I wasn't aware of the practice of the "Hastert Rule" in the House prior to Boehner dropping it for the fiscal cliff vote. On the surface it seems to me to be pretty damn partisan and subversive of the intended function of the House. Fuzzy, you've always got a contrarian, seemingly objective, veiw on things so I thought I'd put it to you directly....
For anyone who was in a coma earlier in the week:
According to the Hastert rule the Speaker of the House does not allow the full House to vote on any legislation unless a majority of his political party has already indicated they would vote for it. In practice this means a minority caucus in the House of Reps can stop legislation. For example if 60% of House seats are Republican and even 51% of those Republicans oppose a bill, like raising the debt ceiling, then the bill cannot pass even though a pretty firm majority of the overall House supports it.
Without looking up dates and details I believe Hastert (R) was the Speaker before Pelosi and the news I've heard implies this practice started with him, hence the namesake. Pelosi continued the practice in her tenure and so has Boehner up until this week. I had also heard both prior Speakers occasionally made exceptions, as Boehner did, in important circumstances.
So when Boehner says in a press conference this or that proposal can't pass the House, was he actually saying it can't get the majority of Republican votes? That's more than a little dishonest, IMO. And the practice effectively discards the House representation of constituents to the minority party Representatives - essentially it disenfranchises them. Seems like crap democracy to me.