• TheMongoose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wasn’t he the one that insisted on the “I can oust you whenever I want” provision in the first place? It would have been more surprising if he hadn’t done it…

    • PowerCrazy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s always been that way. The speaker is elected by the house, if the house wants to replace him they can whenever they want.

        • Rolder@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          In this case, McCarthy made the very smart decision to shit talk the Democrats before the vote, so all the dems votes in favor of removal

          • pingveno
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            We have the best quality politicians, am I right? When you’re Speaker they let you go on national TV and stuff your foot right in your mouth. Just open wide, stuff inside. Just like that! And the biased left wing media makes it sound bad by airing it.

        • PowerCrazy
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well it takes one person to propose it, then someone to second the motion. I can’t find the specific historical floor proceedings from Oct 3rd. But the reality of what happened, and how it happened doesn’t match your imagination.

          • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/07/politics/kevin-mccarthy-path-to-speakership/index.html

            “McCarthy’s concessions to the GOP dissidents are significant and could ultimately cut his tenure as speaker short. Among the rules changes: McCarthy agreed to restore a rule allowing a single Republican member to call for a vote to depose him as speaker, the same rule that led to John Boehner’s decision to resign as speaker in 2015.”

              • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s referred to as privilege. It’s rule IX. The lingo they use can make things unintuitive.

                Here’s a Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_to_vacate_the_chair

                It’s the first time in US history a motion to vacate has successfully removed the speaker of the house. The only function the interim speaker can conduct is to call for votes on a new speaker, I don’t believe the interim speaker can bring new legislation.

                  • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You’re welcome, it’s a mess trying to interpret. Watching the events live on CSPAN it comes across like a big made up kangaroo court cult. I’m fairly certain that part of being inducted as speaker involves updating the rules which is where all the negotiating to be elected speaker comes in. Unfortunately theirs like half a dozen or so extreme right republicans that are sending a message and without the democrat minority support they don’t have enough votes to elect a speaker without appeasing their extreme republicans (which is also why the vacate went through). That’s my understanding anyway, like I said, the whole thing seems like a clown show and is embarrassing to watch as a citizen.