Might just be a contrarian.
Yes, Johnson is better than I thought he’d be.
McCarthy only ever wanted to be Speaker for its own sake and was willing to give up anything to anyone to get it.
Johnson fancies himself an Old Testament prophet who’s receiving direct communications from Yahweh about how to run the country.
Now that’s a comforting thought. Thanks for sharing. NOT! 
My understanding is that one grievance of (what we in the Commonwealth call) backbenchers is that too many major deals were being cooked up by the congressional leadership, often over weekends, and then presented to the party caucus as a « must vote » for it, without examination in committee, as required by regular order. I think this provision is meant to increase the scrutiny of proposed measures.
That would be the good governance motivation.
Given the bad faith in everything these clowns do, the real reason is simply to ensure less can be done (“the only good government is no government”) and make it far easier for the clown car brigade to torpedo stuff they don’t like before it develops any momentum.
This really isn’t that big a deal. This used to be the rule prior to two sessions ago – the House could only take up bills on suspension on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. That’s because suspension is meant for post office renamings and other noncontroversial legislation. And even with this change, the House can still agree to take up a bill under suspension of the rules on another day of the week, they’d just need to pass a special rule to allow it. That would require a 2/3 vote of the House, but passing a bill on suspension requires 2/3 anyway.
Can this be done without going through the rules committee?
Yeah, he started in politics when he opposed a local porn store. Then he joined and founded a couple of professional Christian movement conservative legal advocacy organizations. Then he was chair of the Republican Study Committee when he was elected to the House.
All of these jobs involve working with people. As opposed to television or radio histrionics. There’s a parallel to Dick Cheney, though Mike Johnson won’t be as effective. They are both very conservative, but they are deal cutters. Dick Cheney’s conservatism endowed him with terrible judgment on foreign relations, while Johnson’s Christian conservatism will give his movement a few gummy bears sprinkled in now and then. The big issues will be a matter of which party has the House majority. There’s only so much a cat herder can do, even if they get a lot of media attention.
I don’t think Mike Johnson is the main story. The main story involves the loving embrace of what the founding fathers called factionalism by a significant rump of the House GOP. Which is fine, except our political system wasn’t built for that: we don’t have proportional representation or coalition governance. Latin American democratic constitutions in the 1800s patterned themselves after the US constitution: I understand they were prone to collapse because the US system depended upon norms far more than was understood then or now.
I’m not an expert on House parliamentary procedure (alas), but the Speaker’s allies plus Democrats on the Rules Committee could easily outvote the FC committee members if they needed to.
I think what’s important to realize is that “suspending the rules” can be used in two different senses. The first is to “suspend and pass” a bill utilizing a procedure that the House has evolved over the course of its existence. This entails putting the bill on the “suspension calendar,” from which the Speaker can then bring it to the floor under an expedited process that limits debate, prohibits amendments and disallows other parliamentary maneuvers to delay consideration. The single motion to suspend and pass the bill requires a 2/3 majority.
This is the process that the article is referring to. Prior to 2021, a motion to suspend and pass was only in order on Monday-Wednesday (or in the last six days of session). The Democrats controlling the House changed the rule to allow suspension votes any day in part to accommodate pandemic-related scheduling issues. Republicans kept that change last session and are now reverting to the previous status quo (although they apparently are removing the “last six days of session” provision).
But the House can suspend enforcement of ANY rule anytime it wants to if it can get a 2/3 vote in favor. It would be more involved than the “suspend and pass” procedure – it may take longer to set up, you’d need two votes, etc. But this isn’t an insurmountable procedural bar to the House passing a budget on a Friday.
This sent me down a rabbit hole learning about Speaker Johnson. What a disgustingly pious fruitcake. He is more dangerous than most realize.
Cite? I mean I know that he represents Christian conservatives. But I haven’t seen any surprising manifestations in terms of policy. Dick Cheney wasn’t especially dangerous in the House. It was within the executive branch that he perfected the art of plutocratic trench warfare.
I admit that I’m demanding a fairly high evidence bar. But in the legislative branch, I can’t think of any deal-cutters who have done much damage on their own. It’s the bomb-throwers and demagogues who do the damage (and of course congressional majorities). Counter-examples might involve somebody who slipped in a small but toxic pet program. I don’t think that’s likely to measure up to McConnellism or Gingrichism.
He’s literally said that God talks to him in the same way that God talked to Moses. I consider anyone who thinks they’re receiving direct instructions from the Almighty to be dangerous.
Thanks for the link. The rhetoric in your quote seems to me like familiar evangelical Christianity. Not my tribe and it doesn’t inspire my trust, but how has this alleged danger ever manifested over the past 50 years? Christian fundamentalists have been in US public life for a while now after all.
ETA: Thanks for the example below. Pros for your case: It’s more credible because GWBush wasn’t speaking at an evangelical fundraiser: he was speaking to Palestinian representatives. Cons: I seriously doubt whether evangelical Christianity was the prime mover for the invasion of Iraq. As an example this article doesn’t contain the word evangelical or Christian (except as the name of someone). The neoconservatives weren’t primarily of evangelical background.
Look, I don’t want to dismiss concerns about politicians espousing proof-because-God-told-me, but given the familiarity of this rhetoric I don’t want to dwell on it either. Prayer is well and good, but I’m not exactly comfortable with world leaders relying on the voices they say are in their heads.
Dubyq invaded Iraq because God told him to.
People who think they’re acting on orders from the guy who created the universe and gets to decide what happens to your soul after you die are capable of causing great harm while believing they’re 100% justified in it.
Yeah, in fact he has been pretty reasonable on things like shut-downs.
So? It hasnt really affected this Speakership. Reagan relied upon Astrology.
No matter what people think -Vice president Cheney was not God.
Obama went to Church on a regular basis. So did JFK. So did FDR. Obviously Carter also.
Three whole weeks? Wow, can’t say he hasn’t paid his dues.
How many of them said God was telling them how to run the country? It’s one thing to talk to God in your prayers, but when God starts answering back, nine times out of ten you ought to see a psychiatrist.
I dont know, none of them ever said as much. But they did pray and get guidance of some sort.
This is not true. Now, hearing ‘voices’ that tell you to do bad things generally is, but not thinking God answers your prayers. it is not considered a mental illness at all.
Then the answer to the question “How many of them said God was telling them to run the country” should be “none of them”.