There is a vote today on the House rules that will be followed under the Republican majority, and Speaker McCarthy. What does that mean to us? As far as I can tell, the Republicans plan to return the House to the way it once was, instead of the twisted mess made by Nancy Pelosi. Newt Gingrich and Jonathan Turley explain.

As Jonathan Turley said in a recent op-ed in The Hill:

Moreover, many in the media were honest about what they consider his greatest shortcoming: “Kevin McCarthy is no Nancy Pelosi.”

Some of us sincerely hope so.

While Pelosi (D-Calif.) remains the ideal of many in the media, she tolerated little public debate or dissent. She thrilled her base with such infamous performative acts as tearing up a State of the Union Address of then-President Trump. As an all-powerful speaker, she oversaw a series of party-line votes with little opportunity for amendments or even to read some bills.

Many Republicans did not want the Pelosi model of an all-powerful speaker. For these members, the agreement with McCarthy is a type of Magna Carta.

[. . .]

No one is seriously suggesting that the GOP agreement is the new Magna Carta, but it is meant to redefine legislative rights — and it could have tangible improvements for the House.

I have worked in the House in various roles since I was a House leadership page in the 1970s and, much later, represented the House in litigation. I’ve watched the body become less transparent, less deliberative, with every passing year.

The Framers saw the House as a powerful forum to address factions in society, a legislative crucible where different interests could be expressed and resolved in majoritarian compromise. The legislative process can inform citizens while exposing legislative proposals to public scrutiny. But that process has been largely replaced with a series of robotic, preordained votes.

[. . .]

Many in the media counter that such changes reduce the speaker’s power, as if the status quo under Pelosi was the optimal legislative model. Yet some changes would empower rank-and-file members to allow for greater diversity of views — not necessarily a bad thing.

[. . .]

Notably, what has unnerved so many in Washington is that this speakership debate was not just largely public but also unscripted. It was an actual deliberation, conducted in front of the American people. While repellent to many, it just might be something that voters could get accustomed to.

Turley goes on to explain what the GOP holdouts intended to accomplish. Read the entire Op-Ed for the details, but here are the bullet points:

• Restoring the ‘Vacate the Chair’ rule
• Restore legislative review and deliberation
• Reinstate budget and tax procedures
• Committee reforms

The 55th Speaker: Kevin McCarthy is no Nancy Pelosi — and that’s a good thing