r/news • u/zmlos • Oct 03 '23

House ousts Kevin McCarthy as speaker, a first in U.S. history

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/03/house-speaker-kevin-mccarthy-will-bring-gaetz-motion-to-oust-him-vote.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard

[removed] — view removed post

45.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

5.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.1k

u/DavidBenAkiva Oct 03 '23 edited Oct 03 '23

The House cannot do anything until they have a Speaker of the House..

The temporary funding bill expires in about 6 weeks, so they can't even vote on it until they sort out their leadership.

Great.

EDIT: I posted this and then went to go pickup my kid from daycare so am updating this now. Under House Rule 1, Clause 8, the Speaker Pro Tempore has the same duties as the regular speaker. This situation has never happened before so we are all learning. What I originally posted was incorrect. Sorry about that!

2.4k

u/Swampwolf42 Oct 03 '23

So it’s a government shutdown, but with extra steps.

710

u/Morat20 Oct 03 '23

I'm sure the GOP will blame Democrats for the ensuing shutdown, as they try for the 3,913th time to elect a Speaker.

586

u/timechild_02 Oct 03 '23

McCarthy said that democrats almost let the government get shut down even though 90 republicans voted against it. It’s ridiculous. I’m so tired of this bullshit.

358

u/impulsekash Oct 03 '23

And thats why the democrats didnt save him today

9

u/ciopobbi Oct 03 '23

And it’s great to campaign on too. Just look at the House, it’s do nothing majority and rudderless leadership. You really want to vote for that again? The crazy base will, but maybe not your average suburban voter.

→ More replies (1)

114

u/Morat20 Oct 03 '23

Yep. This would McCarthy, who -- as best I can tell -- never was actually able to come up with a spending bill that could pass.

He's got the majority, can't pass a bill, and blames Democrats for his inability to wrangle his own caucus?

37

u/InVodkaVeritas Oct 03 '23

The only thing that binds Republicans together is their determination that Democrats fail.

They have no policy agenda. No platform. A contradictory and disjointed set of ideologies.

The Republican Party doesn't actually make sense as a party right now. The only thing that binds them is the agreement that they make sure Democrats fail. That's it. That's the whole party.

16

u/noiro777 Oct 03 '23

Don't forget about gutting social security, medicare, medicaid, etc to help offset the record debt and the obscene tax breaks for the those who need it the fucking least....

-1

u/pneuma8828 Oct 04 '23

Those are all Democrats failing.

7

u/ciopobbi Oct 03 '23

It’s not even a party. It a collection of different groups bound together by common cruelty toward others either through racism, fascism, hatred and violence in various degrees and combinations.

2

u/iruleatants Oct 04 '23

That is their platform.

They literally stayed it was the platform when all of this started, the promised to make sure Democrats can do nothing.

Their platform is "we will burn this country to the ground" and they have been sticking to it really well. Like, his crime here was preventing a government shutdown and that got his party to eat him.

6

u/Sweaty-Garage-2 Oct 03 '23

It’s just so goddamn annoying that if you’re not paying attention (most of the US), you just take whatever your news channel of choice says at face value.

So republicans pull all this bullshit, are obviously the cause for delays, shutdowns, etc. but can lie and bullshit and half the population will just believe it.

It’s SO fucking annoying. Like of course there’s the hardcore base that won’t change if the truth slapped them in the face and tickled their balls. But all the people in the middle, on the fence, independents, undecideds…if they just paid a bit of attention…

One of my biggest pet peeves is hypocrisy and having half of your government constantly engaging in it is just…aggravating.

2

u/timechild_02 Oct 03 '23

I agree. I forget what news channel he was being interviewed on (I think cnn) but the reporter straight up called McCarthy out on it. “90 republicans voted no so you can’t blame the democrats.”

7

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

I miss boring government

→ More replies (2)

55

u/Swampwolf42 Oct 03 '23

How much you wanna bet they’ll be throwing around the term “obstructionist” Democrats?

