House Speaker election/circus/all ages carnival - ongoing coverage

[VRAMdemon]

I don’t know what he thinks his play is. One or two aside, it’s not like his opponents are making specific demands that he could cut a deal to get their vote. His bullying and threatening members and their families has not worked, and he doesn’t have any goodies like a plumb committee assignment to entice them (what the hell can he hope to offer Kay Granger?). McCarthy and Scalise may be supporting him, but they’re obviously not pressing their colleagues to do so. I guess he just thinks he can wear them down over time? It is becoming more and more obvious that the Republicans are becoming two distinct parties. They cannot even agree on a speaker, and they currently have no ability (or even desire) to govern.

 

[fskimospy]

It's also got limits. If I tell someone to kill a third party and they do it, I'm not protected by the first amendment. It doesn't work that way.

I agree, and it’s a hard road to navigate. Trump knows this which is why he always toes this line.

I don’t have a good answer but my gut is it’s better to allow Trump to be a shithead than to have the government step in.

 

[fskimospy]

I don’t know what he thinks his play is. One or two aside, it’s not like his opponents are making specific demands that he could cut a deal to get their vote. His bullying and threatening members and their families has not worked, and he doesn’t have any goodies like a plumb committee assignment to entice them (what the hell can he hope to offer Kay Granger?). McCarthy and Scalise may be supporting him, but they’re obviously not pressing their colleagues to do so. I guess he just thinks he can wear them down over time? It is becoming more and more obvious that the Republicans are becoming two distinct parties. They cannot even agree on a speaker, and they currently have no ability (or even desire) to govern.

His play is to become president again and obviate all this.

I really thought republicans would move on from him as he’s a loser but apparently I was wrong.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I agree, and it’s a hard road to navigate. Trump knows this which is why he always toes this line.

I don’t have a good answer but my gut is it’s better to allow Trump to be a shithead than to have the government step in.

You're probably right, they should be arrested but I guess the government doing it just furthers the messaging from the morons whining that the govt is out to get them.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Rapey McForehead is sick and tired of his actions having consequences.

Matt Gaetz pouts he's 'tired' of not having a speaker after ousting McCarthy

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said on Sunday he is "tired" of the behind-the-scenes battle for the next speaker of the House after he ousted former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). "I don't really understand why trying to move the House into a more conservative position, trying to get a more...

www.rawstory.com

 

[Dave_5k]

I don’t know what he thinks his play is. One or two aside, it’s not like his opponents are making specific demands that he could cut a deal to get their vote. His bullying and threatening members and their families has not worked, and he doesn’t have any goodies like a plumb committee assignment to entice them (what the hell can he hope to offer Kay Granger?). McCarthy and Scalise may be supporting him, but they’re obviously not pressing their colleagues to do so. I guess he just thinks he can wear them down over time? It is becoming more and more obvious that the Republicans are becoming two distinct parties. They cannot even agree on a speaker, and they currently have no ability (or even desire) to govern.

The Washington Post did some analysis of this, Republicans are almost 3 parties - 178 sheep voting with whatever party leaders wanted (supporting McCarthy including against removal vote, and now supporting Jordan). Then you have 2 groups of ~20 each: the ultra-MAGA team voting for Jordan and against McCarthy, and the "moderate" team voting for McCarthy and against Jordan, (plus one "principled" anti-Jordan conservative as a very unusual outlier).

How the House GOP’s disruptive poles influence the speaker vote
Gifted link to bypass pay firewall: https://wapo.st/45CedI4

 

[Lanyap]

What a circle jerk.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I don’t know what he thinks his play is. One or two aside, it’s not like his opponents are making specific demands that he could cut a deal to get their vote. His bullying and threatening members and their families has not worked, and he doesn’t have any goodies like a plumb committee assignment to entice them (what the hell can he hope to offer Kay Granger?). McCarthy and Scalise may be supporting him, but they’re obviously not pressing their colleagues to do so. I guess he just thinks he can wear them down over time? It is becoming more and more obvious that the Republicans are becoming two distinct parties. They cannot even agree on a speaker, and they currently have no ability (or even desire) to govern.

