comment: >
  
  Get 6 or more Republicans to vote Present. Dems should not help in this situation. McCarthy has sworn vengeance upon the Dems.  It would be stupid to hand him the weapons to achieve.
context: Problem is, can you trust the GOP to honor any deals they make? >
  
  No >
  
  So how do you negotiate with someone that always negotiates in bad faith? >
  
  You don't.
  Let them sink. >
  
  Pirates make up rules and then say they were only suggestions. Arrg! >
  
  Democrats: "You are without doubt the WORST political party we've ever heard of"
  Republicans: "but you *have* heard of us!" >
  
  I work in an office that heavily frowns upon making any noise, fuck you. Fuck you good man, I had to audibly chuckle. >
  
  Where do you work...on the side of a mountain with a heavy buildup of snow? >
  
  Hilarious and no, I work in an extremely lucrative engineering "firm". So there's always people with their heads down balls deep into their work :P >
  
  An Audi engineering firm? >
  
  Just a word of advice, Dems: payment upfront + points. >
  
  Could they strike any kind of enforceable deal the Supreme Court wouldn't just declare unconstitutional after the fact when Republicans want to wriggle out of it? >
  
  The Supreme Court can’t do anything about internal rules determined by the houses of Congress. Just like Congress can’t tell the Supreme Court how to do their processes. >
  
  Congress can include court stripping in any bill they pass which literally let's them say that the supreme court is not allowed to rule on it >
  
  Really? Is that constitutional? Do you have any more info on that fact? My guess is the ability to do court stripping itself has not been tested. >
  
  It stems from article 3 of the constitution
  
  "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
  
  So to give a real quick rundown the court has original and appellate jurisdiction, original cases are cases that start at the Supreme Court, all others (pretty much most big cases you hear about) are appellate.  Meaning a lower court hears them first, it goes up and up on each appeal, and then it reaches the Supreme Court where the Court rules.
  Marbury v. Madison then fleshes out the Supreme courts appellate powers a little more.
  it's pretty clearly stated that in cases of appeal the congress can regulate, and exempt, and thus prevent hearing. It's been a long time since my college courses covering this, so I can't recall a major time this was used, if any, so it's a rarely touched power. But one they do indeed have for appellate cases
  Edit; after going back in forth in my head a bit, im pretty sure questions involving the court itself are not under original jurisdiction... but I can't remember completely. >
  
  So Congress could write an unconstitutional law, but include a line saying the supreme court couldn't evaluate it, and that's just it?
  I'm pressing X as hard as I can. >
  
  You have to remember that constitutional review wasn't inherently spelled out in the constitution, and was only really made a power by John Marshall in Marbury v. Maryland.
  The founding fathers gave congress tons of power, though it may not seem like it today because they are so divided.
  But its right there in article 3 that congress can make exceptions to their appellate jurisdiction, which is where most constitutionally divisive matters come from these days. >
  
  No deals for McCarthy. He had a chance to impeach Trump twice in light of overwhelming evidence, and he said no. Any meaningful inflation reduction acts, gas cost reductions, affordable healthcare, measures to fix the baby formula shortage, all staunchly opposed while he was minority speaker.
  Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. He chose to play with the clowns rather than make everyday American’s lives better, it’s his circus now and he can deal with it. >
  
  Also Republicans sent their zombie zealots with zip ties and military gear to go catch some House reps to try and hang them on the front lawn. Fuck these traitors >
  
  “There are two people I believe Putin pays… Rorhbacher… and Trump.” 
  
  Kevin McCarthy. 
  
  Yeah, he can get fucked. >
  
  If Kevin is it in the end I hope they curtail and clip his wings so hard he is referred to as “Speaker by title only” for every introduction on that floor. >
  
  The SINO >
  
  That’ll give him a Chinese association too, which would just be the icing on the cake. >
  
  No concessions. Republicans always make the claim they can govern without dems. Time to watch them eat crow. >
  
  I wonder what conversations happened overnight. I saw Lauren Boebert on television literally calling Kevin McCarthy a liar and saying she would never vote for him, there was no room for negotiation, no circumstance in which he deserved to be speaker of the house, and so on. Those kinds of statements seem pretty intractable. I don't know how Kevin McCarthy would even approach people like her. >
  
  I'm sure it was something like she wants to head a committee. If they get the crazies on board, it will be because Mccarthy gives them serious power in the house. >
  
