Democrats Rage at New House Rules

[applegrove]

Democrats Rage at New House Rules

January 2, 2025 at 7:09 am EST By Taegan Goddard 8 Comments

https://politicalwire.com/2025/01/02/democrats-rage-at-new-house-rules/

"SNIP............

“House Democrats are pushing back furiously against a proposed change to House rules that would allow only Republicans to force a vote on removing the speaker of the House,” Axios reports.

“Top Democrats are arguing the move would inhibit bipartisanship and effectively make House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) answerable only to his members — not the entire House.”

Said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA): “This makes it clear that they have no intention of working together to find common ground.”

................SNIP"

[Pototan]

1. This rule change will never pass the House

The rule change needs to pass by a majority vote of the full House. No Democrat will vote for it. The dozen or so renegade Republicans need the full House to vote on removing or choosing a Speaker in order to have leverage. In order to prevent this rule change all the opposition needs is 2 Republicans.

[DeepWinter]

2. Misleading title

They want to change a rule that allowed a single member to trigger a no-confidence vote to remove the speaker will be increased to nine members of the majority party in the 119th Congress.

So when Democrats are in power, the same rule applies. There would need to be 9 members seeking no-confidence.

[Think. Again.]

4. The title is correct, Dems strongly disagree with the new rule.

[Littlered]

16. Help me out here.

Wasn’t the McCarthy the only speaker to ever be ousted? And wasn’t that the result of a motion from his own party? I’m not seeing anything here to rage over. And there is quite a difference between strongly disagreeing and rage isn’t there? Personally, I don’t have a problem with them changing it so a couple of disgruntled crazy people can’t muck it up. Seems to me, the fewer people that can throw sand into the government gear box the better. Especially when it comes down to intraparty politics.

[Think. Again.]

19. The media uses inflamatory words to get clicks.

...hence the use of "rage", they would put exclamation marks after every headline if it wasn't so obvious (some do).

Anyway, it's safe to assume (from direct past experience and knowing who and what they are) that if this rule (or anything) is wanted by the rightwing, they have reasons that will harm our Nation and benefit them personally somehow.

[atreides1]

5. Okay

But it still means that only the Republicans can trigger a no-confidence vote, and that little Mikey will be beholden to just the Republican members of the House!

Maybe the rule should require nine members of each party to trigger a no-confidence vote!

Should the Democrats take back the House, the Republicans will try to change the rule before they become the minority.

[tritsofme]

30. Today's majority cannot bind future majorities.

A new Democratic majority could change any rule made by an old Republican one.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. "So when Democrats are in power, the same rule applies." - Um nope

Each Congressional session drafts and votes on a new set of "Rules" for that session, so that particular circumstance might never appear again in the Rules during a next Congressional session (e.g., a 120th).

And should something happen that actually puts Democrats in the majority during a specific 2-year session (based on any lucky outcomes of Special Elections), then Democrats could easily create a Resolution to completely change the Rules again.

[Unladen Swallow]

35. Thank you very much for the clarification

I am so sick and tired of misleading clickbait headlines

[Cha]

52. It's "Misleading" to me! TY.

[brush]

54. Thanks for the clarification. BTW, wasn't the rule from before during the Gaetz-McCarthy fued...

also limited to republican Reps only being able to move to call for the speaker to stand down?

[Think. Again.]

3. We need to stop pretending they are working for the good of the nation...

...because they are not.

"This makes it clear that they have no intention of working together to find common ground.” -Rep. Jim McGovern

That must be fully understood.

[Buns_of_Fire]

12. Rep. McGovern gets it. Like so many here do.

Until the maggots in Congress self-destruct, the only "reaching across the aisle" I care to see is with a 2x4.

[Martin68]

22. I gave up that pretense years ago.

[Think. Again.]

23. Let's hope our representatives catch on soon.

...because the media certainly doesn't want to let go of the lie.

[Martin68]

24. There is an enormous gap now between the requirement of standard best journalistic practice and reality.

[Think. Again.]

26. Journalistic integrity is basically dead.

[Martin68]

28. I wouldn't say journalistic integrity its dead. There are a lot of excellent journalists with good integrity. The issue

as I see it is that the basic journalistic requirement for fairness and "objectivity" is in direct contradiction with the reality we face in politics today. Journalistic standards are based on the assumption that both sides believe their values are in the best interests of the entire country. Unfortunately, that just isn't true anymore.

[Think. Again.]

31. I'll rephrase it...

Journalistic integrity in for-profit media is basically dead.

Journalism should not pay any attention to what either side says they "believe". The responsibility of journalism is to report truth and fact.

Opinion media can interject their own personal thoughts on any given truths or facts, or even surmise the "beliefs" of either side, but true (and good) journalism should be blind to any of that.

