comment: >
  
  Do the democrats have the same option? I would think that they would, since they voted for speaker too.
context: It’s not like they’re limited to one motion to vacate a day. We could have 50 motions to vacate every day. >
  
  ill have the popcorn ready >
  
  It'll be used a lot. In most cases the Chair will recognize a "Nay" voice vote and a call for actual voting will be much rarer.
  Once the Rules package is passed, and I think that will be bloody, and the committee assignments are finished, also bloody, you'll see a fairly unified Republican House gleefully getting on with their investigations. This will be their only work until September because the legislation they consider will only be ineffective show not serious enough to do battle with each other. >
  
  Does a Republican have to make the motion or can any congressman voice their motion? It has to be only Republicans correct? >
  
  The new Rules can say anything they want but theoretically it can be anyone.
  In practice the Chair of course can recognize or ignore whomever it wants. It can rule anyone out of order. When a voice vote is called the Chair decides who wins. A request for standing votes is also an eye count by the Chair. Only if a request from the floor gets by that would the electronic Yays & Nays be called. And even then, votes can be held open beyond the clock for change, arm twisting, members dying of old age.
  In practical terms I don't see a successful motion by a Democrat ever being made for a change in the Speakership. 
  Unlike the Senate where there are drastic limitations on the power of a slight/modest majority, in the House the slimmest of majorities is absolute and can do just about anything it wants (to the opposition, I'm not talking about the mess among themselves). This absolute power will become most obvious in the "investigations" and subpoenas to come. >
  
  It's not that surprising a change from what I can tell. The current rule was only made in 2019. >
  
  
  It's not that surprising a change from what I can tell. The current rule was only made in 2019
  
  Different world. The House has been going crazy for 20 years but it's on an exponential growth curve. >
  
  No, totally true. Just saying that the rule itself isn't that crazygonuts >
  
  I think the small anti-McCarthy faction will threaten to use this many times, both publicly and quietly, to no avail. Do they actually go through with it and force a vote? At least once, yes. I cannot imagine a world where Gaetz and the others get this concession and choose not to use it. 
  The real question is - what will the votes look like when it does inevitably happen? Democrats will all vote to remove. Maybe a few vote present if they are vulnerable in a purple district and facing a serious GOP challenge in 2024. In all likelihood though the Dems will unite in voting for removal.
  After that, it’s a matter of picking off 5 more Republicans to votes. This would be very difficult, even though the recent speaker debacle makes it seem otherwise. Getting a speaker removed from the position would ostracize even someone as shitty as Gaetz, if only because it would further signal a gargantuan rift within the party. Everyone that blocked McCarthy knows this and won’t take the risk, especially if McCarthy continues to be weak and gives them what they want in the name of peace. 
  The Democrats are stronger than the GOP bargained for and the looming chaos of the 2024 presidential primary are giving McCarthy quite a lot of pressure to keep his house in order. He knows the motion to vacate will occur eventually - it is in his interest to keep the psychos at bay no matter the cost. >
  
  
  Everyone that blocked McCarthy knows this and won’t take the risk
  
  I can't say I'm as certain. Everything feels so unprecedented and crazy, a part of me could absolutely see them doing that. >
  
  
  Will Dems use this tactic to stall Republican legislation?
  
  No, because the rule will be written so that only a member of the majority party can do it. >
  
  I don't think they can actually write rules that limit the minority otherwise why stop there, why not write a rule that states that the minority cannot enter the building, or that the minority cannot vote unless they stand on one leg while singing the peanut butter jelly song? >
  
  This is a very logical argument and I agree with you. Republicans will undoubtably try anyway. Throw everything against the wall and see what sticks, etc. >
  
  People who have different  opinions than me are evil and will do any and all things with evil motives
  Curious, do you know the definition of bigotry? >
  
  People aren't really upset about the opinions in Congress, they're upset about their incredibly shitty behavior these last 10 years. They've supported insurrection, stuck up for a traitor, threw out rules when it's about them, and generally acted like petulant children when they don't get their way. Even Senate Republicans bashed House Republicans for being so unprofessional and incompetent. 
  If the people charged with upholding conservative ideals weren't complete pieces of shit...too stupid to even manage a fast food restaurant, let alone be a productive member of Congress, people wouldn't disrespect them just for their opinions. >
  
  No one in congress supported the blm riots nor the 6th riots aka the insurrections as an insurrection is a revolt against the gov or civil authority (police)
  Members f congress supported the ideas and misinformation that led to these so called insurections
  Threw out rules?  You mean like when democrats tossed the 60% rule to stop a filibuster of judges so they could pass on Hispanic, conservative judge who they feared the gop was setting up to be the first Hispanic judge?
  Let's be honest, people only oppose the changing of rules when it helps the other team and support it when it helps theirs
  But you hatred and bigotry is clear.  The only thing interesting is people of your ilk claim to oppose hatred and bigotry while embracing it >
  
