politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Numerous sources have said that this is a deliberate act of revenge by Republicans because Democrats didn't jump in to save McCarthy's speaker role. More are expected to come. This has got to rank up there with McConnell blaming Obama when one of his own bills blows up in his face, saying it's Obama's fault for not warning them hard enough even after they overrode his veto.
Of course, they're so far doing nothing to the 8 Republicans who, you know, actually voted to remove McCarthy. Or Matt Gaetz, who started all this shit in the first place. Instead, they're taking their frustrations out on a couple of 80+ year old representatives out of spite.
I also haven't found out where this clown even has the authority to order this. His powers are literally only limited to recognizing the next nominee for Speaker, holding the vote, and sending the House to recess. I am unsure why both of these people haven't just told him where he can shove his orders.
Is this actually established? The actual language states "The Member acting as Speaker pro tempore under this provision may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore."
While kicking people out of offices clearly doesn't fall under this, I feel like the role isn't as limited as "can ONLY use their power to try and elect a new speaker". Like, if there is indeed a gridlock and a new speaker can not be agreed upon, I feel like at a certain point just going ahead and doing the normal job of the speaker is "necessary and appropriate" since the alternative is a dead branch of government.
Is this actually established? The actual language states “The Member acting as Speaker pro tempore under this provision may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore.”
Per this:
It comes right after the part you quoted:
The authority of a Speaker pro tempore to exercise certain powers depends on whether he is designated, designated and approved, or elected. The powers of a designated Speaker pro tempore, compared with those of an elected Speaker pro tempore, are relatively limited. Deschler Ch 6 Sec. Sec. 10, 14.
Since he hasn't been elected or "designated and approved", his powers are much more limited. The other important words are "pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker Pro Tempore". This has generally been interpreted as his powers are only limited to being what's absolutely needed to elect a permanent Speaker. As virtually everybody has said that the HoR is essentially shut down for a week until the GOP comes up with a nominee, it looks like this interpretation is still holding.
This asshole is just stroking off to the GOP base with these evictions. Hopefully, they tell him to go fuck himself.
Seeing as this has never happened in US history before... well it's going to be a clusterfuck that the parliamentarian will no doubt have to weigh in on multiple times.
Rep Jim McGovern has expressed some concerns about the validity of all this:
how would he know?