  I know that politicians have no moral grounding but if some woman with a gun restaurant went on MSNBC and told the world that I was a liar and didn't deserve to be speaker of the house and that she would never vote for me, there's no way I would put her on a committee. Much less let her head it. I don't understand her end game. lol
  But it's really not just her, she's just a good example who's really visible. There are 20 or so others in the same position. >
  
  *the woman who used to have a gun restaurant.
  It closed permanently in July. Apparently she’s as good at business as Trump. >
  
  Well she went from broke to having a $20 million plus fortune. But she’s backed by the Kochs they pay politicians well. >
  
  That's the part I've always wondered about her, she was running a resturant in CO and suddenly decides to run for Congress?  There's no documented political activity by her and then she's a MoC?  Somebody saw something there and decided to back her with $$$ for very specific reasons. >
  
  Her ties to Ted Cruz, who apparently met her during her escorting days, and somehow she was connected with the kochs then and from there… Congress.   Republican family values  - what a sham. >
  
  I've heard the stories, but I wonder what the real story is with her.  How do the Kochs connect with a small-time restaurateur? >
  
  Sex work. >
  
  A deal to save you from yourself, GOP. And then you’re gonna bite the democrats and tell them it’s their fault. >
  
  This is right. 
  Maybe there was a time when the Republicans were the opposition but not the enemy, and deals could be made. But this is not that time. >
  
  Democrats have been trying for 20 years to insist that Republicans are not the enemy, and that they can work together.  And Republicans have spit in their face and declared them the enemy of the United States, and fought every single thing they wanted to do -  even if they agreed with it -  just out of principle.  Hell, Obama went out of his way to include them repeatedly and they did nothing but slap away his hand, turn to the cameras, and cry about how Obama was an evil dictator. 
  They have spent the last two decades establishing that Democratic presidents are illegitimate, laws passed by Democrat-led bodies don't count, decisions by left-leaning courts are invalid, and votes cast for Democratic candidates are fraudulent.  
  And now they're like "hey let's make a deal"?  
  Ehhhh....
  No. >
  
  Exactly. The deal is that Jeffries is our nominee. If the Republicans want to return as a governing party, it is on them to excise the cancerous mass in their body. >
  
  Now wait just a doggone minute! I thought it was the Republicans that were supposed to be owning the Libs. >
  
  Republicans own the Repubs nowadays >
  
  A Democratic speaker in a Republican-majority House is not what I would have written on my 2023 predictions... But hey, fuck you Kevin McCarthy. >
  
  There’s probably zero chance of a Dem speaker being nominated, but they might compromise on a relatively centrist Republican that Dems like better than McCarthy. >
  
  Agreed. I think the only way a Dem could be speaker is some colossal accidental fuckup where McCarthy has too many ppl vote present and lowers the threshold too much >
  
  That would not really matter (in theory) because republican could immediately propose rules that can vacate the speaker position and then get a majority to vote so.
  There is no real way to sneak it, beyond for a max of a day or 2 >
  
  But it's a good play. You get to blame dems for the next 2 years of nothing and continue to obstruct. >
  
  That play is even easier if they just ket jeffries be speaker and obstruct everything.
  The problem they have is the sedition Caucus cares mostly about getting sounds clips of them yelling. So to do that, they need to have power on committees >
  
  Sorry I meant keeping Jefferies as speaker for that play.
  But does the speaker have any control over the committees? Seems like the majority controls the committees so they will get that regardless, and have a boogeyman to blame. Seems like everyone can win, the freedom caucus gets to screech, RNC gets to blame dems, dems get ceremonial power and get to blame the repubs for doing nothing. >
  
  The majority controls everything in the house. That majority could be 212 democrats and 6 republicans >
  
  Even if there were a compromise candidate, couldn't the Republican majority just oust him/her when they have their ducks in a row and can elect their own speaker? >
  
  
  when they have their ducks in a row 
  
  You see the problem and make the mistake of assuming they'll overcome it. >
  
  Ehh. I mean, if hypothetically they actually voted for Jeffries, I think that'd put the fear of God in some freedom caucus members >
  
  If there's a small caucus of Republicans will to work with Democrats to elect Jeffries, ESPECIALLY if these are R's from contested districts, it'd take a lot to get them to get a new speaker chosen during the term. The Republicans can't safely threaten primary such members and working with dems can help the re-election chances in the district. >
  