Assuming it is true, what sort of man is going to change their vote because someone was mean to their wife? I know I would dedicate my life to making the shit head who enabled it pay and I don’t mean pay with cash

 

[Charmonium]

Looks like Jordan is going to try to beat McCarthy's record of 15.

edit: Just give Leslie Jordan or whatever his name is. As the temp, he's apparently powerless. With the Rs being the political equivalent of the Hatfields and McCoys, giving him some nominal powers is probably the only thing they can agree on. And the Dems probably won't push too hard for concessions. A clean CR that goes well into next year and aid for Ukraine and Israel.

 

[MtnMan]

What a circle jerk.

A circle jerk or a clusterfuck require some level of organization. This is just a free-for-all of scumbags.

 

[Dave_5k]

Assuming it is true, what sort of man is going to change their vote because someone was mean to their wife?

That would be known as pulling a Ted Cruz

 

[gothuevos]

Their alternative is intensified infighting probably leading to their breakup into smaller powerless groups, made extremely public in a very embarrassing way, and still getting nothing that their supporters want signed into law.

So what's the problem here?

 

[Muse]

Steve Schmidt video today on the HOR turmoil

 

[NWRMidnight]

I don't think the Dems will break history to vote for a moderate Republican speaker, nor will Repubs be willing to nominate such a person.

However, the Dems might support a vote to change House Rules to give the current pro tempore speaker the full authority of the House Speakership until the next election. Except technically I don't think the pro-temp speaker can even bring such a vote to the floor under current house rules (even kicking Nancy out of her office could and perhaps should have been ignored by Nancy as outside of the pro-temp speaker's authority).

But on the other hand, House Rules are simply whatever the majority of the House decides that they are...

wouldn't that violate the constitution? If they "chose" to give temporary athuhority to the temporary speaker, and not actually chosing a nominated speaker, they are directly violating the language of the consitution that directs them to chose a speaker of the house by a vote of the majority. By doing such a thing, they are basically side stepping what the constitution says they must do.

Section 3:
Article I, section 2 of the Constitution directs that the House
choose its Speaker and other officers. The Speaker is the only House
officer who traditionally has been chosen from the sitting membership
of the House. Manual Sec. 26. The Constitution does not limit his
selection from among that class, but the practice has been followed
invariably. The Speaker's term of office thus expires at the end of
his term of office as a Member, whereas the other House officers
continue in office ``until their successors are chosen and
qualified.'' Rule II clause 1; 1 Hinds Sec. 187.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

wouldn't that violate the constitution? If they "chose" to give temporary athuhority to the temporary speaker, and not actually chosing a nominated speaker, they are directly violating the language of the consitution that directs them to chose a speaker of the house by a vote of the majority. By doing such a thing, they are basically side stepping what the constitution says they must do.

How is that different from voting on a CR instead of an actual budget? I think it says they're supposed to do that too. If the SC rules kicking the can down the road is legal I'm not sure there's a defense for them not doing it with a speaker too.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Article I​

Section 2 House of Representatives​

• Clause 5 Impeachment

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-2/clause-5/

I read that as they choose those positions rather than any one else being able to.

 

[NWRMidnight]

How is that different from voting on a CR instead of an actual budget? I think it says they're supposed to do that too. If the SC rules kicking the can down the road is legal I'm not sure there's a defense for them not doing it with a speaker too.

One is legislative law, the other is constitutional law. IE legislative law are legislation created by Congress. Constituional law are laws created by the constitution, that congress can't change wihout a amendment to the constitution. What is a CR or a Budget? Answer: legislation. The constitution gives power of the purse to congress, in which they use legilislation to determine funding and spending of the US government. The US treasury cannot spend a dime without congressional approval which is done via laws passed by Congress. How that money is spent, or the time period in which the appropriatioin approval is granted by Congress is not dictated in the constituion. The constitution does not say "they must spend the money this way, in X amount of time", as it is left up to congressional legislation. They could do weekly appropriation legislation if they chose to, as it's not dictated by the constution. Chosing a speaker of the house is constitutional law, as it spcified and dictated by the constitution, not congressional legislation passed by Congress. The Speaker of the House is a required position don't you think? I mean the speaker of the House is 2nd in line for the Presidency if anything was to happen to the President and Vice President.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Article I​

Section 2 House of Representatives​

• Clause 5 Impeachment

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-2/clause-5/

I read that as they choose those positions rather than any one else being able to.