Propaganda reports what either side says they "believe" as though it were fact, whether it is or isn't.

For-profit media simply writes or presents storylines of any kind that will gain viewers for their paid advertisers.

[Initech]

45. No, they are working for the good of their stupid news network employers.

Fox News is really calling the shots for this shit show.

[calimary]

58. Yep. Fox "News". That was "the day the music died."

Shit - I remember the sheer joy of getting to work at the AP. The staid ol’ AP. Where truth and the facts were King and Queen, and opinion was just that: opinion.

[Vinca]

6. Don't they need Democratic votes to elect a Speaker and isn't a Speaker required when it's time to

count the Electoral College votes? Democrats should put the brakes on the whole extravaganza. Maybe the inauguration can be delayed.

[Wiz Imp]

7. No and No

[Vinca]

42. I didn't make my thought clear. Since there are crazies on the right who will vote against Saint Mike for

their reason du jour, shouldn't Mike be courting Democrats, too? Keeping in mind they saved him last time and then he stabbed them in the back.

[Wiz Imp]

43. He can court Democrats all he wants, no Democrat is going to vote for him for Speaker

[MadameButterfly]

49. And shouldn't courting Democrats include NOT passing the rule

that says only Republicans can call for a vote to oust a speaker?

Unless they can get 100% of Republicans to agree, they need some Dems to vote for a Republican speaker.
Will Dems say no to anybody and let Jan.6 possibly not happen? Or should they bargain and get something for their cooperation?

Because, we're fine with no election certification on Jan. 6.

[mwooldri]

10. On paper, Democratic votes aren't needed.

If only the Republicans had a Nancy Pelosi who could get all of their caucus on the same page. Mr. Johnson is no Ms. Pelosi.

Since Mr. Johnson can't get his whole caucus together, he needed Democratic votes to get continuing resolutions passed.

We saw two years ago that the Republicans needed lawd how many votes to get a Speaker elected. I expect that this time there will be more than one round - so that it can be indicated that there is no clear majority for the proposed speaker, and the "squeaky wheels" will be identified, and then pressure put to bear on those folks to get them into line.

[MadameButterfly]

50. I suppose the stakes are high enough for the Republicans

to fall in line. But if not, Dems shouldn't help unless they get something for it. Or maybe they just shouldn't help.

[Wiz Imp]

9. It figures. They do the smart thing by requiring more than one person to trigger a vote to remove the speaker.

Then, they go back to being their typical Republican selves by trying to reserve that power to trigger a vote to remove the speaker to only the majority party. Democrats are correct. The second part of this rule is totally anti-democratic (i.e. anti-democracy).

[Jerry2144]

27. Normal attrition in the house is 2-5 seats

How will this play out if the Repugnant Party loses 3 seats and we become the majority? Can we force a vote for a new Speaker?

[Igel]

32. Yeah, it does put the onus just on (R) to remove him.

On the other hand, it's in many ways a lower bar to removal than existed in the 116th House. A majority vote historically would get the speaker in and a majority vote was needed to declare the position vacant.

Reducing that to 1 was insane and was just 1 (R), (D) need not apply--because otherwise (D) would have had a field day stopping things whenever they wanted. I mean, imagine a (D) controlled House where any 1 (R) representative could shut things down by calling for a vote. 9 strikes me as loony tune, we'd put the same stipulation in and hope for at least (D) solidarity.

Liked the majority vote, to be honest.

[hadEnuf]

11. "This makes it clear that they have no intention of working together to find common ground."

Ya think?

That explains the entire Republican party for the last decade.

[werdna]

14. Hey, ease off -

- It's only been 40 years since the R's decided this was a matter of policy for them. I mean they may be slow but Dem leadership certainly isn't...well...er...um...

[ck4829]

18. Yep

[Wiz Imp]

44. For the last 2 decades+

[barbtries]

13. they're going all the way.

Karl Rove must be so proud.

[JustAnotherGen]

15. They always paint

Democrats as being incandescent with rage. Meh.

[ck4829]

17. Any comment, Tom Suozzi?

Let’s Try Something Different in How We Deal With Trump
Tom Suozzi

President-elect Donald Trump and the Republicans have managed to sell themselves as the party of change. It worked: They will soon control the presidency, Congress and, in essence, the Supreme Court. But to change and fix America requires both parties to work together. As a Democratic member of Congress, I know my party will be tempted to hold fast against Mr. Trump at every turn: uniting against his bills, blocking his nominees and grinding the machinery of the House and the Senate to a halt.

That would be a mistake. Only by working together to find compromise on parts of Mr. Trump’s agenda can we make progress for Americans who are clearly demanding change in the economy, immigration, crime and other top issues.


https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/01/opinion/democrats-trump-agenda.html?unlocked_article_code=1.l04.45LZ.Daf0IaWRe-cA&smid=url-share

[Think. Again.]