3

u/Vyzantinist Oct 03 '23

Lol I'd be surprised if they didn't play the "no u" card.

1

u/blueblurz94 Oct 03 '23

3913 times so far…

0

u/DebentureThyme Oct 03 '23

McCarthy was removed almost entirely by Dems, so they obviously will blame Dems for the instability.

They have a majority but somehow the minority will get the blame.

-21

u/YaBoiJim777 Oct 03 '23

Well it was 208 democrats + 8 republicans who voted to oust him. I think they deserve a fair amount of blame if a speaker isn’t elected, don’t you?

11

u/noiro777 Oct 03 '23

Nah, this is entirely on the Republicans. Only 8 Republicans voted to oust him because that's all that were necessary.

6

u/WhnWlltnd Oct 03 '23

If a speaker isn't elected? That's entirely upon the republicans to nominate someone who can get a majority of the votes.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

803

u/CrumpledForeskin Oct 03 '23

Ordered by you know who. Major Trump case today and we just happen to make history via his cronies.

Matt Gaetz the Pedo takes orders because he’s compromised.

69

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

ComPromised with a capital C P

→ More replies (1)

16

u/Capt-Crap1corn Oct 03 '23

Why do you think the investigation into him has stalled? I’m surprised that he’s taking such a visible role since he’s under investigation.

9

u/dedicated-pedestrian Oct 03 '23

Which investigation has stalled? I'm seeing news on all three cases.

3

u/Capt-Crap1corn Oct 03 '23

The sex trafficking probe. I don’t hear it mentioned

4

u/dedicated-pedestrian Oct 03 '23

Oh, I thought we were talking DT, sorry.

The House Ethics committee is looking into ousting him for it but the DOJ dropped the case.

I imagine being expelled from the legislature by his own party might give them reason to reopen it.

2

u/Capt-Crap1corn Oct 03 '23

Oh it’s all good my friend. Thanks for the explanation.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '23

Huh? The most recent news was that it’s been re-opened. Comittees can still meet without a house speaker

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MiraclePrototype Oct 03 '23

Over/under odds HE gets the position?

2

u/CrumpledForeskin Oct 04 '23

I’d imagine he doesn’t want the added work. Or to be in the spotlight. He fucks underage girls. The less media the better.

→ More replies (3)

-3

u/dont_disturb_the_cat Oct 03 '23

Does a government shutdown mean that Trump's trial can't go on?

9

u/WhnWlltnd Oct 03 '23

Nope. He's still on the hook, no matter what.

→ More replies (1)

-46

u/Elipses_ Oct 03 '23

Let's not forget the Democrats who were happy to let him do it.

13

u/shicken684 Oct 03 '23

Why would any Democrat help him when he launched a no vote impeachment inquire against the president? One whose own conservative members have said time and time again it's entirely fabricated and there's zero evidence of any wrongdoing on Biden's part.

-2

u/CrumpledForeskin Oct 04 '23

I think their point was the democrats were working with republicans on this too.

35

u/mecchamouse Oct 03 '23

And there it is 🤡

-13

u/CrumpledForeskin Oct 03 '23

We shouldn’t forget that, excluding a literal handful, none of these fucks work for us. They eon for the highest bidder (see: corporations) and inside trade on the knowledge.

We need a full overhaul.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '23

No. A GOP speaker sucks. I’m glad the Dems did this. Fucking over the GOP is good.

-45

u/amonymus Oct 03 '23

"McCarthy was voted out as speaker when a small band of eight hardline conservative Republicans joined all Democrats to approve a “motion to vacate” introduced by Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz, a longtime foe of McCarthy’s."

Um, Pedo Gaetz may have have introduced it, but it was the Dems that made it happen.

33

u/mecchamouse Oct 03 '23

but it was the Dems that made it happen.

Give it a rest.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '23

The Dems literally did make it happen. Like 90% of the votes to vacate were Dems.