  Any that did would be forfeiting any committee seats as well as any future elections, pretty much guaranteeing a primary they would almost definitely lose. They would be utterly blacklisted by the GOP. 
  Their only hope would be to say "Fuck it, I'm leaving the GOP and joining the Dems. I don't agree with all their policies, but at least their not a clown car". This would entail significant negotiations with Dem leadership before hand so that they don't face a primary in the next election by someone to their left. They would also likely have to move to the left themselves. I honestly don't think there is anyone let in this GOP that can do this though. >
  
  If Democrats are going to throw the GOP a lifeline, then I'd expect it to come at a heavy price.
  Were I in charge, I'd start by asking for equal committee slots - half Dem, half Rep. The GOP can hold the Chair, but membership on all committees is 50/50.
  After that, I'm asking for Santos to not be seated. He's a liar, a con man, and may not even be eligible. That's a win for both parties.
  And after that, I'm asking that the Seditious Eleven to be removed from committee assignments and submitted to the Ethics committee for discipline: Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert, Mo Brooks, Andy Biggs, Louis Gohmert, Scott Perry, Jim Jordan, Debbie Lesko, Matt Gaetz, and Jody Hice.
  To make sure it all sticks, I'd keep the vote of no confidence provisions McCarthy has already negotiated, but I'd move it up to 50 members instead of 5.
  In exchange, McCarthy gets just enough Democrats in R+ districts to vote "Present" instead of for Jeffries. >
  
  Should also throw in removal of the "Hastert Rule" so that Democrats can bring legislation to the floor of the House at any time. >
  
  The hastert rule isn't really a thing. I mean, it is a thing, but it isn't written anywhere or is officially a rule that the house follows.
  The hastert rule is the principle that Republican speakers of the house only bring legislation to the floor that will get a majority of the Republican caucus to vote for it. It's basically something for republicans to hide behind as an excuse for never bringing Democrat bills to vote.
  However, the speaker of the house ultimately decides what bills come to the floor, regardless of whatever guiding principles they decide to embrace. Just getting rid of the 'hastert rule' has no meaning whatsoever.
  What you want to do is lower the threshold for a discharge petition. A discharge petition is a way for any house member to introduce a bill to the floor, without the Speaker. >
  
  How many times have we seen the Democrats act in good faith only to be scorned by Republicans later and get ZERO R.O.I. on that gesture?
  How many times do we do it until it becomes permanently etched in our brains? 
  Do you want more stolen surpreme court justices? >
  
  If you read the article, it's literally just speculation from the author. There's no indication the Dems are considering this. All the quotes are basically "yeah, theoretically that's a possibility, but I don't think it's likely." >
  
  I just hope McCarthy racks up some more Ls today. That's what we're all here to see. >
  
  I came here to chew gum and watch Kevin McCarthy lose, and I'm all out of bubble gum. >
  
  Anything other than Speaker Jeffries is a concession and that will never happen. So why bother negotiating just let them embarrass themselves. >
  
  These assholes voted down nearly every single thing the dems tried to do that benefited the average American.  They can go pound sand. >
  
  Jeffries it is! >
  
  You do not cut deals with people who believe they have a higher moral superiority on their side. They think they are doing Gods work so they will not honor deals cut that go against that. Dem's should not cut any deals. Let the Republicans show the country that they cannot govern >
  
  Jefferies won't be speaker. The holdout Republicans will go for McCarthy before they allow that. If someone like Fred Upton refuses to seat Santos and offer a a true power shared House, it is an offer that should be considered. Hella better than McCarthy, Scalise or Jordan. >
  
  
  The holdout Republicans will go for McCarthy before they allow that
  
  Wasn't one of them on record saying that they'd rather have a Dem in charge than McCarthy? I swear I read that somewhere. >
  
  It was pedo gaetz >
  
  Matt Gaetz the pedophile? That Matt Gaetz? >
  
  Yup, Pedophile Matt Gaetz! >
  
  Can’t believe that it’s pedophile Matt Gaetz, the pedophile, who said that! >
  
  How does the saying go? “We don’t negotiate with terrorists?” >
  
  No deals!! we are still in the middle of a coup. >
  
  “If they want to work with us, I mean, I think we want to do what’s right for the institution and what’s right for the country.”
  Are you fucking shitting me? In what alternate universe are you of the impression that they want to work with you? And do whats right for the country? Seriously?? >
  