  
  No one in congress supported the blm riots nor the 6th riots aka the insurrections
  
  You sure about that bud? >
  
  Yes I'm sure, no where in that link did anyone support the blm riots/insurrection nor the 6th riots/insurrection >
  
  That’s literally a link to an article with a picture of Josh Hawley throwing up a fist to the crowd that would eventually becomes the insurrectionist mob. Are you fucking kidding me? The mental gymnastics are goddamn astounding. >
  
  So it's him supporting non violent protesters.
  You are aware that less than 5% of those protesters participated in the rioting that followed
  If a democrat supported non violent protesters before violence broke out, would you then claim they supported the violence that followed?
  The only one performing gymnastics is you.  You are trying to claim support of non violent protesters is equal to supporting riots because a small number of protesters later rioted >
  
  It will not be used in the next two years.  If there is some smoking gun scandal that needs bold partisan action, McCarthy isn't going to hold it back.
  The only way it would be used otherwise is if Matt Gaetz wants to get his kisser on TV.  He is a fame whore and a sniveling snake. >
  
  I think you are underestimating the drive and insanity of Lauren Boebert. 
  (And a few others as well.) >
  
  Came here looking for this comment. If every single member is given a trigger, there are Republicans who want chaos and will just pull the trigger nonstop. The way it’s written favors nutty, fringe politics. >
  
  Yeah, it'll be used next time someone is desperate for fundraising. >
  
  Why are we trying to discuss rules that haven't been published or even leaked?
  Give me text from the House Rules and Manual or legislative text of a proposed resolution. It's astonishing that we don't have the latter. >
  
  There was a PDF shared already >
  
  It will be used by the confederates in the freedom caucus on a regular basis…whenever they don’t get what they want. >
  
  Probably next to never.  It’s pointless unless they actually believe they can replace the speaker, and they need a majority still to do that.  
  Then again, it might be used as a time wasting technique.  But they can change rules at any time and if this gets out of hand I’d see them just making a rule amendment soon enough. >
  
  15 votes just to end up with Kevin McCarthy was pointless too. Your thought process is failing here because you want things to make sense and assume that every adult in Congress has some pragmatic streak about getting stuff done. They don't. They're a lame duck Congress whose only goals will be advancing their culture war and making a false equivalence between investigations into Trump and those they will launch towards Biden. >
  
  But I think, unless they can force a re-election itself by a single member motion, what we’d be looking at is Gaetz or someone making a motion,  an ally seconding, and then it failing to advance because there won’t be a majority wanting to remove the speaker and have another election.   The Dems were happy to keep Jeffries in contention and for this election nonsense to highlight the dysfunction of the GOP, but I think they will be less likely to allow us to dissolve into this again, especially if the contention is that the Q-wing of the GOP isn’t getting enough special treatment.  
  Could be wrong on that, but I’m less giving credit to the GOP on this than thinking that there are too many reps who just want to keep doing some business and don’t want this whole session to be elections for speaker. >
  
  That’s the thing, they don’t care if the vote to replace fails.  They just want to use it as the Senate version of a filibuster.  By forcing that vote over and over. >
  
  There is no limitation on how many times. Point of order is one way, which is the quickest way. It will be used as a harassment technique by the extremist right wing to pressure Kevin; Whenever they disagree with him. 
  McCarthy has already agreed to any single member can call for a motion to vacate. That is how he dwindled the 20 holdouts, and some others to just abstain [lowering the threshold] giving him a 216/212 win
  The rules, to take effect, has to be adopted. If Kevin tries to backdown on his promises, look out for bigger drama and chaos. >
  
  It’s tough to say because we haven’t had this exact situation before.  
  Technically, this was the rule prior to 2019 when it was changed and it wasn’t used much then, because all the Speaker needs to retain power is to have majority support within their own party.  Ryan, Boehner, and Gingrich all faced 1 vote recalls, but they survived them because at the time Republicans mostly wanted to govern, and so following logic laid down by Hastert, if a Speaker could keep the majority of the majority happy it didn’t matter because without a more popular alternative they would surrender to the current speaker to go back to governing.  
  The thing is though, the traditional logic doesn’t work for the current MAGA wing because they don’t care about governing.  They would be more than happy to call for a vote over and over, let it fail, paralyze reelecting the Speaker, and simply use it as a veto/filibuster.  Since that group really doesn’t care about the House functioning, it matters little to them if there’s a new Speaker fight. >
  
  It could also be a path for bipartisan efforts to prevent 20 radicals from destroying the country