Prevailing view seems to be that House is all but frozen 'til it elects a speaker. That might be politically true & possibly interpretation of H. parliamentarian. But “parliamentary law” offers MC-elects procedural flexibility. Could elect temp speaker to ensure 1/6 EC vote count succeeds.

Comments

Seems to me that Johnson and allies (which is almost the entire conference!) want people to believe the House would be frozen because it's a powerful reason for dissenters to shut up - and Dems also want people to believe it because it emphasizes chaos.
Agree! Just think it's important to make plain these are essentially politically-shaped pathways & needn't foreclose technically possible alternatives. True, we expect the chair to follow parliamentarian's advice/precedent. But majorities *could* appeal to change course-- for better or for worse 🤓
Oh, yes, not disagreeing at all with you.
Nor with you 🤓
We could be in a similar place to the all-consuming 🤓 2023 debate over powers of acting speaker McHenry after House booted Speaker McCarthy: Many congressional scholars interpreted McH's powers as far more expansive than did the House parliamentarian. GOP/Dem deference to H. parls ruled the day.
Details & context (2023 v 2025) differ of course: Replacing McCarthy mid-year vs electing new speaker before House has adopted its rules. But predicament is the same: What is technically vs politically possible in light of (likely) small-c conservative advice from parliamentarian and MC deference.
TBC I've not seen reporting on what House parliamentarian might be advising party leaders wrt protracted spkrship election bleeding (figuratively!) into 1/6 EC vote count. But 2023 reminds: parliamentarians prefer not to rock the procedural boat. Potentially limits plasticity of leg institutions
lol, just let the clusterfuck begin, ffs...
so the parliamentarian does do things to republicans too, neat!