comment: >
  
  Officially-> it represents the executive branch overreaching it’s authority violating congresses powers 
  Real reason-> this court exists to check and regress basically every social and fiscal policy since the new deal
  She would never go so far without explicit permission of biden
context: It means he’s on an insanely short leash. He’s not well liked nor trusted by members of his own caucus >
  
  tbh I don’t see a huge practical difference between one member and the previous five. The six that voted present on the 15th vote seem to be pretty lockstep against him. If one of those six were willing to submit a motion to vacate, I would expect the other five to support it. Regardless, I completely agree with you. >
  
  I did read somewhere that this isn't an insane change. It's a revert to rules pre-2019. The requirement for a caucus head to request it is pretty recent. >
  
  Yeah, the change it’s reversing sounds stranger than the way it was before. >
  
  He'll be stuck constantly trying to please everyone. Of course, just because one person initiates the vote doesn't mean that there'll be a majority to support it, but it certainly could be very disruptive. Since the Freedom Caucus doesn't seem to be interested in actually passing any legislation, they could just use it to disrupt proceedings when they feel like it. No confidence motions could be the new filibuster. >
  
  The Freedom Caucus is just there for political theater and sound bites. Even if Congress was in a joint session to declare war on Russia or something, they’d do some weird shit. >
  
  Which actually fits expectations for fox news watchers who are bored enough to watch the fox news to feel they are alive. >
  
  Yea. Last night during coverage of the McCarthy vote, someone related a recent story about Boebert. In the story she was quoted that, “While we are here (McCarthy election for Speaker), at least the federal government isn’t spending money.”
  Not sure she wasn’t being /s, but if not, hey Lauren. The federal budget for the current FY was passed in the LAST session of Congress. >
  
  Funnily enough, without the Speaker to organize the House and its various functions, the members-elect and their staff weren't able to be paid. So there was at least some money not being spent. >
  
  A vote to vacate the chair is just that...a vote. It would require the entire House of Representatives to vote to change Speakers so would not be taken lightly. Since the Republicans would still have the majority it is likely they would prevail. This rule was in place for most of the history of the House and was only blocked by Nancy Pelosi recently. It was last used 100 years ago. >
  
  This is helpful; thanks. What incentive would democrats have to vote in favor of keeping the speaker? (Are there examples from history you can point toward?) >
  
  I could see scenarios rising where there is a relevant deadline and devolving into a shitshow would take time.  This would be things like impending votes for the debt ceiling or more funding to support Ukraine.  If one of these votes was on the table and a right-wing nutjobs wanted to stop it by forcing a vote for a new speaker, I could envision a small number of safe Democrats getting leave to vote to keep the Speaker on so that the House can actually proceed with necessary business.
  But that might only be for a few weeks combined out of the entire congressional term.  I imagine anytime beyond that, the Dems will be happy to let the Republicans have their shit show. >
  
  Thanks, u/sumg. This is along the lines I was imagining, too. >
  
  The debt ceiling is going to be a fucking shit show. It honestly scares me that our country is going to be partially run by these idiots. >
  
  Mint the coin! Mint the coin! >
  
  I was thinking that as well. Is this actually a viable option? >
  
  I don’t think so. First and foremost moderate Dems would oppose it broadly. Secondly, I think the Supreme Court would decide that their literal interpretation would stop there. >
  
  Would they oppose it? When the alternative is to default on our debt? Not to mention if I understand it correctly it would be up to Janet Yellen right?