• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Only does anything with a two thirds majority. He’s not going to get that many Republicans to agree that the sun rises in the east, let alone go against their own petty tyrant leader.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Actually there are Republixans working for a Discharge Petition and it only requires a majority of House members to sign on to the petition, which means at least a handful of Republicans would have to sign on to give it teeth.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Discharge petitions do.

          In the U.S. House, successful discharge petitions are rare, as the signatures of an absolute majority of House members are required.[2]

          An early form of the discharge petition was introduced into U.S. House rules in 1910 as part of a series of measures intended to check the power of the disliked Speaker Joseph Gurney Cannon (R–Illinois). The modern version, however, was adopted in 1931 by the 71st House. In 1935, the rules were changed so the number of signatures required to force a vote went from one-third of the chamber (145 votes) to an absolute majority (218 votes).[3][4]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition

          • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            To quote your quotes:

            as the signatures of an absolute majority of House members are required

            to an absolute majority (218 votes)

            An absolute majority is one half, not two-thirds.