The "Hastert Rule" may be dead.

Beaudreaux · Sep 8, 2017

Well folks, the US House of Representatives voted today on Hurricane Harvey Relief and it passed, with less Republicans (133) voting in favor than Democrats (183). 90 Republicans, mostly the "Freedom Caucus" voted NO, and 27 from both parties didn't vote at all.

Here's the vote tally: FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 480 - How'd your Representative vote - mine voted Yeah - McHenry from NC10

So, for the thread topic, what does this mean for the Hastert Rule? Is it dead? Will the GOP leadership take heat from their base for teaming up with the Democrats and turning their back on the Freedom Caucus? How will this make the neverTrump GOP loyalists think, with this cross-isle hug with the Democrats to agree to a deal that Trump brokered with Nancy and Chuckie?

Things may get interesting.

As for me, I'm glad to see cross-isle teamwork to help the nation, especially regarding critical spending such as disaster relief. Politics should stop, both, at the waters edge and inside a disaster zone.

MaggieD · Sep 8, 2017

Beaudreaux said:
Well folks, the US House of Representatives voted today on Hurricane Harvey Relief and it passed, with less Republicans (133) voting in favor than Democrats (183). 90 Republicans, mostly the "Freedom Caucus" voted NO, and 27 from both parties didn't vote at all.

Here's the vote tally: FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 480 - How'd your Representative vote - mine voted Yeah - McHenry from NC10

So, for the thread topic, what does this mean for the Hastert Rule? Is it dead? Will the GOP leadership take heat from their base for teaming up with the Democrats and turning their back on the Freedom Caucus? How will this make the neverTrump GOP loyalists think, with this cross-isle hug with the Democrats to agree to a deal that Trump brokered with Nancy and Chuckie?

Things may get interesting.

As for me, I'm glad to see cross-isle teamwork to help the nation, especially regarding critical spending such as disaster relief. Politics should stop, both, at the waters edge and inside a disaster zone.

In my opinion, anyone who voted against aid for Harvey should be ashamed of themselves. If the Freedom Caucus expected to blackmail Dems over Harvey relief? The Reps SHOULD turn their backs on them.

<alt>doxygen · Sep 8, 2017

Beaudreaux said:
As for me, I'm glad to see cross-isle teamwork to help the nation, especially regarding critical spending such as disaster relief. Politics should stop, both, at the waters edge and inside a disaster zone.

No idea on the future of the "Hastert Rule".

I totally agree with the part of your post that I quoted. We need a congress that works.

Linc · Sep 8, 2017

Since Hastert is from near me and my sport; good riddance. Since more GOPs voted yes than no, that's a good thing. I'll check on the 90 NOs as to if they're already at risk; before this vote; when I have more time; back to honey overdue list ;;;

Beaudreaux · Sep 8, 2017

NIMBY said:
Since Hastert is from near me and my sport; good riddance. Since more GOPs voted yes than no, that's a good thing. I'll check on the 90 NOs as to if they're already at risk; before this vote; when I have more time; back to honey overdue list ;;;

Be safe out there young man, those Honeydo's can get pretty dangerous at times.

JANFU · Sep 8, 2017

Beaudreaux said:
Well folks, the US House of Representatives voted today on Hurricane Harvey Relief and it passed, with less Republicans (133) voting in favor than Democrats (183). 90 Republicans, mostly the "Freedom Caucus" voted NO, and 27 from both parties didn't vote at all.

Here's the vote tally: FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 480 - How'd your Representative vote - mine voted Yeah - McHenry from NC10

So, for the thread topic, what does this mean for the Hastert Rule? Is it dead? Will the GOP leadership take heat from their base for teaming up with the Democrats and turning their back on the Freedom Caucus? How will this make the neverTrump GOP loyalists think, with this cross-isle hug with the Democrats to agree to a deal that Trump brokered with Nancy and Chuckie?

Things may get interesting.

As for me, I'm glad to see cross-isle teamwork to help the nation, especially regarding critical spending such as disaster relief. Politics should stop, both, at the waters edge and inside a disaster zone.

I was unaware of what the Hastert rule is- for those like me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

The Hastert Rule, also known as the "majority of the majority" rule, is an informal governing principle used in the United States by Republican[1][2][3] Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s to maintain their speakerships[4] and limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the House.[5] Under the doctrine, the Speaker will not allow a floor vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.[6]

The Hastert Rule is an informal rule and the Speaker is not bound by it; he or she may break it at his or her discretion. Speakers have at times broken the Hastert Rule and allowed votes to be scheduled on legislation that lacked majority support within the Speaker's own party. Hastert described the rule as being "kind of a misnomer" in that it "never really existed" as a rule.

