. Hogan achieved lower taxes, bipartisanship in Md.
Despite calling the move petty, Bowser says she hasn’t used the privilege in her eight years in office.

“I didn’t think it would be effective. My strategies with the members of the Congress have been to deal with them on very specific issues and try to win their support,” Bowser said.

But still, Virginia Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger says it could create challenges.

“It seems like a punitive effort. Certainly, our ability to engage directly with the mayor of Washington D.C. or the governors of various different territories, it is important to our ability to do our jobs,” Spanberger said.

D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton is again pushing for independence from federal oversight of local laws.

“Congress has undemocratic plenary authority over DC and regularly uses its authority to legislate on local matters,” Holmes Norton said. “While DC deserves statehood, if any non-member of Congress deserves and needs privileges, it is D.C.’s Mayor.”

A bigger concern for local Democrats is the influence the right-wing Freedom Caucus has and if its members will restrict D.C. laws or take away funding.

My lens for evaluating policy is the answer to the question, “How many people will this help?” What’s the answer in this case?

[Anonymous]

Republicans are petty, vindictive and worthless at governing? Quelle surprise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should the DC Mayor have house floor privileges? What was the rationale for granting them in the first place and when did that happen?

State governors have them. It seems reasonable that the District mayor should too. Also PR and other territories, unless they are abusing the privilege.

Exactly right. Since state governors have them, and DC is not a state, the DC Mayor is the equivalent of the Governor.

Make this make sense?

The question though was when were these privileges first granted? I doubt that the House Republicans are overturning a centuries or even decades old privilege.

The answer is that this rule was first introduced in 2021 at the insistence of Holmes Norton, so this is not the “insult[ing]” scandal that Holmes Norton and Bowser are making it out to be or indicative of anything. It is just reverting to the pre-2021 norm.
https://thedcline.org/2021/01/02/press-release-norton-gets-house-rules-changes-for-d-c-in-117th-congress/

So, in other words, the rules simply were reverted to the pre-2020 rules.
Sounds ok.

Not exactly. The press release notes that governors of territories already had this privilege. Republicans have now taken it away from them too.

I guess they don’t want brown and black people figuring too prominently on the House floor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

if that's your argument, the same could be said of Governors and they should be banned as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should the DC Mayor have house floor privileges? What was the rationale for granting them in the first place and when did that happen?

State governors have them. It seems reasonable that the District mayor should too. Also PR and other territories, unless they are abusing the privilege.

Exactly right. Since state governors have them, and DC is not a state, the DC Mayor is the equivalent of the Governor.

Make this make sense?

The question though was when were these privileges first granted? I doubt that the House Republicans are overturning a centuries or even decades old privilege.

The answer is that this rule was first introduced in 2021 at the insistence of Holmes Norton, so this is not the “insult[ing]” scandal that Holmes Norton and Bowser are making it out to be or indicative of anything. It is just reverting to the pre-2021 norm.
https://thedcline.org/2021/01/02/press-release-norton-gets-house-rules-changes-for-d-c-in-117th-congress/

So, in other words, the rules simply were reverted to the pre-2020 rules.
Sounds ok.

Not exactly. The press release notes that governors of territories already had this privilege. Republicans have now taken it away from them too.

I guess they don’t want brown and black people figuring too prominently on the House floor.

Those privileges were also granted in 2021. You think they just extended it only to the DC mayor?

Previous rules designated Democrats as committee chairs and gave them a majority of committee seats, was it wrong for them to change those rules too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t matter at all. Is there a single thing the D.C. mayor needs to do that requires her to be on the House floor? No? Great, then who cares if she or future mayors are banned?

This is true. And yet here’s the mayor all bothered about it.

“I think it sounds like some petty thing that was developed in the rules and I don’t laugh it off however because it shows how petty some people will be,” Bowser said.

I don't know why she is as you say "bothered" but as a U.S. citizen. I am bothered. Don't they have something more worthwhile to do?

The have to pass rules to do the peoples business. This is exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

DP. How does this rule benefit the American people?

Figures that no one who supports this move has been able to answer this question.

Were the American people not properly served throughout the 250 year history of the country prior to 2021?

If Democrats are to retake the House, should they be obligated to keep the Republican rules in place for similar reason that any change does not “benefit the American people”?

LOL, you can’t answer the question.

Your question makes zero sense because it totally misunderstands how Congress works. 95% of what Congress’s work doesn’t address your question. Take a high school civics class.