Isn't the speaker off the house a required position? I mean they are the 2nd in line to be President if anything happens to the President and Vice President. If your interpretation is correct, wouldnt that also mean the language about chosing our President/Vice President, is just telling us who gets to chose, and we don't have to actually have President/Vice President as if it's just a suggestion? Where congress can just vote to give some temporary guy extened Presdiential authority because no candidate was able to get the required votes. Oh wait, there is a clause that determines that pathway.. it would fall onto the same idiots in congress that can't even choose a speaker right now. But if that pathway wasn't in place, your interpretation would mean Congress could just vote to give some temp guy the power to be president/vice president, and they can chose to forgo voting on one into office until the next election, because they can't get enough votes? Doesn't work that way. and it doens't work that way here. The Speaker of the House, is just as much a requirement as the President/Vice President, or even the House and Senate members!

The fact that this is even being entertained shows how far this country, it's governemnt, has drifted away from the constitution and the very foundation this country was built on. We keep going, and there won't be any foundation as the constitution will be just a page in a history book, and part of the chapter of how this country self destructed from the inside.

 

[pmv]

wouldn't that violate the constitution? If they "chose" to give temporary athuhority to the temporary speaker, and not actually chosing a nominated speaker, they are directly violating the language of the consitution that directs them to chose a speaker of the house by a vote of the majority. By doing such a thing, they are basically side stepping what the constitution says they must do.

Section 3:
Article I, section 2 of the Constitution directs that the House
choose its Speaker and other officers. The Speaker is the only House
officer who traditionally has been chosen from the sitting membership
of the House. Manual Sec. 26. The Constitution does not limit his
selection from among that class, but the practice has been followed
invariably. The Speaker's term of office thus expires at the end of
his term of office as a Member, whereas the other House officers
continue in office ``until their successors are chosen and
qualified.'' Rule II clause 1; 1 Hinds Sec. 187.

Out of curiosity, where does it define "choose"? Does that "Article I, section 2" explicitly say what "choose" means in that context? Does it have to be a formal secret ballot and a clear majority vote? Isn't "just going along with it" also a form of "choice"? It seems very vague.

 

[fskimospy]

Out of curiosity, where does it define "choose"? Does that "Article I, section 2" explicitly say what "choose" means in that context? Does it have to be a formal secret ballot and a clear majority vote? Isn't "just going along with it" also a form of "choice"? It seems very vague.

Like almost all of the constitution it’s purposefully vague. The house can ‘choose’ a speaker by any process it wants, including going along with it.

The internal rules of the House and Senate can be basically anything.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

The fact that this is even being entertained shows how far this country, it's governemnt, has drifted away from the constitution and the very foundation this country was built on. We keep going, and there won't be any foundation as the constitution will be just a page in a history book, and part of the chapter of how this country self destructed from the inside.

We have to be very careful in wanting to live by the words there. Remember the framers were a bunch of assholes that thought only white men should be able to own property, vote and hold public office. The words 'he' and 'him' are all throughout it.

 

[pmv]

We have to be very careful in wanting to live by the words there. Remember the framers were a bunch of assholes that thought only white men should be able to own property, vote and hold public office. The words 'he' and 'him' are all throughout it.

That's true, but it's also true, that, as fskimospy says, that there's a lot of (I guess, deliberate) vagueness in there, that allows wriggle room. So maybe one can't blame the founders for being assholes or idiots (much as I like to slag off those guys, perhaps they were smarter than I thought).
Maybe the problem is the desire of too many, as displayed in some posters here, to take those words as the unalterable direct word of God, and fetishise that Constitution rather than taking it as a rough guideline that can be reinterpreted according to current needs and morals.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if that attitude might not relate to certain Protestant approaches to interpreting the Bible, that are also popular in the US. I recall the huge fuss over the demotion of Pluto from planet status also being speculated as being due to that kind of Biblical literalism being applied to what people were taught in science classes at school.

 

[dank69]

It does seem like Gym isn’t going to muster the votes. His awful politics aside he’s 1) an enabler of sex crime and 2) an unserious legislator.

and 3) Insurrectionist

A circle jerk or a clusterfuck require some level of organization. This is just a free-for-all of scumbags.

A clusterfuck 100% does not require organization. Though I've never witnessed or experienced a circle jerk, they can certainly be spontaneous.

 

[pmv]

A circle jerk or a clusterfuck require some level of organization. This is just a free-for-all of scumbags.

How about an "omnishambles"?

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

These guys .....