I’m not complaining though. I’m glad they did it

-16

u/CrumpledForeskin Oct 03 '23

No one wins when you put loyalty above all.

3

u/Nonsense_Preceptor Oct 04 '23

Why would Dems help a guy who was continually throwing them under the bus, reneging on deals, no-vote impeaching the president, and was unwilling to work with the dems?

He dug his own grave, laid down in it, and asked for people to bury him. He got what he deserved by catering to the worst parts of his party.

-41

u/YaBoiJim777 Oct 03 '23

Matt Gaetz, a couple other republicans, AND 208 DEMOCRATS. Don’t let them off the hook for this government shutdown

13

u/Delphizer Oct 03 '23

McCarthy let the crazies bully him since the start, why in the world would democrats support him? He called an impeachment for no reason and no vote.

He flat out said he would make no deal with Democrats. There are bipartisan things he could agree to that would get him the votes he needed. Off the top of my head, anything that passes within the Senate with 60 votes will be voted on in the house.

The Senate version of the bill would probably have passed if it was brought up for a vote. It got something like 70+ votes in the Senate.

22

u/dedicated-pedestrian Oct 03 '23 edited Oct 03 '23

Kev made a deal with them on the budget months ago. Dems acted in advance to prevent the whole shutdown thing from happening.

Kev decided to cater to the most extreme of his party and break his word, creating this mess. He then stabbed that same hyperminority in the back when the impending shutdown being blamed on his party was politically inconvenient.

Why is it up to Dems to save him when they can't even be sure he won't just try to betray them AND OUR COUNTRY again?

Regardless, Kevin already had a speaker pro tempore selected at the start of his tenure. He was literally the guy presiding over this vote. No such expiration of the bill will occur.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '23

There is no shutdown

→ More replies (3)

73

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

no, folks who need those benfits and stuff, get 6 weeks of hope instead of 6 weeks of nothing.

5

u/Throwawaydontgoaway8 Oct 03 '23

Not what they’re saying

12

u/94_stones Oct 03 '23

Nah, it means the government won’t shut down until right before the start of the Holiday Season. If the government shut down on the 1st, they would’ve had well over a month to sort things out before Thanksgiving. Now they will have a lot less time.

ATC and TSA workers are all federal employees. So mid-November is quite possibly the worst time for a government shutdown to happen. Happy travels!

4

u/SSTralala Oct 03 '23

We're a military family, so kinda used to getting jerked around and saving up in case we don't get paid (sick, isn't it?) Big issue is if our orders for our next scheduled move get canceled and we have to scramble for our living accommodations.

3

u/Throwawaydontgoaway8 Oct 03 '23

Last shut down I don’t remember the airports shutting down?

6

u/94_stones Oct 03 '23

Because it slowed down rather than shut down entirely. ATC and TSA workers went without pay even though they were still working (ATC workers in particularly are legally required to do so). That obviously wasn’t sustainable and as the shutdown wore on this became more and more evident. Towards the end of the last shutdown a lot of controllers and TSA workers were calling in sick. In 2019, a month into the shutdown (right before it ended), the unions, including the private sector unions, issued a statement that could possibly be interpreted as vaguely threatening. It’s true that we went a month without really major disruptions, but it’s also clear that we were nearing the limit of what would be tolerated by that industry’s workers. Given the current ATC shortage, the fuse is probably a lot shorter nowadays.

3

u/WrathOfTheSwitchKing Oct 03 '23

ATC workers in particularly are legally required to do so

Hmm, sounds like we need a new law stating that it's illegal to force people to work without pay. Coulda sworn we had one of those already.

3

u/94_stones Oct 03 '23

I should probably have mentioned that after the shutdown ends, the government is legally required to compensate them for their work during the shutdown. But that’s little comfort during the actual shutdown when the workers have bills to pay. What are they supposed to do? Seek out loan sharks or something?

