The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair, that's patreon.com slash

LawFair. Also check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull and the aftermath. If there were 217 votes to say no, like we actually think that

McKenry should be able to do this. The person acting as a speaker pro tem should have this

power and are willing to vote that way on the floor of the house. That would also have

the effect of establishing a precedent. In fact, it would be a little bit more forceful

because we would have an actual vote to look at and say no, this number of house members

voted to say this is the way that the speaker pro tem gets to exercise power. So like if listeners

may or may not have followed closely the mechanics of using the nuclear option in the Senate

to establish a new precedent in the Senate, I'm not saying this would be nuclear in like the way

that it's, you know, a profound change the way the house works. But it's the same mechanism

that involves basically a majority of members being willing to vote to establish a new precedent.

I'm Scott Ar Anderson and this is the LawFair podcast for October 13th, 2023.

The past two weeks have been a historical one for the House of Representatives.

Last week a band of dissident Republicans voted with House Democrats to remove speaker

of the House Kevin McCarthy leaving the office vacant. In his stead,

in ever before used House rule turned to a secret list of temporary successors that identified

Congressman Patrick Mahenry as the new speaker pro tempore. But what exactly he is able to do in this

role and what it means for Congress's ability to pass much needed legislation is far from clear.

To discuss this new predicament, I sat down with Brookings Institution Sr. Fellow and LawFair

Sr. Editor Molly Reynolds. We talked about the history of the rule behind McKenry's appointment.

...