Speaker McCarthy

[jon-nyc]

In name only.

Now we'll really get to see what it looks like to run the circus from the monkey cages.

Every major vote is going to look like a mini-version of this.

[Klaus]

What's the two sentence summary of this event for foreigners? What was it really about?

[jon-nyc]

GOP has majority in the house, needed to select a Speaker. Majority was tiny, so he needed most every vote in the conference. Therefore he’s made concessions that will essentially give fringe members veto power over anything that happens.

[Klaus]

I understood that part, but who are those fringe people and what concessions did he have to make (if they are public)?

[jon-nyc]

Still being reported but one that will prove most disruptive is that any single house member can force a no-confidence vote, thus pausing any house business and repeating the process we just saw. It basically gives every GOP rep a veto over any motion or procedure. The players are known but most names wouldn’t be known to you, they as a group are basically Dr Trumpenstien’s experiments that escaped from the lab. They are far more interested in using the institution as a platform for their own aggrandizement and media presence and have no desire to to do the hard work of legislating. They have more or less a nihilistic attitude about many if not most of our institutions and would be fine watching them burn while they preen on Newsmax.

There are several among them who are apparently fine with Putin rebuilding the Russian empire, for example.

[Copper]

@Klaus

They are humble servants of the people. The concessions they ask for include enforcing our laws and respecting our country. To be honest, they are saving the world from the forces of evil.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Copper said in Speaker McCarthy:

@Klaus

They are humble servants of the people.

Humble doesn’t even begin to describe it.

[89th]

@jon-nyc said in Speaker McCarthy:

Still being reported but one that will prove most disruptive is that any single house member can force a no-confidence vote, thus pausing any house business and repeating the process we just saw. It basically gives every GOP rep a veto over any motion or procedure. The players are known but most names wouldn’t be known to you, they as a group are basically Dr Trumpenstien’s experiments that escaped from the lab. They are far more interested in using the institution as a platform for their own aggrandizement and media presence and have no desire to to do the hard work of legislating. They have more or less a nihilistic attitude about many if not most of our institutions and would be fine watching them burn while they preen on Newsmax.

There are several among them who are apparently fine with Putin rebuilding the Russian empire, for example.

Ha! Good description.

[jon-nyc]

@89th

Thanks but apparently I left out the part about Matt Gaetz’s humility.

[Doctor Phibes]

@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.

[George K]

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.

[jon-nyc]

That’s a little misleading George, anyone could file the motion before but it didn’t force a vote.

[George K]

@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.

I wasn't aware that it forces a vote.

[Jolly]

@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.

[George K]

"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!"

[Jolly]

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.

[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]