Speaker McCarthy
-
@Klaus said in Speaker McCarthy:
What's the two sentence summary of this event for foreigners? What was it really about?
There’s this bunch of stupid bastards. They need air time.
-
Concessions reportedly include:
- A single member can move to “vacate the chair”
- A hard line on the debt limit
- Votes on term limits and border security
- McCarthy’s leadership PAC will stay out of open primaries
- “Open rules” on spending measures, and the ability to bring up stand-alone appropriation bills
- Discretionary spending cap
- A commitment to set up a committee on the “weaponization” of the government
"Vacate the chair" is nothing new. However, it was used only a few times in the last couple of centuries (Boehner). It was tried against Gingrich.
The big difference is that under the concessions, a single member can make such a motion. That rule is not new. In fact it existed until Nancy Pelosi's reign.
Early this year, House Democrats passed a standard rules package that would govern the House during the 116th Congress. On a party-line vote, 234 Democrats supported the rules package. But that package was anything but standard.
Among the surprising changes in the small print was a little-noticed provision changing the threshold for the Motion to Vacate the chair. It was a lot of “insider baseball” that few voters – and probably not many members of Congress could fully appreciate.
The Motion to Vacate is the process used to replace a speaker of the house in mid-session. It works like this: the majority party introduces the motion to vacate, which declares the office of speaker vacant and forces a new vote. This is a privileged motion, meaning anyone can offer it. If a majority of the whole body supports the motion, it passes. That means a minority of the majority plus the minority party can combine to oust a speaker. Though the process was not used on Speaker Boehner, the mere threat of North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows introducing such a motion was enough for Boehner to step down.
Pelosi has no such fears. Under her rules package, the Motion to Vacate now requires a majority of the majority before it can be voted on by the full House. That is a much higher threshold and nearly impossible to achieve. What was once a tool of the minority (not the House minority, but the minority of the majority) has been eliminated.
As a result, Pelosi can keep ignoring calls for impeachment as long as she likes. She is solidly in place as speaker until the 117th Congress convenes in January 2021.
As a result, Pelosi can keep ignoring calls for impeachment as long as she likes. She is solidly in place as speaker until the 117th Congress convenes in January 2021.
-
That’s a little misleading George, anyone could file the motion before but it didn’t force a vote.
You were warned.
-
That’s a little misleading George, anyone could file the motion before but it didn’t force a vote.
-
That’s a little misleading George, anyone could file the motion before but it didn’t force a vote.
@jon-nyc said in Speaker McCarthy:
That’s a little misleading George, anyone could file the motion before but it didn’t force a vote.
Y'all are being a little misleading...One member can file the motion, but the motion must be passed before a vote can be taken to unseat the Speaker.
-
"Term limits?"
Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
BTW, McCarthy said one of the first bills will be to do away with all the new IRS agents. Next will be an energy bill.
And then, God help him, will be tackling the debt.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
NEW CONCESSIONS ON THE TABLE: Here’s what’s being discussed, according to one well-placed source familiar with these talks. And, keep in mind, negotiations are ongoing and fluid:
- A one-member “motion to vacate”: The GOP leader appears to have finally acquiesced to a demand to lower the threshold needed to force a vote ousting a speaker to just one member. While McCarthy originally indicated that restoring the one-member “motion to vacate” was a red line, his allies now argue that there’s not a huge practical difference between this and his previous offer of requiring five members to trigger the vote.
- Rules Committee seats for the Freedom Caucus: McCarthy is prepared to give the House Freedom Caucus two seats on the powerful House Rules Committee, which oversees the amendment process for the floor. (Some conservatives are still holding out for four seats on the panel.) There are also talks about giving a third seat to a conservative close to the Freedom Caucus but not in it — someone like Reps. THOMAS MASSIE (R-Ky.). Who will pick those members? We’re told there is ongoing haggling. Typically, it’s the speaker’s prerogative, but conservatives want to choose their own members for these jobs.
- A vote on term limits: This is a key demand of Rep. RALPH NORMAN (R-S.C.), who has proposed a constitutional amendment limiting lawmakers to three terms in the House.
- Major changes to the appropriations process: Fears of another trillion-plus-dollar omnibus spending bill have been a major driver of the conservative backlash to McCarthy. The brewing deal includes a promise for standalone votes on each of the 12 yearly appropriations bills, which would be considered under what is known as an “open rule,” allowing floor amendments to be offered by any lawmaker. Conservatives also won a concession to carve out any earmarks included in those packages for separate votes, though it’s unclear if they’d be voted on as one package or separately.
