The new, Republican-controlled

House Judiciary Committee held its first hearing Wednesday. Under Chairman Jim Jordan (R-ohio), the purpose was to begin what is expected to be a long and detailed investigation of the crisis on the U.s.-mexico border and the Biden administration policies that brought it about.

But before getting to the border, the committee had to take care of routine first-time business, which was approving a set of rules that will govern committee procedures for the next two years. And that is when, before any discussion of the border began, the hearing went off the rails. And its crash, beyond the sheer entertainment it offered, revealed something about how committee Democrats will resist the Republican majority at every opportunity.

Before the rules discussion, Jordan recognized committee member Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-fla.), who introduced a constituent, Army Staff Sgt. Corey Ryan Beekman, a decorated veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, to lead the committee in the Pledge of Allegiance. Everyone stood and recited the pledge.

The problems started a few moments after the pledge. Gaetz offered an amendment to the committee’s rules that would allow the chairman to designate someone to lead the pledge before every committee meeting. It seemed like an anodyne proposal — after all, the committee had recited the Pledge of Allegiance moments before. But Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the ranking member, objected.

“I would oppose it simply on the grounds that, as members know, we pledge allegiance every day on the [House] floor,” Nadler said, “and I don’t know why we should pledge allegiance twice in the same day, to show how patriotic we are.”

Then Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA.) noted that he had not seen Nadler on the floor recently when the pledge was recited. In fact, “most members are not present” on the floor during the morning pledge, Johnson said, so it would not be burdensome to recite the pledge before a committee meeting.

That’s when Democrats played the I-card. What is the I-card? It is the out-of-the-blue injection of the “insurrection,” meaning the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, into unrelated discussions. It is something that will likely happen many times as Democrats settle into minority opposition.

In this case, after Nadler and Johnson’s exchange, another member, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA.), brought up Jan. 6. Some of the Republicans proposing to say the pledge had rebelled against the U.S., he said. They used the “big lie” to try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, and they objected to subpoenas from the Jan. 6 committee. And then:

For us, amid these folks who supported the insurrection, to be forced to pledge allegiance to the flag, which should be something that none of us have any problem with, but it is ironic that this committee, the ones that would not comply with congressionally issued subpoenas, disrespected the rule of law, would now insist that each and every one of us on each and every hearing date come before this committee and pledge allegiance to the flag. I support the Pledge of Allegiance. But it’s very ironic.

Democrats were not finished. After Hank Johnson brought up the “insurrection,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) came up with a new proposal, an amendment to Gaetz’s amendment. Cicilline proposed to add language barring “anyone who supported insurrection” from leading the pledge before the committee. Cicilline later made his language more specific, adding: “I’m talking about elected officials who swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States, who in any way participated, supported, facilitated, encouraged the insurrection against the United States.”

It did not take a fortune teller to see where things were going. Who in the room “in any way” might have “supported” or “facilitated” or “encouraged” the “insurrection against the United States,” as Democrats defined it? Why, it was the Republicans sitting right across the aisle! How could they put their hand over the heart and pledge allegiance to the United States? How could they lead others in doing it?

In the ensuing debate, Gaetz reminded Democrats that some of their fellow Democratic lawmakers had opposed certification of the presidential election results in 2001, 2005, and 2017, for the first and second terms of George W. Bush and the election of Donald Trump.

“I’m concerned that you may be disqualifying too many of your own members,” Gaetz taunted Democrats. Indeed, some of the party’s Jan. 6 investigators, including Jan. 6 committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-miss.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD.), opposed the certification of lawful elections when the winners were Republicans. As one might expect, the debate went nowhere.

Then it was on to the border. But what was the pledge scuffle about? Perhaps this: Speaking broadly, many Republicans have long felt that Democrats were soft on patriotism. So Gaetz offered an amendment to provide for the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Democrats wouldn’t oppose that, would they? Well, yes they would. They took Gaetz’s bait, at least in the beginning. But they opposed Gaetz’s amendment with a countermeasure of their own: You’re trying to suggest we’re unpatriotic because we don’t want to recite the pledge every meeting? Well, you’re insurrectionists! And no insurrectionist should ever lead the pledge. If you’re going to play the P-card, the patriotism card, we’ll see your P-card and raise you with the I-card, the insurrection card.

During the debate, Democrats somewhat disingenuously claimed not to be referring to any Republican members but to others who might be invited to lead the pledge. Who did Democrats think would be invited — Stewart Rhodes?

It was clear from Hank Johnson’s speech, plus Cicilline’s amendment to the amendment, that Democrats saw the pledge proposal as a way to counter the patriotism charge from Republicans and bring up, outside the context of the business at hand, Jan. 6 against the Republican majority. Does anyone think that will be the last time?