comment: >
  
  I was wondering that as well. Given what a s*it show getting him elected was, could Dems slow down Republicans and all of their dumb investigations by simply pulling the plug on the Speaker?
context: Newsweek's reliance on Reddit posts lately has been hilarious to witness. Every article seems to reference a Reddit thread. >
  
  It’s time for you to take a fascinating foray into the purchase and running of Newsweek over the last 10 years. It’s super interesting. >
  
  What’s the TL:DR? >
  
  Too Long; Didn't Read
  When an OP says this, a summary of the post usually follows. >
  
  Uhhh, I think the person was asking for a summary. >
  
  Derp... I'm tired... >
  
  
  It's true that under rules changes made for the 118th Congress, it will now only take one member to motion for the Speaker to vacate their seat.
  As Dr. David Andersen, assistant professor of United States Politics at Durham University, told Newsweek, the new rules put McCarthy in an "awful position," leaving it a possibility that Democrats would only need five Republicans to pass a motion to vacate. >
  
  If they kick Santos out would that lower the threshold? What about if there are some absences? Could the Dems plot for when some Reps are off to their district and call a vote with a lower quorum? >
  
  Santos isn't getting kicked out. He'll either serve out his term or resign voluntarily, which is unlikely. >
  
  Yeah, Santos is being protected by Republicans and he's there for 2 years, and then most likely will be voted out or resign. >
  
  Seems like it would only take one person, based on Kev's rules package, regardless of party. >
  
  One person to call it. 5 republican members to support it to pass. >
  
  If 9 Republicans are out fundraising the Dems are left with a majority. >
  
  Only to be out-voted when the fundraisers roll back. Fun Speaker for a day idea though. I would watch that episode of Veep. >
  
  But wouldn’t/couldn’t a new rules package be voted on at the same time? New speaker new rules? Funny to think about. Would take the dems growing a pair.. >
  
  Yes but those rules would be rolled back at the same time the new speaker would be ousted. >
  
  How when the new rules package would require 2/3? >
  
  The dems wouldn't do that. They'd never be able to change the rules themselves and as much as they don't want repubs to have power they are certainly not willing to relinquish the possibility of power for themselves. >
  
  But see that’s part of the fun of these hypothetical situations. The odds of the dems even forcing the vote to happen are pretty rare. But if they did or could he’ll they could force the vote change the rules make it so you need unanimous approval to remove the speaker and keep no more proxy voting.. 
  Hypothetically speaking if the dems went full vengeful and voted purely down party lines the Supreme Court would be stacked in their favor tomorrow.. the first time enough republicans are out of town Kevin would be removed and a new rule’s package put in place causing the Republican majority in the house to be hog tied letting the next two years go by with republicans being able to do nothing. And the extremist government we are on the boarder of having would swing from the far right to maybe somewhere left of center. 
  The problem with all of this thought is we know it would never happen because democrats won’t stack the courts like the republicans have for some moral reasons. They are trying to keep the government working like it’s supposed to but won’t play dirty like the other side does.