-
Somewhere I read that the concession to go from five votes to one vote to file a motion to vacate is probably of no significant consequence. If Gaetz (R-Beavis) wanted to file a motion, I doubt he would have trouble finding four other like-minded individuals to reach that threshold.
In fact, now that I think about it, the reality of allowing ONE person to do it may serve to isolate him/her/zer more than a coalition of five.
-
The Republican also said he would reopen the U.S. Capitol Building, which remained behind additional security measures and was mostly inaccessible to the public following the riots on Jan. 6, 2021.
"My friends – this chamber is now fully open for all Americans," he said, which was met with thunderous applause from Republicans. Democrats in the chamber remained silent.
A humble servant of the people
-
The Republican also said he would reopen the U.S. Capitol Building, which remained behind additional security measures and was mostly inaccessible to the public following the riots on Jan. 6, 2021.
"My friends – this chamber is now fully open for all Americans," he said, which was met with thunderous applause from Republicans. Democrats in the chamber remained silent.
A humble servant of the people
@Copper said in Speaker McCarthy:
The Republican also said he would reopen the U.S. Capitol Building, which remained behind additional security measures and was mostly inaccessible to the public following the riots on Jan. 6, 2021.
"My friends – this chamber is now fully open for all Americans," he said, which was met with thunderous applause from Republicans. Democrats in the chamber remained silent.
A humble servant of the people
Now in all their stump speeches, Democratic senators can say that they risk their very lives every time they go to the office. I think they'll like saying that. Win/win.
-
@Copper said in Speaker McCarthy:
The Republican also said he would reopen the U.S. Capitol Building, which remained behind additional security measures and was mostly inaccessible to the public following the riots on Jan. 6, 2021.
"My friends – this chamber is now fully open for all Americans," he said, which was met with thunderous applause from Republicans. Democrats in the chamber remained silent.
A humble servant of the people
Now in all their stump speeches, Democratic senators can say that they risk their very lives every time they go to the office. I think they'll like saying that. Win/win.
-
@Horace said in Speaker McCarthy:
risk their very lives
If they remove the fire extinguishers it should be safe.
@Copper said in Speaker McCarthy:
@Horace said in Speaker McCarthy:
risk their very lives
If they remove the fire extinguishers it should be safe.
The ultimate irony of Trumpism. Forcing us to remove safety devices, to ensure safety.
-
BTW, McCarthy said one of the first bills will be to do away with all the new IRS agents. Next will be an energy bill.
And then, God help him, will be tackling the debt.
@Jolly said in Speaker McCarthy:
BTW, McCarthy said one of the first bills will be to do away with all the new IRS agents. Next will be an energy bill.
And then, God help him, will be tackling the debt.
The first two will be performative. Seems like what they’ll be able to do this term is, (1) investigate everything, and (2) force a default, or more likely, finally convince Treasury to mint trillion dollar coins.
-
Sounds a bit like what I have read about some Isreal governments.
In order to get to a majority, they have to pick sides with one extreme side or the other. So, a very small minority had more power than they should have.
-
"Term limits?"
Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"
@George-K said in Speaker McCarthy:
"Term limits?"
Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"
Why wouldn’t it pass Constitutional Muster? What separates it from Presidential Term Limits, Constitutionally speaking?
The Brad
-
@George-K said in Speaker McCarthy:
"Term limits?"
Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"
Why wouldn’t it pass Constitutional Muster? What separates it from Presidential Term Limits, Constitutionally speaking?
@LuFins-Dad The latter was done through constitutional amendment.
Generally the thought has always been that qualifications for office are set in the constitution and can’t be changed by legislation- eg states can’t say “you can’t get on presidential ballot if…” (and they’ve tried)
Of course the house could pass a proposed Amendment - with a 2/3 vote of both houses.
You were warned.
-
@George-K said in Speaker McCarthy:
"Term limits?"
Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"
Why wouldn’t it pass Constitutional Muster? What separates it from Presidential Term Limits, Constitutionally speaking?
@LuFins-Dad said in Speaker McCarthy:
Why wouldn’t it pass Constitutional Muster? What separates it from Presidential Term Limits, Constitutionally speaking?
Absolutely nothing.
I phrased that poorly. What I meant to convey is that it's a really high bar to get a Constitutional amendment passed.
