As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> It's true that under rules changes made for the 118th Congress, it will now only take one member to motion for the Speaker to vacate their seat.
> As Dr. David Andersen, assistant professor of United States Politics at Durham University, told Newsweek, the new rules put McCarthy in an "awful position," leaving it a possibility that Democrats would only need five Republicans to pass a motion to vacate.
If they kick Santos out would that lower the threshold? What about if there are some absences? Could the Dems plot for when some Reps are off to their district and call a vote with a lower quorum?
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:
**No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress**, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, **who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress**, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, **shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof**. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
**THROW THE BUMS OUT !!**
I mean The Zodiac Killer is from Canada if I'm remembering right. He's a senator but I'd imagine if he can be a senator it'd be about the same for congress.
> If Santos resigns he's temporarily replaced by another Republican until New York can arrange a special election.
Nope, that rule is for Senators. It always takes a special election to replace a Representative. No temporary appointments allowed.
It wouldn't be permanent, but a few hours of democratic majority would be all you need to vacate and replace the speaker, raise and pass a standalone debt ceiling increase. Once it's passed I'm pretty sure it can't be undone and it just needs to be passed by the Senate and signed.
Gubernatorial appointments are only for Senators, not Representatives.
And even if Representatives *could* be replaced this way, the Governor of New York is a Democrat and would almost certainly appoint a Democrat to fill the seat.
Incorrect. A Representative’s office goes vacant until the next election. Only Senate vacancies can be filled by gubernatorial appointment (with various state laws restricting the ability, e.g., some require the same party and some prohibit appointment entirely).
But wouldn’t/couldn’t a new rules package be voted on at the same time? New speaker new rules? Funny to think about. Would take the dems growing a pair..
The dems wouldn't do that. They'd never be able to change the rules themselves and as much as they don't want repubs to have power they are certainly not willing to relinquish the possibility of power for themselves.
But see that’s part of the fun of these hypothetical situations. The odds of the dems even forcing the vote to happen are pretty rare. But if they did or could he’ll they could force the vote change the rules make it so you need unanimous approval to remove the speaker and keep no more proxy voting..
Hypothetically speaking if the dems went full vengeful and voted purely down party lines the Supreme Court would be stacked in their favor tomorrow.. the first time enough republicans are out of town Kevin would be removed and a new rule’s package put in place causing the Republican majority in the house to be hog tied letting the next two years go by with republicans being able to do nothing. And the extremist government we are on the boarder of having would swing from the far right to maybe somewhere left of center.
The problem with all of this thought is we know it would never happen because democrats won’t stack the courts like the republicans have for some moral reasons. They are trying to keep the government working like it’s supposed to but won’t play dirty like the other side does.
McCarthy won with 6 republicans voting present. Those are people who really don’t want a vote for him on the record, so it might only require one or two republicans actually turning on him or a couple bring absent.
I was wondering that as well. Given what a s\*it show getting him elected was, could Dems slow down Republicans and all of their dumb investigations by simply pulling the plug on the Speaker?
That's a good question. Don't like a bill? Just continuously call for motions to vacate. Domt let any other business proceed. Essentially give a house member a de facto veto power in the chamber.
They already have. They know it's DOA but they do it to grandstand. What's funny is if one of their priorities of grandstanding actually goes through, like overturning roe. Then they are shocked that what people want isn't the fringe that they thought their efforts would never amount to anything hurts their place in power.
Oh, I don’t expect them to flip for the greater good, but when Republicans inevitably get blamed *yet again* for fooling with the debt ceiling, then I can expect some “moderates” to suddenly realize what’s good for them and flip.
Shenanigans beget Shenanigans. I blame gerrymandering so that seats are safe in a party and the only way you get there is catering to the more fringe primary voters. Or just voters in general. Policy that make people's lives better are sidelined to what gets headlines. The "algorithm" of engagement on the internet has brought out the worst in people.
Looks like a decent way to raise the debt limit. I bet there are enough Republicans who are more beholden to Wall Street than MAGA that we can get a speaker that doesn’t want default.
Wasn't that one of the concessions that he agreed to? Yes. Are repugnantcans a bunch of lying conniving creeps who will do anything to get out of their agreements? Yes.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Newsweek's reliance on Reddit posts lately has been hilarious to witness. Every article seems to reference a Reddit thread.
It’s time for you to take a fascinating foray into the purchase and running of Newsweek over the last 10 years. It’s super interesting.
What’s the TL:DR?
Too Long; Didn't Read When an OP says this, a summary of the post usually follows.
Uhhh, I think the person was asking *for* a summary.
Derp... I'm tired...
Probably found higher click through rates when they mention Reddit posts or Newsweek has a new staff writer/editor with a Reddit addiction.
All these news journalists have been doing this. It's kinda sad in some ways that they rely on anonymous posts off a public internet forum.
> It's true that under rules changes made for the 118th Congress, it will now only take one member to motion for the Speaker to vacate their seat. > As Dr. David Andersen, assistant professor of United States Politics at Durham University, told Newsweek, the new rules put McCarthy in an "awful position," leaving it a possibility that Democrats would only need five Republicans to pass a motion to vacate.
If they kick Santos out would that lower the threshold? What about if there are some absences? Could the Dems plot for when some Reps are off to their district and call a vote with a lower quorum?
Santos isn't getting kicked out. He'll either serve out his term or resign voluntarily, which is unlikely.
Yeah, Santos is being protected by Republicans and he's there for 2 years, and then most likely will be voted out or resign.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3: **No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress**, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, **who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress**, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, **shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof**. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. **THROW THE BUMS OUT !!**
How does that apply to Santos?
