Ciscomani never listens to constituents. Our Congressman, Juan Ciscomani, is just a chicken, lacking political courage. He’s a scaredy-cat, hiding from voters and fearing questions from constituents—we the people who sent him to Washington. He ducks, dodges, and evades us when he's back home in southeast AZ, afraid of confrontation. Congressman Ciscomani refuses to hold town hall meetings in AZ CD6. He’s too scared to meet with the people he represents and explain his political votes against us in Washington. He’s simply a chicken.
So, let’s call Rep. Juan Ciscomani Congressman Chickenman. Cluck, cluck, cluck, and cock-a-doodle-doo, it’s Chickenman Ciscomani!
In a letter in The Arizona Daily Star on Saturday, I brought up the Walkinshaw swearing-in the day after the election. Nothing is different except politics.
Unfortunately, I can't see a remedy coming from the courts, as some people have suggested. Under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” That means the House itself — not courts — has the ultimate authority to decide who is seated and when. Normally, once a state certifies the winner of a House election, the Speaker administers the oath, and the member is seated. But the House (through its leadership or by majority vote) can delay or even refuse to seat someone pending review.
Federal courts have consistently held that decisions about seating and swearing-in members of Congress are nonjusticiable political questions. In Powell v. McCormack (1969), where the Supreme Court ruled the House could not exclude a duly elected member who met constitutional qualifications, but that ruling came *after* the House had voted to exclude the Harlem congressman Adam Clayton Powell. Since then, courts have generally refused to interfere in timing or procedural matters of seating, seeing them as internal to the House.
It might be shocking to some, but Speaker Johnson can delay weeks or months before swearing in Adelita Grijalva, and there's apparently nothing unconstitutional about it as long as he eventually swears her in. This seems outrageous, especially when CD7 has been without representation for over half a year.
Only political pressure can make Johnson and the Republicans swear in our new congresswoman.
Point taken. It was just an example of something she said she'd cut. This helps to solidify her talking points on focusing on core services. (Although I think that term means something different to EVERYONE.)
Antifa? Global Justice Center?! They do great work and should be honored for it. Without a shred of evidence they have been tarred and feathered by more than just the trump administration for raising issues of conscience in the political activities that the USGets involved in-- you know, the ones we should all be ashamed of, like overthrowing the genuinely elected leadership of other countries, military intervention, genocides, etc. Here's something to laugh about--NOT. The war on constitutionally protected protest has gone on for a long long time under scurrilous republicans and democrats alike. It may be popular to pin on Trump, but how many of his-- or Bush's-- most retrograde policies from long ago were excised by the sweet talking democrats who followed them into office?
The message about the Global Justice Center is not a laughing matter. People believe what they read and sadly being linked to "antifa" paints a target on this respected site and organization. Please think about this..
Ciscomani never listens to constituents. Our Congressman, Juan Ciscomani, is just a chicken, lacking political courage. He’s a scaredy-cat, hiding from voters and fearing questions from constituents—we the people who sent him to Washington. He ducks, dodges, and evades us when he's back home in southeast AZ, afraid of confrontation. Congressman Ciscomani refuses to hold town hall meetings in AZ CD6. He’s too scared to meet with the people he represents and explain his political votes against us in Washington. He’s simply a chicken.
So, let’s call Rep. Juan Ciscomani Congressman Chickenman. Cluck, cluck, cluck, and cock-a-doodle-doo, it’s Chickenman Ciscomani!
He learned all that while working for Doug Ducey.
In a letter in The Arizona Daily Star on Saturday, I brought up the Walkinshaw swearing-in the day after the election. Nothing is different except politics.
Unfortunately, I can't see a remedy coming from the courts, as some people have suggested. Under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” That means the House itself — not courts — has the ultimate authority to decide who is seated and when. Normally, once a state certifies the winner of a House election, the Speaker administers the oath, and the member is seated. But the House (through its leadership or by majority vote) can delay or even refuse to seat someone pending review.
Federal courts have consistently held that decisions about seating and swearing-in members of Congress are nonjusticiable political questions. In Powell v. McCormack (1969), where the Supreme Court ruled the House could not exclude a duly elected member who met constitutional qualifications, but that ruling came *after* the House had voted to exclude the Harlem congressman Adam Clayton Powell. Since then, courts have generally refused to interfere in timing or procedural matters of seating, seeing them as internal to the House.
It might be shocking to some, but Speaker Johnson can delay weeks or months before swearing in Adelita Grijalva, and there's apparently nothing unconstitutional about it as long as he eventually swears her in. This seems outrageous, especially when CD7 has been without representation for over half a year.
Only political pressure can make Johnson and the Republicans swear in our new congresswoman.
If not now, when? Wittenbraker said she loves trees and that we need the shade. Just not now.
Trees take time to grow. As she suggested, we need the shade now. Seems to me Wittenbraker is throwing shade rather than growing shade.
Point taken. It was just an example of something she said she'd cut. This helps to solidify her talking points on focusing on core services. (Although I think that term means something different to EVERYONE.)
Antifa? Global Justice Center?! They do great work and should be honored for it. Without a shred of evidence they have been tarred and feathered by more than just the trump administration for raising issues of conscience in the political activities that the USGets involved in-- you know, the ones we should all be ashamed of, like overthrowing the genuinely elected leadership of other countries, military intervention, genocides, etc. Here's something to laugh about--NOT. The war on constitutionally protected protest has gone on for a long long time under scurrilous republicans and democrats alike. It may be popular to pin on Trump, but how many of his-- or Bush's-- most retrograde policies from long ago were excised by the sweet talking democrats who followed them into office?
Betts, if they get an award today, tomorrow or next week it is well deserved. (We don't give out awards - at least not yet.)
Activists who are familiar with GJC know who they are and what they do here in the community.
It is absurd to suggest they are fueling Antifa and that's what we are laughing at.
Not GJC.
The message about the Global Justice Center is not a laughing matter. People believe what they read and sadly being linked to "antifa" paints a target on this respected site and organization. Please think about this..
Glenn, I've done my best to debunk whenever some one of towner comes in to put the Global Justice Center on blast.
We are not laughing at the GLC, just those who try to shoehorn them into the latest conspiracy.
I truly think not writing about them, letting the masses churn up ill-informed outrage without being challenged, is more dangerous.
No serious person in Tucson thinks the GLC is outfitting Antifa. Or Valenzuela.