20. Amplifying souza's kiss-ass position isn't necessary.

[karynnj]

37. I wish he would have said very early in that statement that Democrats should not act as the Republicans have

Having watched politics for decades, I simply do not recall a time of Republican control where Democrats stopped EVERYTHING. There are a few instances of successful filibusters on issues like drilling in ANWR, but Democrats joined with Republicans to pass CRs to fund the government and raise the debt limit.

It was not that long ago that Democrats, including people like Feingold, were very prone to confirming the people nominated by a President, unless there were non political reasons to reject them.

Compare things like ACA or the recent IRA where there were virtually no Republican votes to Democrats voting for many Republican tax cuts, often after getting amendments that help the non 1 percent. On issues where there was common ground, like the justice reform bill in Trump's first term, there was significant Democratic support.

One easy clear example of the difference is on FEMA disaster funding. Democrats routinely vote yes no matter how red the state; many Republicans voted against hurricane Sandy aid.

In addition, it would be nice if he said that if they, controlling everything, did not try to get bills that found the common ground to get bipartisan support, we will vote against them. We should never vote against our values. On many issues, majority support per polls is on our side. Those are the issues where we can vote with our values against the bills. Filibustering if needed.

[hadEnuf]

41. It's this type of pussy footing nonsense from the NYT and others that has helped to get us where we now are.

Anything other than fighting will be taken as a belly-crawling surrender. Working with them as "fellow Americans" is a sick joke. They want us gone. Period.

I don't understand why some people can't get this through their fucking heads.

[Wiz Imp]

46. What an idiot.

"Only by working together to find compromise on parts of Mr. Trump’s agenda can we make progress for Americans who are clearly demanding change in the economy, immigration, crime and other top issues."

When was the last time Republicans compromised on anything? It was at least 25 years ago.

[Callie1979]

57. Well, there will likely be SOME bills that are agreed on. Like the PGM bill

Last edited Thu Jan 2, 2025, 09:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Thats Hawley & Warren. If THEY can agree on something.....

[Joinfortmill]

21. You think, Jim?

[Martin68]

25. "Rage?" Give me a break. Pure clickbait.

[choie]

29. "This makes it clear that they have no intention of working together to find common ground."

No shit.

[karynnj]

34. What was the rule before the last Congress?

I have a vague memory that lowering the number to one was something McCarthy agreed to because he had to. It predictably led to chaos. The big question is whether Johnson has his little rebel ducks in a row. Does he have support for this from Massie, Boehbert, and Roy among others?

This could be a strategic position for Democrats. It may be disingenuous to say that Democrats can not call for a new speaker, but the Speaker really is the party leader in the House. Consider that just to create havoc, under these rules but open to both parties, how much of a distraction could Republicans have caused against Pelosi?

[tritsofme]

39. Historically it only took one member, Democrats changed the rule during our narrow majority in the 117th Congress.

In 2023, McCarthy was forced to change it back to a single member as one the prices for his short-lived speakership.

[karynnj]

40. Thanks

[Hotler]

36. Rage, do we do rage? And ...

Said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA): “This makes it clear that they have no intention of working together to find common ground.”
Geez Jim, where have you been? The repugs have had no intention of working together since the Obama years.

[karynnj]

38. He obviously knows that

Years ago, in the GWB days, my husband and I were visiting a daughter attending Holy Cross and went to a rally he had. He was very blunt in his disagreements with W. After the rally, one of Holy Cross students asked why his foot was in a cast. He first answered that it was from kicking Republicans, then explained the far more prosaic reason.

Would you rather he NOT make the point that Republicans are not looking for common ground? One question I have is why in 2021, was the MSM opinion that with the tight margins Biden had, the road to success was bipartisanship. Biden had a smaller majority in the Senate, but a bigger one in the House. Yet I am not hearing anyone say Trump does not have the kind of mandate needed to radically change the country.

[nakocal]

47. Is it majority or republicans?

If it is republicans, the rule is designed to allow the republicans to keep the house speaker if they become the minority.

[uncledad]

48. Top Democrats are arguing the move would inhibit bipartisanship

I pretty sure that ship has sailed?

[Cha]

51. No Shit.

[Nigrum Cattus]

53. Christian Nationalist BS

Paybacks will be considerable - Excluding half the House from
anything is cowardly, backward, spineless and dumbfounded to
say the least. We must presume this will only get much worse.
I don't know if this is our "Confederates in South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter"
moment.

[elleng]

55. '"This makes it clear that they have no intention of working together to find common ground."'

[LetMyPeopleVote]

56. Key provision in the House rules package:

Link to tweet