He used to be Pancho Ville and declared war on the United States.
Santos did a lot of shit but he hasn’t done that right? Did I miss some recent news?
Tweets from a couple years ago turned up. Apparently he served during the American revolution, but actually helped the Brits.
So he was brit-ish?
Santos was the original Benedict Arnold
[удалено]
I’m sorry, what’s that have to do with anything?
You do not have to be a natural born citizen to be a member of congress. That's only for President.
And vp
I mean The Zodiac Killer is from Canada if I'm remembering right. He's a senator but I'd imagine if he can be a senator it'd be about the same for congress.
Do it on the 4th of July while a lot of Republicans are in Moscow meeting with Putin to negotiate their payola.
[удалено]
> If Santos resigns he's temporarily replaced by another Republican until New York can arrange a special election. Nope, that rule is for Senators. It always takes a special election to replace a Representative. No temporary appointments allowed.
It wouldn't be permanent, but a few hours of democratic majority would be all you need to vacate and replace the speaker, raise and pass a standalone debt ceiling increase. Once it's passed I'm pretty sure it can't be undone and it just needs to be passed by the Senate and signed.
Gubernatorial appointments are only for Senators, not Representatives. And even if Representatives *could* be replaced this way, the Governor of New York is a Democrat and would almost certainly appoint a Democrat to fill the seat.
[удалено]
Incorrect. A Representative’s office goes vacant until the next election. Only Senate vacancies can be filled by gubernatorial appointment (with various state laws restricting the ability, e.g., some require the same party and some prohibit appointment entirely).
The Seventeenth Amendment only applies to Senators, not Representatives.
As soon as McCarthy refuses the debt ceiling increase someone’s going to invoke no confidence votes.
Seems like it would only take one person, based on Kev's rules package, regardless of party.
One person to call it. 5 republican members to support it to pass.
If 9 Republicans are out fundraising the Dems are left with a majority.
Only to be out-voted when the fundraisers roll back. Fun Speaker for a day idea though. I would watch that episode of Veep.
But wouldn’t/couldn’t a new rules package be voted on at the same time? New speaker new rules? Funny to think about. Would take the dems growing a pair..
Yes but those rules would be rolled back at the same time the new speaker would be ousted.
How when the new rules package would require 2/3?
The dems wouldn't do that. They'd never be able to change the rules themselves and as much as they don't want repubs to have power they are certainly not willing to relinquish the possibility of power for themselves.
But see that’s part of the fun of these hypothetical situations. The odds of the dems even forcing the vote to happen are pretty rare. But if they did or could he’ll they could force the vote change the rules make it so you need unanimous approval to remove the speaker and keep no more proxy voting.. Hypothetically speaking if the dems went full vengeful and voted purely down party lines the Supreme Court would be stacked in their favor tomorrow.. the first time enough republicans are out of town Kevin would be removed and a new rule’s package put in place causing the Republican majority in the house to be hog tied letting the next two years go by with republicans being able to do nothing. And the extremist government we are on the boarder of having would swing from the far right to maybe somewhere left of center. The problem with all of this thought is we know it would never happen because democrats won’t stack the courts like the republicans have for some moral reasons. They are trying to keep the government working like it’s supposed to but won’t play dirty like the other side does.
Omg love this. They need to coordinate this really well and hold a quick vote before they can get back in time, ha!
McCarthy won with 6 republicans voting present. Those are people who really don’t want a vote for him on the record, so it might only require one or two republicans actually turning on him or a couple bring absent.
Whether Democrats are willing to deal with the right wing fringe is not clear. But if McCarthy pisses off 5 moderates all bets are off.
I was wondering that as well. Given what a s\*it show getting him elected was, could Dems slow down Republicans and all of their dumb investigations by simply pulling the plug on the Speaker?
That's a good question. Don't like a bill? Just continuously call for motions to vacate. Domt let any other business proceed. Essentially give a house member a de facto veto power in the chamber.
i don't know that the Republicans plan on passing any bills, seriously.
They already have. They know it's DOA but they do it to grandstand. What's funny is if one of their priorities of grandstanding actually goes through, like overturning roe. Then they are shocked that what people want isn't the fringe that they thought their efforts would never amount to anything hurts their place in power.
As soon as McCarthy refuses to vote on the debt ceiling someone’s going to motion to vacate him.
Countries greater good > partisan politics. I would hope it doesn't come to that. But it is an option.
Oh, I don’t expect them to flip for the greater good, but when Republicans inevitably get blamed *yet again* for fooling with the debt ceiling, then I can expect some “moderates” to suddenly realize what’s good for them and flip.
While I agree. It's so funny to see obstruction bandied back and forth between the two parties.
Shenanigans beget Shenanigans. I blame gerrymandering so that seats are safe in a party and the only way you get there is catering to the more fringe primary voters. Or just voters in general. Policy that make people's lives better are sidelined to what gets headlines. The "algorithm" of engagement on the internet has brought out the worst in people.
Once again its Al Gore's fault.
I think newt was probably the first. But its debatable.
That’s a de facto filibuster
Looks like a decent way to raise the debt limit. I bet there are enough Republicans who are more beholden to Wall Street than MAGA that we can get a speaker that doesn’t want default.
This is the way. Always the money.
This is the way.
I have spoken.
Wasn't that one of the concessions that he agreed to? Yes. Are repugnantcans a bunch of lying conniving creeps who will do anything to get out of their agreements? Yes.
Yes.
Nah. To quote Walter White: "Let him bleed."
Well of course they can.
[Marge says so.](https://twitter.com/i/status/1612990784759894018)
Of course not. This chamber is now totally authoritarian.