this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
112 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18977 readers
3257 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 28 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I wonder how long it will take for 5 or 6 Republicans from strong Biden districts to say fuck it and throw in behind Jeffries?

And is that longer than it will take the Republican conference to get their shit together and vote on a new speaker?

It seems to me like the problem the Republicans have is the Trump faction that has no interest in government functioning at all. If we assume those votes are unattainable, do they even have a majority/plurality?

Can the Speaker Pro Tempore keep the house out of session? If it's "pending the call of the chair," do they still do the daily pro forma session?

Hey, with the House like not actually running, can Biden make a bunch of recess moves? I feel like I remember Pelosi purposely keeping the House technically "in session" to cock block Trump on some things...

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If 5 or 6 Republicans support Jeffries, they will effectively be leaving the Republican party. They are guaranteed to have a primary challenge, and lose any funding from the party. I don't think that's likely to happen, but who knows? Maybe a small group will decide they have a better chance running (I) than (R).

The Freedom Caucus absolutely is interested in governing, they just want to govern on their own terms and view any compromise as weakness. They place so little value in a functioning government that they would rather bring it all to a halt than compromise. Remember what got us here in the first place, they were ready to shut the entire government down and got mad when Kevin used Democratic votes to pass a stop-gap. They will take shutting down the House for all business as a consolation prize.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 20 points 11 months ago

The Freedom Caucus absolutely is interested in governing, they just want to govern on their own terms and view any compromise as weakness. They place so little value in a functioning government that they would rather bring it all to a halt than compromise.

That's not governing, that's ruling.

[–] TAG@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I would be curious if a centrist Republican could work with (centrist) Democrats to gain the speakership in exchange for some key concessions, such as pledging to not follow the Hastert Rule (a rule that most Republican speakers follow, that they will block a bill that does not have the support of the majority of the majority (Republican) party even if a bipartisan majority supports it). That assumes that a lot of Democrats will trust a Republican to be bipartisan and not weasel out of their word or be pressured by their party follow partisan lines.

[–] Prox@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

There is zero reason for Democrats to throw any votes behind a Republican speaker. If the majority party can't find a leader they agree on, that's on them. Dems only need 5 Reps to back Jefferies.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Actually, the main thing that would block this at this point is that there is a Speaker Pro Tempore, and while he can't do much one of the few things he can do is keep the House in recess until a Republican has enough Republican votes to win the election.

So, even in the hypothetical case where there is a centrist Republican who can pull this off, that person will have to get Patrick to agree to open the House to hold the vote in the first place.

[–] Davel23@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

As far as I understand it, the Speaker Pro Tempore has no power other than what is necessary to getting a new "permanent" speaker elected.

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

Like when he tried to kick Nancy Pelosi out of her office.

He had no power to actually do it. She left the office willingly because she has class, not like we can say the same thing about Mr. Speaker PRO Tempore who had a little hit of power go to his head.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 11 months ago

Yeah. It is basically there to provide someone to call the House in session after a decapitation strike and to be in line for President.

[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

Not correct. They have all the same powers.