  Yeah, ignore the right wing Talking Heads who keeps saying this is the Democrats fault. It absolutely isn’t. The Republicans need to figure this out. No deals. >
  
  Honestly, fuck cutting a deal with Republicans. They will never honor any deal that the Democrats come up with and will claim that they were trying to quid pro quo their way into some “radical” agenda or some bullshit they want to say on Fox News. 
  Also, there’s no reality where the current Republican Party would ever even consider cutting a deal if the roles were reversed. They would sit on the House floor and just let things go on in perpetuity until the next election to “own the libs.” 
  Let them fucking squirm. Let them carry out infighting. Let them blame each other publicly and rip the party to shreds. Fuck them. >
  
  
  Also, there’s no reality where the current Republican Party would ever even consider cutting a deal if the roles were reversed.
  
  because they don't want government to work...but we need it to work >
  
  Don’t negotiate with terrorists. >
  
  I can't recall the last time I remember the GOP honoring any deal. >
  
  Don’t fall for it—any concessions will just be ignored by the republicans once they get the votes necessary. >
  
  Fuck that.   Unless democrats are getting something VERY substantial out of the deal that cant be walked back, no way >
  
  Any deal that won't have Hakeem Jeffries as the Speaker, the GOP won't honor. They've reneged on ever deal they've made with the Democrats since 2016. >
  
  The only "deal" the dems should make with the GOP is that a democrat becomes speaker.  What is this debt ceiling and actual governance demands.  Those aren't demands, those are things the GOP should be doing ANYWAY!
  The dems need to play serious hardball on this one. >
  
  Don’t forget about the frog and the scorpion. This is not a river you wanna traverse. >
  
  Democrats shouldn't do shit. These fuckers tried to kill them by sending their goons into the House to ransack the place. >
  
  I see no benefit to helping these clowns. >
  
  I’f Dems help resolve this, Kevin McCarthy removal is one of the costs
  He allowed his caucus the Jan 6th contested ballot protest both before and after the sacking of the Capitol 
  Then cozied back up to Trump for the past 2 years
  Refused a Congressional subpoena 
  And refuses to admonish racist, violent stoking members of his caucus 
  He must not be rewarded ever >
  
  Why on earth would you make a deal with republicans in 2023? They are almost guaranteed to break any promises made. >
  
  
  Beyer listed three demands he thought Democrats should have for any talks on a compromise with the GOP: commitments to raise the debt limit cleanly, fund the federal government, and more power on committees.
  
  The problem with this is: nothing McCarthy promises in return for becoming Speaker can be relied upon.  You've got better odds that he'll go back on his word than you do on him holding up his end of the deal.
  So why trust him? >
  
  Get McCarthy to agree to not conduct bullshit Hunter Biden dick pic investigations. >
  
  Nah.  McCarthy can waste time if he wants to.  Let’s keep the sedition caucus off all committees.  And firm up voting rights and election procedures so Jan 6 never happens again. >
  
  
  And firm up voting rights 
  
  Have to get the Senate to quit filibustering them >
  
  That would be a good change for the new Senate.  Keep the filibusters but make them actually do it.  No more filibustering by e-mail.  Get up there and read the dictionary for as long as you can, but when you pass out… we’re voting. >
  
  That's not how the talking filibuster actually works most of the time. They don't usually talk until they physically can't any more. It's most effective when they work as a team, with each person talking for a few hours and then letting the next person take a turn. With enough people helping, they only have to take a shift once every few days, and with the way cloture works, they don't even have to be there on their days off. They can go on like that as long as they want to, blocking not just the bill they're filibustering but also every other piece of Senate business for months at a time.
  That's why the majority just shuts it down as soon as the email goes out threatening a filibuster. It's a giant waste of time to let them talk and achieves nothing. >
  
  Lol.  I understand what you’re saying, but remember, we’d be changing the current process.  With those changes, one Senator would have to filibuster.  Not a team.  And they’d have to do it live.  And if the next speaker in the debate process leaves, they lose their spot. 
  Let’s not unnecessarily constrain ourselves to the way a broken institution has always done things. >
  