JANFU · Sep 8, 2017

Beaudreaux said:
Well folks, the US House of Representatives voted today on Hurricane Harvey Relief and it passed, with less Republicans (133) voting in favor than Democrats (183). 90 Republicans, mostly the "Freedom Caucus" voted NO, and 27 from both parties didn't vote at all.

Here's the vote tally: FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 480 - How'd your Representative vote - mine voted Yeah - McHenry from NC10

So, for the thread topic, what does this mean for the Hastert Rule? Is it dead? Will the GOP leadership take heat from their base for teaming up with the Democrats and turning their back on the Freedom Caucus? How will this make the neverTrump GOP loyalists think, with this cross-isle hug with the Democrats to agree to a deal that Trump brokered with Nancy and Chuckie?

Things may get interesting.

As for me, I'm glad to see cross-isle teamwork to help the nation, especially regarding critical spending such as disaster relief. Politics should stop, both, at the waters edge and inside a disaster zone.

If they want progress, and I use that lightly, it takes cooperation from both sides.
Bills that have wide support within both parties should be considered. Yes deals will be made, that is politics. Having the extreme left or right run policy is ludicrous and harmful to the US.
Reason I support the 60 vote rule in the Senate.

Chomsky · Sep 8, 2017

Hastert is gone, a disgraced felon. And his rule should follow him.

Fearandloathing · Sep 8, 2017

MaggieD said:
In my opinion, anyone who voted against aid for Harvey should be ashamed of themselves. If the Freedom Caucus expected to blackmail Dems over Harvey relief? The Reps SHOULD turn their backs on them.

My question is why would they?

What do they gain by openly opposing it, when they could have achieved the same result not voting?

This just makes them look like stingy assholes, assholes we knew before, but selfish and stingy are not popular traits

Beaudreaux · Sep 8, 2017

JANFU said:
I was unaware of what the Hastert rule is- for those like me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

The Hastert Rule is what has kept the GOP controlled House of Representatives from allowing numerous bills from ever reaching the floor for a vote of the whole House. If a bill couldn't pass with a "majority of the majority" it would never see the floor of the House, and would die in committee.

The majority of the majority doesn't mean what it sounds like. It means what I described above. A bill would have to have a be able to pass (have a minimum of 218 votes in favor) with just the majority party voting for it. If that wasn't the case, if there were less than 218 votes from the majority party, the Hastert Rule wouldn't allow the bill to be voted upon.

In this instance, there were not 218 Republican votes, and the Speaker and the Majority Leader had to ask for Democrats to vote with the majority to pass the bill. That's almost sacrilegious in todays day and age - hence the reason for me starting this thread. Is this the beginning of the end of gotcha BS politics? Or is it just a one-off because Trump did an end run around the GOP and cut a deal with the Democrat leadership?

The purpose of the rule (even though it's unofficial) was to limit the power of the minority party in the House. It was simply political payback by the GOP for decades of Democratic control of the House where the Democrats tended to run roughshod over the GOP whenever they wanted, with similar rules and procedures.

Political payback is not a reasonable way to run a country or a government. Both parties are guilty of the same crap. I hope this is the beginning of the end of that type of politics. We can have lively fights over policy and whether this or that is Constitutional or not, or whether that or the other thing is a power of the federal government or the states, but when it comes to balancing the budget, raising the debt ceiling when and only when it's critical to do so (like now), supporting the overall economy when it's critical to do so (nationally after a market crash or locally after a hurricane, flood, or tornado), and helping our own people (citizens) get back on their feet following a disaster or even just a personal low point in their lives, we ALL should agree that we must come together for those reasons alone - plus national defense and other obvious issues.

Sorry, I just noticed that I went on, and on...

JANFU · Sep 8, 2017

Beaudreaux said:
The Hastert Rule is what has kept the GOP controlled House of Representatives from allowing numerous bills from ever reaching the floor for a vote of the whole House. If a bill couldn't pass with a "majority of the majority" it would never see the floor of the House, and would die in committee.

The majority of the majority doesn't mean what it sounds like. It means what I described above. A bill would have to have a be able to pass (have a minimum of 218 votes in favor) with just the majority party voting for it. If that wasn't the case, if there were less than 218 votes from the majority party, the Hastert Rule wouldn't allow the bill to be voted upon.

In this instance, there were not 218 Republican votes, and the Speaker and the Majority Leader had to ask for Democrats to vote with the majority to pass the bill. That's almost sacrilegious in todays day and age - hence the reason for me starting this thread. Is this the beginning of the end of gotcha BS politics? Or is it just a one-off because Trump did an end run around the GOP and cut a deal with the Democrat leadership?