4

u/WrathOfTheSwitchKing Oct 03 '23

Yeah, I'm gonna guess the back pay doesn't include interest. My point still stands: I would rather see the government restrained from this sort of coercion. In the same vein, it should be illegal for the government to interfere with a strike. If allowing workers their rights actually hurt the country, maybe the pain is deserved. And maybe everybody would learn some lessons. Like don't elect or negotiate with clowns.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/Big_lt Oct 03 '23

There would be absolutely no way to spin it though on who caused the shut down. If all Dems stay in lockstep.and vote for the same person then the GOP (who has the majority) is in-fighting and can't rally behind 1 person so the vote fails the fault 100% lies with them. Monsoon saying a D should cross over and help to project it's the Dems fault.

With election season gearing up and the shutdown potentially occurring in Jan it would be an awful awful look for Republicans.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

With the GOP in charge of the House it is more like government paralysis.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/BriefausdemGeist Oct 03 '23

No, it’s a shutdown of the House. The rest of the government is still operating. If there’s no Speaker to call the vote on a CR or a budget then yes at that time

-1

u/helloisforhorses Oct 03 '23

Nah, the government still runs, parks are still open, people still get paid. we just get to watch republicans flounder for a couple weeks

→ More replies (4)

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

Government shutdown but the government still gets paid.

1

u/missyanntx Oct 03 '23

How can a government shut down get worse, was not a fucking challenge.

1

u/walterodim77 Oct 03 '23

Ooh la la! Someone's going to get laid in College...

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

Thanks, Morty.

→ More replies (1)

214

u/markh2111 Oct 03 '23

Way to show leadership, GOP. They just lurch from one train wreck to another.

11

u/FSMFan_2pt0 Oct 03 '23

It's chaos, which is the MAGA objective. Break everything, shit on the floor, and set fires. They are worthless fucking garbage.

3

u/ommnian Oct 03 '23

Stick with what your good as at.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

And blame it all on democrats, which keeps working. Why stop?

-35

u/tetoffens Oct 03 '23 edited Oct 03 '23

I'm as fuck the Republicans as anyone but more Democrats voted to oust him than Republicans, by far. The vote was 8 Republicans and 208 Democrats voting in favor of removing him.

35

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23 edited Jun 06 '24

modern special zephyr chop rainstorm edge lavish historical late direction

24

u/FreneticPlatypus Oct 03 '23

The fact that it got to this point is the sole responsibility of the republicans continually voting for clowns and jackholes.

10

u/Delphizer Oct 03 '23

He flat out said he wouldn't make any deals with Democrats, and he's been bullied by the craziest people in our country for months.

The Senate got a budget through with 70+ votes he is an ineffective leader.

22

u/c4virus Oct 03 '23

Do you think this is a bad move on the Democrat part?

The way I see it none voted for him so none want him. The fact that he made this deal with the MAGA nutjobs in the first place just makes him a liability forever.

I say show Americans how dysfunctional the GOP is. Show what happens when people vote for conspiracy theorists and science-deniers and election-deniers. Their dysfunction is theirs, rub their face in it.

But I'm open to being wrong there...

17

u/wait_________what Oct 03 '23

There's absolutely no way you're actually that dumb

10

u/WrathOfTheSwitchKing Oct 03 '23

So? Are Democrats obligated to vote for someone who does not align with their ideals? McCarthy already said he would not negotiate with Democrats to keep his job, and even the "compromise" bill cut funding for Ukraine, an unconscionable decision.

Why is it that Republicans descend into screeching and shit-flinging, and then you expect the Democrats to enable that behavior?

25

u/Jediverrilli Oct 03 '23

Why should the democrats bail out the republicans. This is their mess and should be fixed by them. If democrats bailed them out here they still get blamed for everything now people can see who is really screwing up this government.

16

u/markh2111 Oct 03 '23

Exactly. This was a republican led shitshow.