  I don't see how that would work. The filibuster isn't some special process that occurs. It's just an extended speech that takes place as part of the normal Senate debate period. In normal debate, a Senator gives a speech, and then when he's done talking, the next person who wants to speak can get up and talk. The filibuster is the same thing, but the speeches tend to be much longer.    You can't really prevent individual senators from coordinating their speeches unless you want to just toss out the entire concept of the debate period in the Senate.
  Even if you manage to change the rules to effectively stop the filibuster from being a useful delay tactic, there are multiple other ways to muck up the process that are nearly as effective. Pretty much every aspect of the Senate rules is designed to prevent the majority from completely steamrolling the minority party. There are a huge number of tools available to the minority to bog down the Senate if they lose the ability to filibuster. They could just object to every unanimous consent request and slow the Senate to a crawl. >
  
  I wouldn’t mind making a deal with committee chairs/assignments in writing. That would be a really good outcome. That said, I would hate for them to bail out McCarthy. >
  
  Make them codify Roe.  I don't trust them at their word, so this is probably a dream situation.  But make them really bend over on this. >
  
  The dumbass Dems will get bamboozled again if they go for this >
  
  Sure Democrats, we will hold the football for you. You can trust us. We always honor our promises. >
  
  Hear me out - the non-crazy Republicans should do whatever they need to get a non-crazy speaker elected, even if it's a Democrat.
  Once there's a speaker, vote to throw the 20 crazies out of congress. They could easily get a 2/3 majority. Hell, they'd probably get 414 to 20. 
  Come to think of it, they might be able to still pull this off if they do elect a crazy speaker. >
  
  This is a frog just begging to get stung by a scorpion. No deals. Do not help them under any circumstances. Let them fall apart. They wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. >
  
  Only deal Dems should consider are the kind that get paid up front. GOP can just vote for Jeffries to be speaker, and in return we can offer to help them vote out the freedom caucus >
  
  Making a deal with the GQP is like adopting a cobra or a Komodo dragon as a house pet. >
  
  If 6+ R’s want some big power in the chambers they can vote Jeffries in. Personally I’d try get an equal amount of fed up R’s to vote Jeffries and send a message both of bipartisanship and of refusal to continue the clown show, but that’d require enough R’s with spines and intelligence. >
  
  Problem is, we're seeing the alternative option - McCarthy making so many concessions to the Freedom Caucus that they're essentially the majority party in Congress. >
  
  Given the unwavering spiteful, hardline approach taken by the GOP the last few decades, I'm disappointed to know that Dems are going to throw them a line to do anything other than hang themselves >
  
  Did you read the article? It's completely the author speculating. If the Dems do this, then go ahead and be disappointed, but there's not actually any indication they're seriously considering it. >
  
  Dems never learn. Years of below the belt BS, lies, blocked scotus seat, gerrymandering, phony 3rd party candidates, looming investigations with no merit, refusing to concede elections, lie after lie, a goddamn insurrection, and constant demonization from the right and they just can never say f-off when the right needs something. >
  
  Here's the deal:
  If any Republicans are willing to back a Democratic speaker, with no special considerations on committee assignments and no prejudice towards Democratic-backed legislation, we will be willing to have them. The minute that is no longer true, Jeffries resigns and this mess gets thrown back into the R's lap. >
  
  Oh please, oh please, oh please! Please form a coalition! >
  
  I could see Dems backing a moderate GOPer - for example -one that voted for President Biden's $1.2Trillion infrastructure bill with a promise he/she would support passing bills to keep the government running and who could bring 4+ other R's along. Thing is, such "promises" are unenforceable, so ideas like AOC's getting more power on committees are pipedreams and should not stand in the way of depriving the crazy's of all the power McCarthy will have to give them to get and keep the speaker's chair. >
  
  
  thing is, such "promises" are unenforceable, so ideas like AOC's getting more power on committees are pipedreams
  
  The House makes its own rules up.  Dems could require a supermajority to change any of the promises it extracts from the Republicans, as well as a very low bar to just recall the speaker (but higher than his own Republican alt right rejects) if they renege on any part of the deal.  If they ask for literally anything less, they're morons. >
  
  They should only do it if it makes Jeffries speaker. >
  
  The only deal they should even begin to entertain would be to get Republicans to vote for a Democratic Speaker. >
  
  I bet some republicans don't quite like the feel of them falling flat on their face.
  Edit:  They need to learn how to pull themselves up from their bootstraps. >
  
  Serious question, these GOP holdouts don’t think McCarthy is conservative enough right? Did he bash Trump or something? Trying to figure out why they hate him so much they can’t even come to any negotiations? >
  
  What even crazier is that McCarthy paid for their elections with his superPac >
  
  The party of Trump let’s bankrupt the US.