What does “hall pass” mean in this context? Because in my default way of reading this, it would mean the opposite of what it’s supposed to mean.
They’re going to vote against it, but won’t “pull a McCarthy” on Johnson over it.
I can see that this is what it must mean. However, it’s still an awkward use of the phrase. A hall pass is explicit approval to do something that you wouldn’t be allowed to do without a hall pass. If a teacher gives you a hall pass, that doesn’t mean that you’re on thin ice, for example.
Can they “pull a McCarthy”? My understanding is that McCarthy put a poison pill in place as part of the agreement to get him elected speaker. That pill was executed on and McCarthy was removed. Is it still in place?
Yes. What McCarthy agreed to was part of the House of Representatives rules as part of forming this incarnation of the body. (Technically when choosing the speaker at the start of a term there is no House because no members have been sworn in yet.)
The rules can also be changed mid-term but Republicans didn’t change the motion to vacate rule back because 1) the whack jobs still want it 2) the “sane” Republicans don’t have the votes to do it themselves and 3) the minority party almost never supports a rule change in the House – it’s seen as a duty of the majority and in this case it isn’t in the Democrats’ interest to change it anyway.
On that last point, note that the CR that’s being proposed would have the easiest time getting passed – needing a simple majority – by using a rules change right before it, which also only requires a simple majority. Rep Jeffries has flat out stated no Democrat will vote for a rules change as that is the responsibility of the majority party. So what’s likely to happen is the Freedumb Caucus votes down the rule change. In which case, the CR will have to be passed under suspension of the rules which requires a two-thirds vote at which point Democratic lawmakers would vote for it.
The “one vote to vote to eject the Speaker” rule is still in play.
By “pull a McCarthy,” I meant vote to kick him out because he worked with the Democrats to keep the government open. It sounds like the Freedom Caucus isn’t going to kick Johnson out for this.
Didn’t read the article, probably means the Freedom Caucus needs some time in the Capitol washrooms to go vape together or something.
They are allowing it
In the article, it says that the Freedom Caucus opposes the plan.
But they’re not going to try and oust him as speaker over it.
deleted by creator
You didn’t get the memo? It was called the Fascist Caucus all along, they had all their letter heads set up with FC. When they finally went public though the name wouldn’t do well, but they didn’t want to waste money on the letter head update, so they chose Freedom Caucus.
I thought it was well established that just like the The Ministry of Peace concerned itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture, and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation, that groups like the Freedom Caucus and Moms For Liberty were held to mean the exact opposite of their namesake.
Democratic People’s Republic of (north) Korea
Shitty headline
The group isn’t pleased with the legislation, but doesn’t plan to try to oust Johnson over the move.
That’s good I guess…I don’t even know anymore.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told reporters “Here we are, we’re doing the same thing,” noting that they’ll oppose the plan
Yeah, because if the Freedom Caucus opposes a Republican plan, the Speaker needs to get help from Democrats. That is the math of the House right now. So if the Freedom Caucus keeps taking the same hardline approach, the same thing happens in response.
Not really realistic to assume everyone’s 9th choice for Speaker has the persuasion capability to make Moderates vote for the hard-right CR.
Which is kinda funny since a laddered CR was their idea to begin with.