The purpose of the rule (even though it's unofficial) was to limit the power of the minority party in the House. It was simply political payback by the GOP for decades of Democratic control of the House where the Democrats tended to run roughshod over the GOP whenever they wanted, with similar rules and procedures.

Political payback is not a reasonable way to run a country or a government. Both parties are guilty of the same crap. I hope this is the beginning of the end of that type of politics. We can have lively fights over policy and whether this or that is Constitutional or not, or whether that or the other thing is a power of the federal government or the states, but when it comes to balancing the budget, raising the debt ceiling when and only when it's critical to do so (like now), supporting the overall economy when it's critical to do so (nationally after a market crash or locally after a hurricane, flood, or tornado), and helping our own people (citizens) get back on their feet following a disaster or even just a personal low point in their lives, we ALL should agree that we must come together for those reasons alone - plus national defense and other obvious issues.

Sorry, I just noticed that I went on, and on...

Thank you for such a clear explanation- and I agree with you

fmw · Sep 8, 2017

MaggieD said:
In my opinion, anyone who voted against aid for Harvey should be ashamed of themselves. If the Freedom Caucus expected to blackmail Dems over Harvey relief? The Reps SHOULD turn their backs on them.

They weren't voting against Harvey relief, they were voting against the debt ceiling expansion which was in the same bill.

sangha · Sep 8, 2017

Beaudreaux said:
Well folks, the US House of Representatives voted today on Hurricane Harvey Relief and it passed, with less Republicans (133) voting in favor than Democrats (183). 90 Republicans, mostly the "Freedom Caucus" voted NO, and 27 from both parties didn't vote at all.

Here's the vote tally: FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 480 - How'd your Representative vote - mine voted Yeah - McHenry from NC10

So, for the thread topic, what does this mean for the Hastert Rule? Is it dead? Will the GOP leadership take heat from their base for teaming up with the Democrats and turning their back on the Freedom Caucus? How will this make the neverTrump GOP loyalists think, with this cross-isle hug with the Democrats to agree to a deal that Trump brokered with Nancy and Chuckie?

Things may get interesting.

As for me, I'm glad to see cross-isle teamwork to help the nation, especially regarding critical spending such as disaster relief. Politics should stop, both, at the waters edge and inside a disaster zone.

I agree with the Hastert quote JANFU posted in #6 - It was never ever a rule. It was more like an excuse Hastert used to shelve a piece of legislation he did not like and when called on it, he tried to elevate it to a Matter of Principle.

BTW, very perceptive of you to link the Hastert Rule to this latest deal.

Sweden · Sep 8, 2017

Beaudreaux said:
Well folks, the US House of Representatives voted today on Hurricane Harvey Relief and it passed, with less Republicans (133) voting in favor than Democrats (183). 90 Republicans, mostly the "Freedom Caucus" voted NO, and 27 from both parties didn't vote at all.

Here's the vote tally: FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 480 - How'd your Representative vote - mine voted Yeah - McHenry from NC10

So, for the thread topic, what does this mean for the Hastert Rule? Is it dead? Will the GOP leadership take heat from their base for teaming up with the Democrats and turning their back on the Freedom Caucus? How will this make the neverTrump GOP loyalists think, with this cross-isle hug with the Democrats to agree to a deal that Trump brokered with Nancy and Chuckie?

Things may get interesting.

As for me, I'm glad to see cross-isle teamwork to help the nation, especially regarding critical spending such as disaster relief. Politics should stop, both, at the waters edge and inside a disaster zone.

Not 'less' Republicans. Fewer Republicans - let us focus on what really matters here.

hank1963 · Sep 8, 2017

Beaudreaux said:
Well folks, the US House of Representatives voted today on Hurricane Harvey Relief and it passed, with less Republicans (133) voting in favor than Democrats (183). 90 Republicans, mostly the "Freedom Caucus" voted NO, and 27 from both parties didn't vote at all.

Here's the vote tally: FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 480 - How'd your Representative vote - mine voted Yeah - McHenry from NC10

So, for the thread topic, what does this mean for the Hastert Rule? Is it dead? Will the GOP leadership take heat from their base for teaming up with the Democrats and turning their back on the Freedom Caucus? How will this make the neverTrump GOP loyalists think, with this cross-isle hug with the Democrats to agree to a deal that Trump brokered with Nancy and Chuckie?

Things may get interesting.

As for me, I'm glad to see cross-isle teamwork to help the nation, especially regarding critical spending such as disaster relief. Politics should stop, both, at the waters edge and inside a disaster zone.

how would the "Hastert Rule" be dead if the majority of republicans voted for hurricane Harvey relief?

