Boehner has tied himself to a "rule" (Hastert) that does not exist.

[kentuck]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/dennis-hastert-there-is-no-hastert-rule-20131003

<snip>
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert says the famous—or infamous—rule that bears his name doesn't actually exist. "There really wasn't a 'Hastert Rule,' " the longest-serving Republican speaker, who is now a lobbyist and consultant, told National Journal in a phone interview Wednesday evening.

The Hastert Rule, as it's become known, is more of a self-imposed standard that says House leaders shouldn't allow a vote on a bill unless it has the support of the majority of their own party. The rule has been cited as the reason Speaker John Boehner won't bring up a clean continuing resolution to reopen the government, even though it probably has the 218 votes needed to pass, as well as the reason Congress can't pass immigration reform, new gun-control laws, or much else.

If Boehner were only willing to break the Hastert Rule more often, the thinking goes, the possibilities would be endless. Of course, that's probably not going to happen, but either way, Hastert says don't blame him.

"That was a misnomer at a press conference. One time they asked me about immigration legislation, why don't I just use Democrat votes? I said, well I'm never going to not have a majority of my own party go along with me. If you do that, then you're not using your own policy. And [the press] blew that up as the Hastert Rule. The Hastert Rule, really, was: If you don't have 218 votes, you didn't bring the bill to the floor," he explained.

....more

[unblock]

1. ah, it really is "i'm never going to not have a majority of my own party go along with me"

which is a completely different way of saying exactly the same thing.

thanks for setting us straight, denny.

[kentuck]

2. He was saying that if he did not have 218 votes total, Democrats included, for a bill...

He would not bring it to a vote. Boehner has misinterpreted it badly to mean if he doesn't have 218 Republicans for a bill, he will not bring it to a vote. Theoretically, if the Repubs had 218 members in the slim majority and only one was against a bill, it would not come up for a vote. That is insanity.

[unblock]

3. no one has taken it that way. that's not just insanity, that's just plain stupid.

the two alternatives are (a) do you need a majority of the entire house or (b) do you need a majority of the majority party.

hastert's trying to confuse the issue by ending up talking about (a), but his earlier comments (and actual behavior as speaker) made it clear it was always (b).

for example, with 300 republicans in the house, with support from 151 republicans and 70 democrats, that would be ok.
but with support of 149 republicans and 80 democrats, that would not. it's a majority of the house, but not the majority of the republicans. hastert wouldn't bring that bill to the floor for a vote because then he wouldn't be using his power to advance republican interests, he'd just be serving the interests of whatever majority existed on any issue. that was the entire point of the hastert rule or guideline or whatever.

[Recursion]

6. Hastert would not move a bill the majority of the GOP was against

Boehner seems to not move a bill unless he can win with only R votes. That's how parliaments behave, except that works because governments in a parliamentary system can fall at any time. Here, well, you can see the problem.

[unblock]

9. i've not seen this from boner. so far he's only blocked things a majority of republicans oppose.

and i thought that was the complaint this time round, that a majority of the house would get government going but not a majority of republicans so he's blocking it.

i've not heard that a majority of the house AND a majority of the republicans are supporting something but he's blocking it because he can't get 218 REPUBLICANS.

please point me to a link if i'm wrong.

[kentuck]

12. He can't get 218 Republicans...

Because 20 or so Republicans have agreed to vote with the Democrats to open the government. That would mean he would only have 215 votes to keep it closed. So he is applying a rule to keep those "Republican" voters from joining the Democrats in a vote. But the main point is that he doesn't want to open the government for political reasons because it would blow their scam to destroy Obamacare.

Boehner has broken the "Hastert rule" before is my understanding.

[unblock]

14. you're saying a majority of republicans want to end this?

because i haven't seen that anywhere.

[kentuck]

17. No.

Only the majority of the House. Boehner is Speaker of the House, not Speaker of the Tea Party.

[kentuck]

7. Hastert helped George W....

...shove his taxcuts and wars down the throat of the American people.

But Boehner is elected Speaker of the whole House, not just the Tea Party branch of the Republican Party. He is bending severely, if not breaking, the rules of the House.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. And in essence Boner is saying

that the House GOP membership IS the "legitimate" Legislative Branch and is co-equal to the Executive Branch and the Judiciary Branch. House Democrats, Independents and the entire Senate do not exist (*except for Turd Crudz).

[treestar]

11. +1

Typical Republican assholery.

[Recursion]

5. It exists now. See the rule change they snuck in

Boehner and Cantor now have to agree to a floor motion. The Speaker has gelded himself.

[kentuck]

8. That's a good way to say it.

He gelded himself.

[treestar]

10. And what an asshole rule that it

An attempt to disenfranchise minority Democrats and their constituents completely. Or to make sure they have no say in what bills get brought to vote.

[former9thward]

15. That is how the House is set up.

And always has been. The Speaker decides what is brought to the floor. When Pelosi was Speaker no Republican bills were allowed. Once a bill is on the floor amendments are allowed by anyone. That just the way it is.

[titaniumsalute]

13. But he didn't follow this as Speaker when he took a Hurricane Sandy vote

He did a full bi-partisan vote with the House. So he's already broken the Precedent.

[Blue Owl]

16. He tied himself to a turd -- now FLUSH IT

n/t