They can oust the speaker with a very small number of defections that would achieve a majority. There's no motivation for the minority factions within the majority to do so though - the only chance they have of passing their hardline agenda is by refusing to give the majority the ability to do anything. This isn't a problem if you have a much larger majority but they're barely holding onto the title right now.

In Canada we call an election.

There is. They can find enough willing defectors from the majority faction to become the majority themselves, vacate the chair and install someone else as speaker. If you're talking about a way for the minority to seize control of the chamber against the will of the majority, well, I challenge you to find a way to describe the rules for how that should work in a way that isn't easily gameable.

He was picked precisely because he's a spineless, vulnerable back bencher.

He doesn't fundraise well enough to threaten party members with money. He doesn't have a large popular base of support within the public. And he doesn't even play well with the billionaire class to get Elon Musk to yell at people for him.

The only reason he hasn't been tossed out like Paul Ryan or Kevin McCarthy is because there's nobody to replace him.

America has voted to allow this for decades. Too late to bitch about it now.

Too bad they got the master surveillance and internet censorship bipartisan Bill through before this happened

Could be the whole plan. An unsigned bill becomes law if Congress remains in session, or gets the "pocket veto" if they leave, isn't that the rules?

agreed, and that's a hard record to beat what with Hastert still being alive

It isn’t as much as not knowing how to govern as much as they just don’t want to. They are managing a power shift away from those that do. Only there to grab power and if they can also fit some grift in they will.

His job is just to have a haircut that makes it seem sensible to do whatever it is that they want to do.

I'm all for screwing with Johnson in every way possible, but let's not get excited about Jeffries. We elected Biden to deal with MAGA, and he and the MAGA comedy act of Schmuck & Jeffries helped them get right back into office.

Jeffries had his chance, and he did a piss poor job of it. He's doesn't get a second chance. What he should get, along with his buddy Schmuck, is a Congressional subpoena, to find out which Sociopathic Oligarchs paid him to not offer any resistance to MAGA at all.

What are your specific concerns about the article?

Being aware of bias and potential concerns about accuracy is good, but it's not just some catch-all thing where you dismiss something entirely because it may be biased or because you have this broad notion that it's untrustworthy. That just leads to either a) total hypocrisy or b) being forced to dismiss everything, because everything is biased. And trust is something that you always have to test and reaffirm. Sources are trustworthy because they continue to pass those tests.

Noting the bias of the source is just step one. If you're not willing to do the rest of the steps then you're not actually contributing anything.

Is firebrand supposed to have good connotations?