[Yosemitest]

Here's more from an excerpt from another source about the option of "The Nuclear Option for Legislation in the Senate":

Cruz Pushes Obamacare Repeal Gambit That Could Roil the Senate

... Cruz’s answer:
lean on Vice President Mike Pence’s gavel to dodge those procedural limits and broaden the legislation’s scope.

It’s not at all clear whether Cruz’s colleagues will go along.
The move relies on a radical interpretation of the vice president’s constitutional role as presiding officer of the Senate,
where he could step in and effectively overrule the chamber’s parliamentarian.
It would resemble the so-called nuclear option of ending filibusters ...

... Representative Dave Brat of Virginia, the conservative who unseated then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 primary, told reporters he doesn’t buy leadership’s excuse that they can’t pursue a far bolder plan.

He said Ryan is overstating the case that existing rules can’t allow an insurance overhaul. “He wants to be respectful of Senate rules, I do not,” Brat said.

“From what I understand,” Brat said, “whoever’s sitting in the chair has authority over the parliamentarian.
So they can rewrite the rules.”

To speed passage of an Obamacare replacement -- and circumvent Democratic opposition, Republicans opted for a budgetary procedure called reconciliation
that requires only a simple majority in the Senate,
but only if the legislation has minimal effect on the deficit.

GOP leaders, including Ryan, have said this is limiting their ability to include provisions popular with conservatives like selling insurance across state lines.

The Texas senator, who had dinner with Trump this week, said Ryan and Senate GOP leaders are wrong.

“You don’t need to override the parliamentarian or get a new parliamentarian.
It is the vice president who rules,” he told reporters Thursday.

Having Pence rule against established norms for what is allowed in a reconciliation bill would undo decades of Senate tradition of deferring to the parliamentarian’s rulings.
It could also potentially allow both parties far wider latitude in the future to avoid a 60-vote threshold for all sorts of provisions that don’t directly impact spending or taxes.

Representative Trent Franks of Arizona, another conservative, said
trying to craft an Obamacare repeal bill to meet the Senate’s current interpretation of its rules is "untenable."

"... If you get the job done he looks a little differently on the other side," he said.

... "Under the Budget Act of 1974, which is what governs reconciliation, it is the presiding officer, the vice president of the United States, who rules what is permissible on reconciliation and what is not,” Cruz said.
“And that is a conversation I have been having with a number of my colleagues.” ...

So in ending the DemocRATS 'political war', let me end my comment by stating, "It's time to NUKE THE DemocRATS !"

[Diogenesis]

It is time to nuke Ryan. is it not?

[nathanbedford]

The truth is that Ted Cruz in a personal meeting with Donald Trump in the White House made clear the possibilities of reforming Obamacare along conservative lines by employing reconciliation. The problem for Trump was that he has a different vision of national healthcare, he wants to keep all of the goodies of Obamacare, such as pre-existing conditions, yet provide reduced premiums, reduced partial pays, reduced contributions which is simply not arithmetically possible. This is how he campaigned but it is impossible as president to mathematically square that circle.

So Trump backed Ryancare and was humiliated along with Ryan. He alienated the base and betrayed weakness. He could have at least lived up to the expectations of the people who voted for him, the people who voted against him are very unlikely to be mollified with half measures like Ryan care.

If Trump had used reconciliation with respect to reforming Obama care, he might today be in better shape with respect to financing the wall. Unfortunately, reports coming from the AP and elsewhere indicate that he is following the same course with respect to funding the building of the wall as he did with respect to reforming Obamacare.

If he is unwilling to go to the wall (shameless pun intended) on either of the two major issues in his campaign, when will he?

At some point Trump has got to look like Ronald Reagan when he fired the FAA controllers. Trump must at some point risk a loss. I believe that if he suffers a defeat at the hands of Rinos and Democrats he will at least be credited with the effort but now those who supported him are already scrambling to rationalize yet another climbdown.

[Petrosius]

What we have today is not a filibuster but the unconstitutional requirement for 60 votes to pass legislation. A true filibuster is holding the floor for constant debate while ALL OTHER BUSINESS STOPPED. Historically it was hard to keep up and was a rare thing. The Democrats are abusing the filibuster by requiring 60 votes on all legislation. It is time to eliminate it.

[OrioleFan]

Perhaps the house could send over a bill containing a title page and 2000 pages of garbage written in invisible ink. When the Democraps say, “What’s this?”, the Republicans can respond, “You have to pass it to see what’s in it.”

[DrDude]

Repubs should use any and all options available. Rats would do it in a heart beat. Don´t play fair. Nice guys finish last!

[Wuli]

They key is the Constitution left HOW the two houses of the legislature up to whatever rules and procedures the houses separately make for themselves. What is being discussed has zero to do with Constitutional law regarding the legislature, and is totally about “accepted traditions”.

If it is an accepted tradition that the presiding officer of the Senate, which happens to be the Vice President of the United States, CAN over rule the parliamentarian, opponents can squeal, but in fact no laws or rules would be “broken”, just “tradition” terribly offended.

I am a mugwump on the issue. One part of me would like the immediate result, and the other part sees how we could come to hate this breaking of the traditions, if and when the Dims had the White House and 50+% majorities in both houses.

[Jim Noble]

“From what I understand,” Brat said, “whoever’s sitting in the chair has authority over the parliamentarian. So they can rewrite the rules.”

Yes.

Hubert Humphrey tried this in 1967, when he had a majority of 68D-32R and he ruled from the chair that a simple majority could change the rules.

The ruling of the chair was appealed to the floor.

Vice President Humphrey, with his huge majority, was overruled 46-54.