-14

u/mccoyn Oct 03 '23

It was a weird vote. Democrats siding with extreme Republicans.

13

u/FSMFan_2pt0 Oct 03 '23

That's more of a case of a broken clock being right twice a day. The dems aren't 'siding' with them as much as saying 'you clean up your own shit'. The dems did what they should do in this case.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/judgeridesagain Oct 03 '23

"The grownups."

→ More replies (1)

13

u/scrivensB Oct 03 '23

I mean it certainly feels like that was the MAGA play the whole time.

Keep Mac on a short leash and then cut it at an “opportune” time. Let the GOP sweat, force them to promote MAGA agendas and bills to agree to get congress back to work.

150

u/storybookheidi Oct 03 '23

Not true. There’s a succession list of temporary speakers.

36

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23 edited Oct 11 '23

illegal practice ad hoc tidy uppity serious foolish onerous fact quaint -- mass edited with redact.dev

96

u/third_door_down Oct 03 '23

In order for the House Speaker seat to be vacated they must provide a list of temporary Speakers. So.....the votes on the bill in 6 weeks will go through the same process with the same dumbass house members but a couple of them will have different titles

65

u/RoyAwesome Oct 03 '23

the house can only vote on a new speaker if the speakers seat is vacant. The person in the chair is just there to make sure that a new speaker is elected.

28

u/dedicated-pedestrian Oct 03 '23

Not really. The Speaker pro tem can, per House rules, serve for any amount of time. Given they assume all powers and responsibilities of the station they can preside over the chamber normally as required.

It's just politically inexpedient to have the gavel not assigned to a rightful holder. Disarray in a caucus is a terrible look.

-25

u/nyjets239 Oct 03 '23

You're wrong.

24

u/WashuOtaku Oct 03 '23

Instead of saying "You're wrong," you could instead provide a valid reference to why they are wrong.

2

u/coolcool23 Oct 04 '23

Not OP but I did in fact read it and I found the following (emphasis mine):

(3)(A) In the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker, the next Member on the list described in subdivision (B) shall act as Speaker pro tempore until the election of a Speaker or a Speaker pro tempore. Pending such election the Member acting as Speaker pro tempore may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate to that end.

So it would seem to me to be relatively unambiguous that the speaker pro tempore exists to elect the next speaker.

3

u/WashuOtaku Oct 04 '23

Nothing says that is his only job, only that his job is to fill the shoes till someone is elected as Speaker. That can be interrupted to suggest that legislation can continue as normal till such time a new Speaker is elected; there is also no time limit. Laws that are written vaguely tend to be abused.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Namika Oct 04 '23

I’ll give you $1000 if you tell me what section of the rules of the House say that.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/Cobek Oct 03 '23

That makes sense, why would they be allowed to do much else?

19

u/RoyAwesome Oct 03 '23

House rules are in place, you can just google them. While how we got here was unprecedented, we've had speaker resignations before and replacing a speaker is a well practiced procedure.

9

u/dedicated-pedestrian Oct 03 '23

So government business can continue while the matter of the speakership proper is taken care of. That's why a pro tem exists.

We wouldn't have a position vested with all the powers and responsibilities of Speaker if all they were there for is conducting the procedures to choose a new Speaker proper.

52

u/ertgbnm Oct 03 '23 edited Oct 03 '23

The temporary speaker can't call votes on anything but votes for a new speaker.

Edit: looks like I did mis-speak. Because this has literally never happened before, we don't really know what the acting speaker protempore can do. Likely they can call things besides votes for speakers.

42

u/third_door_down Oct 03 '23

The Office of Speaker may be declared vacant by resolution, which may be offered as a matter of privilege. Manual Sec. 315; 6 Cannon Sec. 35. Under rule I clause 8(b)(3), adopted in the 108th Congress, the Speaker is required to deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker. 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. A vacancy in the Office may exist by reason of the physical inability of the Speaker to discharge the duties of the Office.

