Because he is (as of right now, at least) a member of the House, and it’s the House that votes, not the House-minus-the-member-in-question.
It just seems silly that he’d be allowed to vote on this particular question.
Hmmm, I consider it fair that he gets to vote on his own behalf. I felt the same way about the Tennessee reps who were briefly ousted.
I didn’t think of it like that. I suppose it makes sense.
Whereas if the Democrats choose to not vote to expel Santos before a conviction, the Republicans will look at that precedent the next time a Democrat is indicted - and ignore the precedent and vote to expel the Democrat before a conviction.
Let’s not delude ourselves into believing that if we play fair with the Republicans, they’ll play fair with us. They see playing fair and following rules as signs of weakness. They’re things you only do when you’re strong enough to get away with cheating.
It’s no different to me than a candidate being able to vote for themself in an election. That’s normal.
Because of the 2/3 requirement — no problem. Then they look, to centrist voters, like weak unprincipled losers.
No centrists? Even if true today, which I doubt, American history tells me that the nativist fever goes in cycles and so will eventually break. Then there will be more centrists.
I get the impression that referral of the resolution to the Ethics Committee will be the likeliest move. Not technically “doing nothing” but also avoiding an immediate vote, in the name of allowing procedural formality.
Suppose that does happen; Democrats rally behind a House member under indictment. Will Republican calls for expulsion also ring hollow, after having defended Santos while he was under indictment?
Possibly, if they (Republicans) cared or would be affected by such things.
That the numbers came oh so close but no cigar makes the cynic in me wonder if there was backroom dealing amongst the GOP members to decide which 60 would be the ones to “take a stand” on this that would help them in swing voters’ eyes. Are they all from swing districts? I wouldn’t be surprised if their principled stand that these 60 made (and the rest of their caucus who chose not to) bears only passing resemblance to how they really feel about the situation.
Apparently there never were 60 republicans sponsoring the bill. It was a mistake in the article:
There was also a link earlier in the thread to the wrong resolution.
This is the correct link:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/114
This resolution expels Representative George Santos from the House of Representatives.
Note that there are indeed 48 co-sponsors, all Democrat.
And it’s exactly what happened
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4009434-house-votes-to-send-santos-expulsion-resolution-to-ethics-committee/
Interestingly, Santos says he would resign if Ethics rules for his removal.
Are you saying we should take him at his word?
That’s what makes it interesting. Means there will be another whole argument when they do and he doesn’t.
At the risk of ruining all the suspense, which party dominates the Ethics Committee members? Also considering any voting rules in that committee which enables a minority to block an action.
Equally composed 5-5, chaired by a member from the House majority party.
Current configuration from their site:
So what happens when a vote in the ethics committee is tied? I’m guessing nothing?
Surely this is the line that he wouldn’t cross.