Beaudreaux · Sep 8, 2017

hank1963 said:
how would the "Hastert Rule" be dead if the majority of republicans voted for hurricane Harvey relief?

I explained that in Post #10.

hank1963 · Sep 8, 2017

Beaudreaux said:
I explained that in Post #10.

the rule.

Under the doctrine, the Speaker will not allow a floor vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.

it does not mean this as you stated.

A bill would have to have a be able to pass (have a minimum of 218 votes in favor) with just the majority party voting for it.

Linc · Sep 8, 2017

hank1963 said:
the rule.

Under the doctrine, the Speaker will not allow a floor vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.

it does not mean this as you stated.

It's always meant 218 from the majority party; which is why the TEA party and now the Freedom Caucus have frozen the House since GOPs came in to power in early 2011 ...

Linc · Sep 8, 2017

Sweden said:
Not 'less' Republicans. Fewer Republicans - let us focus on what really matters here.

What matters is that trump neutered the Freedumb Circus ...

Linc · Sep 8, 2017

fmw said:
They weren't voting against Harvey relief, they were voting against the debt ceiling expansion which was in the same bill.

That was your GOP leaders who attached the debt ceiling to Harvey relief ...

hank1963 · Sep 8, 2017

NIMBY said:
It's always meant 218 from the majority party; which is why the TEA party and now the Freedom Caucus have frozen the House since GOPs came in to power in early 2011 ...

show me a quote from Hastert that states it must have 218 votes.

MaggieD · Sep 8, 2017

fmw said:
They weren't voting against Harvey relief, they were voting against the debt ceiling expansion which was in the same bill.

But what did it look like? And raising the debt limit was and is going to happen, so what's the point?

hank1963 · Sep 8, 2017

NIMBY said:
It's always meant 218 from the majority party; which is why the TEA party and now the Freedom Caucus have frozen the House since GOPs came in to power in early 2011 ...

wrong!

JasperL · Sep 8, 2017

NIMBY said:
It's always meant 218 from the majority party; which is why the TEA party and now the Freedom Caucus have frozen the House since GOPs came in to power in early 2011 ...

It's never how I've understood the concept. Majority of the majority means just that. If the GOP is the majority party, with e.g. 235 and the Dems with 200 seats, then the rule would require 118 Republicans in favor to bring it to a vote, at least - >50% of republicans. What it would prevent in this case is Ryan scheduling a debt ceiling vote with only, say, 30 GOPers on board with Pelosi delivering 188 to get it through. But the reverse would be entirely OK under the Hastert rule - 188 GOP, 30 Dems. It's consistent with this explanation by Gingrich:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...is-common-sense-for-strong-leadership?mcubz=3

The so-called Hastert rule is simply common sense. No speaker can survive if he or she brings up a series of bills opposed by a majority of his or her party.
....
I first heard this rule from Speaker Tom Foley when I was the Republican whip and we were negotiating a budget agreement with President George H. W. Bush. Foley said flatly that he would not schedule anything that did not have a majority of the Democrats supporting it. He didn't describe it as "the Foley rule." He did say he would be defeated by his caucus if he abandoned them to side with Republicans.

What turned this common sense principle into a practical strait jacket in recent years has been House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's ability to keep the Democrats in lockstep. Suddenly a speaker’s ability to take a majority of the Republican conference (124 votes) and combine it with 94 Democrats has all but disappeared. In fact, the ability to take an 80 percent majority of the Republican conference (198 votes) and combine it with even 20 Democrats is also rare.

The Democrats’ uniformity has made the original Foley-Hastert rule almost an afterthought. Republicans now need far more than a majority of their majority because there simply is not a significant number of Democrats who are willing to cooperate on many issues.

Linc · Sep 8, 2017

JasperL said:
It's never how I've understood the concept. Majority of the majority means just that. If the GOP is the majority party, with e.g. 235 and the Dems with 200 seats, then the rule would require 118 Republicans in favor to bring it to a vote, at least - >50% of republicans. What it would prevent in this case is Ryan scheduling a debt ceiling vote with only, say, 30 GOPers on board with Pelosi delivering 188 to get it through. It's consistent with this explanation by Gingrich:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...is-common-sense-for-strong-leadership?mcubz=3

The problem with that is the interpretation of the 2011 GOP congress to require 218 votes from the GOP to pass anything
...

The "Hastert Rule" may be dead.

Preserve Protect Defend

"I want MY WALL!"

NIMBY

Preserve Protect Defend

Land by the Gulf Stream

Land by the Gulf Stream

Social Democrat

How long is now?

Preserve Protect Defend

Land by the Gulf Stream

Member

Preserve Protect Defend

Member

NIMBY

NIMBY

NIMBY

Member

Member

NIMBY