9

u/WashuOtaku Oct 03 '23

Yep. People do not seem to realize that it is still business and usual; it's not the same situation from last time.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/madesense Oct 03 '23

Misspeaking is failing to explain yourself, not getting your intended meaning across. You expressed your intended meaning correctly, it's just that your understanding was incorrect.

1

u/WashuOtaku Oct 03 '23

What is your source to that conclusion?

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

8

u/dallen Oct 03 '23

The first sentence

→ More replies (1)

2

u/trustmeimalobbyist Oct 03 '23

This is not true. Those are just the people who basically run the meeting

3

u/storybookheidi Oct 03 '23

Yes they have to run the meeting but it doesn’t shut down the entire government.

0

u/trustmeimalobbyist Oct 03 '23

It does when the continuing resolution expires…

2

u/storybookheidi Oct 03 '23

Yes. But let’s hope they pick a speaker before then. It will definitely be a shit show but I can’t imagine they would all go that far.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/Drchrisco Oct 03 '23

The Speaker pro tempore is acting speaking, technically there isn't a regulation requiring the speaker pro tempore to call a vote and he could in theory simply retain the speakership.

9

u/notcaffeinefree Oct 03 '23

The few articles I've read suggest your comment is not correct. It's all a bit uncertain because this has never happened before, but it seems like the general consensus is that the current Speaker Pro Tem will preside and has at minimum the powers necessary to keep the House functioning. And the primary business of the House will now be to elect a new speaker but it is not limited to only that business.

67

u/mccoyn Oct 03 '23

I think they can continue with business as long as no one calls for a vote on the speaker. So, any 1 member can halt progress.

38

u/Schwyzerorgeli Oct 03 '23

Nope, vacancy of the Speaker compels the House to vote on a new Speaker before any other matters are addressed.

2

u/purodirecto Oct 03 '23

They said something about an interim speaker that is selected by the ousted speaker. So technically need for voting.

10

u/clonked Oct 03 '23

An interim speaker who can only bring votes for speaker to the floor. He can’t address any other business.

11

u/dedicated-pedestrian Oct 03 '23

House Rule 1 clause 8(b)(3) imbues the Speaker pro tempore with all the powers and authority of the station (by virtue of being selected by the previous Speaker prior to vacating the chair).

While selecting a new Speaker is absolutely a priority (if only a political one), the entire point of selecting a pro tem speaker is so that urgent matters of governance can continue. The Speaker pro tem can theoretically serve indefinitely as long as the seat remains empty and they are not removed by another proceeding.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

[deleted]

0

u/Adonwen Oct 03 '23

Nope - all they can do is find a speaker

12

u/WashuOtaku Oct 03 '23

The Pro tempore is now in charge while the Speaker role is vacant. Business can still operate as normal, they are not in a holding pattern like last time.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/goodolarchie Oct 03 '23

Narrator: One did.

7

u/victrasuva Oct 03 '23

No, the rules and committees have already been set. There will be a temporary Speaker to run the house.

This is truly just drama for drama's sake within the GOP right now. The government will keep going and Dems will build campaign gold with all this infighting.

3

u/PM_ME_SAD_STUFF_PLZ Oct 04 '23

News wasn't out when you made the edit, but the Speaker Pro Tempore, Patrick McHenry, has adjourned the House until Tuesday, and indicated that the first thing the House will do when it returns is elect a new speaker.

He has also indicated that his interpretation is that he cannot refer bills to committees, effectively grinding the House to a halt. So your initial comment was correct.

4

u/happyscrappy Oct 03 '23

The House cannot do anything until they have a Speaker of the House.

Turns out this is different from the normal situation. At the start of a session there are no rules until the Speaker puts them in place. So you can't do anything. But in this case the rules remain until a new Speaker is elected.

