The move would extend her 36-year House career and freeze her would-be California successors in a longstanding holding pattern.

The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.

  • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
    8·
    1 year ago

    Newsom would appoint her replacement though?

    And still, the house has zero influence on SCOTUS appointments? So even if she somehow got replaced by a Republican (ig we’re assuming Newsom has a stroke and goes insane in this situation?), it would have no impact on SCOTUS appointments or any other judicial appointments, since those are done in the Senate.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        Newsom ended single-family zoning in Cali so he is a god among inferiors.

        As for Billionaire-owned, from your article:

        They are not Newsom’s largest donors: The families in total have given about $2 million of the $61 million that donors have contributed to his campaigns and independent committees backing those bids

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          Newsom ended single-family zoning in Cali

          Far from it.

          he is a god among inferiors.

          Nah, he’s just another rich and powerful crook looking out for the other rich and powerful crooks. Nothing new except the grin is extra smug

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 year ago

            Can you copy-paste that article? The paywall is making it impossible to read.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                2·
                1 year ago

                I’m bout to overbuild on this real estate (keeping the pun rolling)

                What is Senate Bill 9? Senate Bill 9 is the most controversial of the two new laws. It allows property owners to split a single-family lot into two lots, add a second home to their lot or split their lot into two and place duplexes on each. The last option would create four housing units on a property currently limited to a single-family house. The new law will mark a shift from current policies that allow only two large units — a stand-alone house and an accessory dwelling unit — on single-family lots, as well as an attached junior unit no larger than 500 square feet. Under the new law, cities and counties across California will be required to approve development proposals that meet specified size and design standards.

                This is a fucking awesome first step.

                What is Senate Bill 10? Senate Bill 10 eases the process for local governments to rezone neighborhoods near mass transit or in urban areas to increase density with apartment complexes of up to 10 units per property. The new legislation also allows cities to bypass lengthy review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act in an attempt to help reduce costs and the time it takes for projects to be approved.

                This is what he did that I find exciting. Cali is a shit hole of local ordinances that fuck up the housing market

                A flat out ban on SFH would be ideal, preferably nationwide, but this is a start. Campaigns are won one battle at a time.

      • BigNote@lemm.ee
        1·
        1 year ago

        The point is that unlike with SCOTUS vacancies, there’s zero chance that Newsome appoints someone with radically different politics from Pelosi, so the analogy kind of sucks regardless of what you think of him.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          That’s part of my point: another Pelosi would be AWFUL. Not anywhere near as bad as a GOP fascist, of course, but still absolutely AWFUL.

          • BigNote@lemm.ee
            1·
            1 year ago

            So you admit that the original comparison was crap

            Good. My point remains.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 year ago

              I wasn’t the one making a comparison. The only thing I was saying was that there’s no reason to trust Newsom to appoint someone who’s not as immensely corrupt as himself.

              THAT point (which, again, was the only one I was making) still stands, so you can stow your smugness where the sun doesn’t shine.

              • BigNote@lemm.ee
                1·
                1 year ago

                I wasn’t being “smug,” I was merely trying to disambiguate the point under discussion.

                The fact that you took it that way says a lot more about you than it does about me.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  He said, smugly.

                  You weren’t trying to disambiguate anything, you were asking a smug rhetorical question and then smugly drawing a false conclusion that you’d already made before I clarified and wouldn’t change for everything.

                  You’re being both smugly condescending and stubborn, which says nothing about me 🙄

    • nik0@lemm.ee
      1·
      1 year ago

      The president should also have zero influence on the supreme court. Yet there was this whole thing with Obama and such that led to Trump having the perfect window of opportunity to send MTG to stand.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        9·
        1 year ago

        I think you have that the wrong way around. According to the constitution, the President appoints a Supreme Court Justice with the Senate giving advice and consent. It’s the Senate that’s supposed to have the lesser role, but Mitch McConnell chose not to follow the spirit of the constitution on that.

        At any rate, the House of Reps have never been a part of the process, so it has nothing to do with Pelosi, and never has.