Posted on 01/09/2023 4:34:45 AM PST by MtnClimber
Don't kid yourselves folks, there were substantive changes that came out of the US House speaker "fight."
This came across my feed before the final votes, so I can't vouch for it. But enough of it was leaked that I suspect its real, and any attempt to not follow through by McCarthy is likely to lead to an endless set of motions to vacate the chair, which is a privileged motion and stops all other activity in the chamber until disposed of.
McCarthy really didn't want that threshold to be one Representative, but absent agreement he was not going to be Speaker and it was quite-clear as the days wore on that those who were opposed were not going to bend no matter how much he yelled or threatened them. He had no choice but to consent.
That request is not radical; it in fact is how The House has run for most of the last hundred years.
It exists for the specific purpose of putting a stop to the Speaker abusing his or her position in that if you run crap like refusing to allow floor amendments the Representative(s) that you anger can tie the chamber up in knots until you cut it out.
The Speaker, in short, is not King yet that is exactly how it has been treated since the 2016 elections. Pelosi turned that into an art form; exactly zero non pre-screened amendments were allowed to be offered on the floor during her tenure. She's not alone; Ryan did the same sort of thing and the reason the "one vote motion" rule was killed when Pelosi got the gavel was that members of the House repeatedly attempted to eject him from the chair for doing it.
Restoring that capacity is absolutely a good thing. The House is a body of 435 members and in order to represent the people members must be able to proffer both legislation and amendments. If you cannot do so without the prior approval of one person then there is no representation of the people at all; we have what amounts to a monarchy in the US House. Legislation can be forced onto the floor for vote out of committee by a discharge petition (although it takes a supermajority to do it) but if you can't offer amendments then half the process is absolutely held hostage to the whim of one individual. This should have never been allowed in the first place and it was the big sticking point with McCarthy.
It remains to be seen if McCarthy will be as bad as McConnell.
The Speaker got perhaps a bit less corruption than he wanted, and we’ll still get a big fat nothingburger.
Do the conservatives have McCarthy’s promises in writing?!?
The new rules must first be passed...and lots of RINOs who supported McCarthy (i.e. Jim Jordan who sat on his hands against the patriots) will balk at that vote
Oh, he will be.
The less that comes out of Washington, the better!!!
McCarthy is a uniparty operative just like Barr, talks a good game, but will toe the line in the end with the deep state.
Do the conservatives have McCarthy’s promises in writing?!?
What difference would that make? They could be written in blood and still not pass.
He’ll toe the line with Patriots.
Now, he has no choice whatsoever.
Whatever the house passes will never pass the senate or get Biden’s signature. We could pass a million conservative bills and not one will be signed.
I see no problem with that at all.
A former congressional staffer now writing for NRO maintains the ‘move-to-vacate’ won’t be used unless almost every R agrees, since a loss strengthens McCarthy and weakens your coalition.
So, 1 (or 5) for MtV is not a big concession
Surely to be considered in Rules vote today.
I would have been OK with requiring 5 people to do this.
I think the democrats will use the 1 person rule to block everything. Could they do that? Or is it a requirement that they be in the same party?
It can be either party. The rule was there for a century or more before Pelosi, but rarely used. If invoked, a simple voice vote can quickly put it down, unless there’s a real movement by a large portion of the caucus.
It’s not uncommon that leaders prefer no dissent and no sharing of power. It’s proven time and time again that this doesn’t work as well as shared power and accountability.
“Do the conservatives have McCarthy’s promises in writing?!?
What difference would that make? They could be written in blood and still not pass.”
Silly rabbits, the “terrorist” /s Republicans that held up McCarthy’s nomination can do/will do the same thing again if what they negotiated for isn’t in the rules package.
The House will again be at a standstill until it is fixed.
Grant that Democrats get an advantage from making the Rs look like idiots. Further grant that a D voting for McCarthy could look bad.
If the new rules are good for conservatives, why wouldn’t some Ds vote for McCarthy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.