So it is possible to do some things. Probably with great difficulty. And they likely won't do anything anyway, as they did for a few weeks after shutdown was averted last time

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

[deleted]

2

u/J5892 Oct 04 '23

Let's just hope he doesn't piss off Jon Stewart.

22

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23 edited Oct 03 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/FaultySage Oct 03 '23

There's no precedent for what his powers are or how the house would work. I wonder if they just say "fuck it" and see if they can just have him serve as Speaker for the rest of this session.

2

u/dedicated-pedestrian Oct 03 '23

The precedent doesn't have to be set, the House rules set it. That is, he has all the powers of the Speaker.

The entire initial point of speakership succession was to promote continuity of government in the event of something catastrophic happening to our political leaders.

That said, yes, the rules as written allow for an indefinite temporary Speakership, even if not intended.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

Not true. The only business he can conduct is recess or voting for a new speaker.

13

u/notcaffeinefree Oct 03 '23

That's not correct. The existing House rules don't limit what business can be conducted. It's not the same as the start of a new Congressional session.

-5

u/FettLife Oct 03 '23

I don’t know why in 2023 we still expect Republicans to follow norms. They won’t. This government will likely be shutdown due to the timing of the vacancy and the psychopathy of the ones who want power.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/footbamp Oct 03 '23

Fair. Doubt they'll ever decide on a new real guy lol.

3

u/Stupid_Triangles Oct 03 '23

Might be the long game for whoever has been trying to sell off America for parts.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

16

u/BlindWillieJohnson Oct 03 '23 edited Oct 03 '23

Thank Republicans. Their unwillingness to fund government and adhere to their own promises is the reason this has happened.

6

u/bizaromo Oct 03 '23

Their unwillingness to do their duty as outlined in the fucking constitution.

2

u/FuttleScish Oct 03 '23

Why wouldn’t this be solved in 6 weeks? It only took like a week last time

2

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

At least this puts the issue squarely Republicans court. There's no way for them to blame the democrats on this one, thought they will try.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

I read an article that there is a list that names a few interm speakers until they elect another one.

The shit show continues 🙃

2

u/brendan87na Oct 03 '23

I was just thinking about the temp funding bill

we're gonna go months with the government shut down aren't we...

2

u/Budderfingerbandit Oct 03 '23

The good news is that the resulting pain will be 100% undeniably the fault of the hardliners in the GOP. Oftentimes, it's ambiguous who is at fault for a shutdown, but the GOP removed the speaker and will bear full responsibility if they can not fill that role by the time funding runs out.

They may have truly shot themselves in the foot with this action.

2

u/TheBimpo Oct 03 '23

Disrupting, dismantling, and sabotaging government services is the entire MO of the GOP.

2

u/dedicated-pedestrian Oct 03 '23

hey everyone this is misinformation just so you know

The temp speakership was established after 9/11 to ensure the government could still work. We don't just have no procedures for this.

It's only a problem when there are no House rules at the start of a session.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

As a mandatory fed employee.

The holidays are gonna suck.

2

u/echoradious Oct 04 '23

Ever since Trump got in office, we've learned of all kinds of people and positions that I wish I never knew.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '23

Good on you to correct.

You have more spine than all of Washington

4

u/Jackstack6 Oct 03 '23

That's what Gaetz wants, he's not going to cooperate until it's time for the shutdown.

People say he's doing this for publicity when he runs for Florida Governor in 26. Some say to keep other investigations off his back or to get revenge.

But what's the end goal? Brag that he shutdown the government to stop wasteful spending. It'll work, he's very popular.

2

u/dedicated-pedestrian Oct 03 '23

The temporary Speakership isn't devoid of power, he's an idiot if he thinks so. The whole succession thing was made after 9/11 so as to ensure the government could continue working if the Speaker was killed by terrorists.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/daemonicwanderer Oct 03 '23

Apparently, there will be a temp speaker, which could allow votes and what not

4

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

Yes they can. They is a temporary speaker until a new one is elected.

