Speaker McCarthy

[George K]

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2023/01/05/inside-mccarthys-brewing-speaker-deal-00076507

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.

[Horace]

Other than the seat vacating thing, which I do not understand either way, the other demands for concessions seem decent and principled. Hope it works out.

[George K]

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.

[George K]

[Copper]

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

[Horace]

@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]

@Horace said in Speaker McCarthy:

risk their very lives

If they remove the fire extinguishers it should be safe.

[Horace]

@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.

[jon-nyc]

@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.

[taiwan_girl]

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.

[LuFins Dad]

@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?

[jon-nyc]

@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.

[George K]

@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.

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in Speaker McCarthy:

@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.

Would be interesting if the GOP house brought that one to the floor.

[Jolly]

BTW, I'd like to see two terms for Senators, six terms for Congressmen, with the twelve year limit to run concurrently. After six years, you can run for Congress again, same rules apply. However, during that six year period, you may not lobby the government.

[Jolly]

And...I'd like to see a modified version of the Fairness Doctrine brought back, which would compel candidates to give x number of speeches, townhalls and debates on the airwaves.

[Copper]

6 years is a long time to be a lame duck