I don’t believe in hell, but if I did Reagan would be enjoying a golden shower there for the rest of eternity.

Congratulations to South Carolina on being the first state to elect two gay Senators.

“You know how I know you’re gay? You’re a United States Senator from South Carolina.”

Jonah Hill. Or Josh Gad. Or Daniel Day-Lewis comes out of retirement and acts the fuck out of a fat 30-year-old man-child crypto scammer.

xkcd still has the best approach to this; four random common words

Being incredibly guilty and having a jury that's going to have to come back next week if they don't finish by 8pm is a dangerous mix.

This... doesn't seem like it would work - "Senator blahdeblah voted for 300 military promotions and also abortions are bad and for some complicated reason we can't explain in a 30-second clip those two things have something to do with each other, so anyway please vote for me, a sentient pair of truck nuts, instead"

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

Not really, no - there's not really any scenario where this ends up with a Speaker who's significantly to the right of McCarthy, and in fact it seems likely that whoever does come in next will have much less reason to compromise with the far right, because it's clear after this experience that they're unreliable partners; better to act maybe 20% more polite to Democrats than McCarthy did and get them to provide the necessary abstentions to defeat a future Motion To Vacate (or the necessary votes to take away the ability for random members to make those motions).

Second worst McCarthy in the history of Congress

And this was only like the 3rd worst thing to happen to O'Brien that day

Well that's why they demand the Republicans hold up their end first - the would-be Speaker and a couple of his/her allies sign a discharge petition to implement whatever it is they agreed to, and only after that passes do the Democrats support them.

An under-appreciated point here is that with McCarthy gone, the math for somebody else to become Speaker is that much harder, and the odds of that person needing to rely on Democratic votes - and to make major, major concessions to get them - commensurately higher; in other words, just because McCarthy wouldn't make a deal with Democrats to remain Speaker, it doesn't mean that somebody else won't eventually make one to become Speaker.

Checkmate.

That train left the station a loooooong time ago, Johnny boy

I think the judge gives him an extremely stern last-chance warning tomorrow and if he does it again, he gets cited for contempt. Doesn't have to be much, chuck him in a private cell in the Manhattan Detention Center for 1 night with Secret Service outside the door, but it seriously hurts the rule of law to have him able to get away with this sort of crap with no consequences.

There's legitimately not enough space for everyone to bring a carry-on, especially on smaller planes; until that changes, carry-on fees are as good a way to allocate that space as any.

The other side of the argument is that McCarthy is the GOP’s greatest fundraiser, and getting rid of him would help Democrats take back the House. No replacement for McCarthy would have the same set of relationships and the donor network and political operation.

This is, to me, the winning argument - it hurts them politically, both by taking away their best fundraiser and by replacing him with somebody who's likely to be even more extreme and so do even more dumb things the Democrats can campaign against. A McCarthy replacement is even likely to shut down the government in 45 days than McCarthy is, and for Democrats that's probably a good thing - Republicans screwing up air travel right before Thanksgiving and taking away government employees' paychecks right before Christmas.

Is it good for the country, maybe not, but Republicans losing the House in 2024 will do several orders of magnitude more good for the country than whatever harm might be done by that short-term idiocy.

My point is that the likelihood of the Democrats immediately turning around and using that new standard themselves is quite high here. It would be equivalent to what would happen if Thomas or Alito dies in the next few months and the Democrats promptly announce that they're going to go ahead and confirm his replacement in an election year just like Republicans did for Ginsburg, except with the actuarial odds of a 90 year old instead of a 75 year old.

Chuck Grassley is 90, and he was just re-elected in 2022, which means he'll still be there when he's 95. The life expectancy of a 90-year-old man is 3.72 years. And, thanks to Senate seniority bullshit, he's on Judiciary.

So it is more likely than not that Grassley will keel over (or resign) before he completes his term, which means that breaking this precedent now would have almost certainly backfired on them in the next few years.