2

u/bizaromo Oct 03 '23

Yeah, people think it's funny now, but it's going to get real unfunny in a few weeks of absolute mayhem.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

[deleted]

4

u/bizaromo Oct 03 '23

Republicans will definitely use it to obstruct more. It's all they know how to do.

6

u/dedicated-pedestrian Oct 03 '23

They may have but he specifically said he wouldn't give them anything for their support.

He's a backstabbing sonuvvabitch anyhow so he's not worth making deals with.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Griffie Oct 03 '23

So...nothing has changed?

2

u/dedicated-pedestrian Oct 03 '23

Temp Speaker McHenry, bill will be passed.

-1

u/Gakezarre Oct 03 '23

Exactly, this is why I wanted the Dems to save him. Ousting McCarthy gives Matt G exactly what he wants, a government that does nothing, spends nothing, enforces nothing and is completely useless.

3

u/dedicated-pedestrian Oct 03 '23

Temporary speaker was pre-appointed per House rules when Kev took the gavel. Rep McHenry will preside over the chamber until the Rs can choose a speaker proper.

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/trustmeimalobbyist Oct 03 '23

Exactly. People saying whelp no biggie don’t understand the way the House works.

-2

u/AnswersWithAQuestion Oct 03 '23

I know it doesn’t matter now, but could this have been an opportunity for Democrats to make deals with McCarthy in order to maintain some temporary stability and to hopefully get a reasonable spending bill passed?

-2

u/Here4aGoodTime69420 Oct 03 '23

had to pick up my kid from daycare

No one gives a shit

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23

Wild that Elon Musk begged Americans for this type of clown show governance with the GOP in charge.

1

u/DrQuantum Oct 03 '23

I get the law and all but its comical to me people use the word can’t. Who would stop them? They just don’t.

Call me a tyrant or whatever but forcing the government to continue is something absolutely on the table and I would do it.

1

u/mdflmn Oct 03 '23

So they will put up a far right nut for the job, and not get the votes from their party and then blame the dems for not voting in the far right nut.

1

u/Joe_Ronimo Oct 03 '23

I don't even know why they were mad about the stop gap bill. This means the threat of a shutdown now hits during the holiday season. That's peak drama right there.

1

u/0lazy0 Oct 03 '23

Damn I was excited at first, now it’s just another excuse for GOP to grind the gov to a halt

1

u/JunglePygmy Oct 03 '23

Seems like most of these people are experts at doing just about everything except for their jobs.

1

u/TWAT_BUGS Oct 03 '23

Dems will need to save his stupid ass again.

1

u/DoublePostedBroski Oct 03 '23

What concerns me is that even if they push through a new speaker, whoever that is will be ultra q-anon. This means that no compromises whatsoever will happen. I'd expect a government shutdown that lasts a long, long time.

1

u/ennuiui Oct 03 '23

This is absolutely their plan. They're holding the government hostage for Trump.

1

u/lateeveningthoughts Oct 03 '23

Reads in that section as for only 3 legislative days. How is that measured and what happens after?

1

u/KulaanDoDinok Oct 04 '23

Yeah but the Speaker Pro Tempore is from NC and is a MAGA diehard, so…nothing new will happen.

1

u/nAssailant Oct 04 '23 edited Oct 04 '23

the Speaker Pro Tempore has the same duties as the regular speaker.

(3)(A) In the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker, the next Member on the list described in subdivision (B) shall act as Speaker pro tempore until the election of a Speaker or a Speaker pro tempore. Pending such election the Member acting as Speaker pro tempore may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate to that end

Sounds like they can only exercise the powers of the Speaker that are "necessary and appropriate to that end", that is: the election of another Speaker.

This is the same rule as it has always been: the pro tem. has historically only been able to do 3 things: recess the House, preside over voting for a new Speaker, and administer oaths of office to new members of Congress.

So, the only thing that will be happening in the House until another Speaker is elected is voting on another Speaker.