Posted on 03/03/2010 7:09:50 PM PST by cotton1706
I've been wondering why nobody has been saying this. If the house passes the senate bill, then the legislative process is complete. They can just send it to the president and it becomes law. They can amend the law of course with reconciliaton or whatever.
I think that is what's going on here. I think the senate is going to convice enough house members that they can pass health care through reconciliation. Then those house members push health care over the line in the house. Then they just forget about reconciliation and send the bill to the president.
I don’t think that’s true. As I recall (many years ago), spending has to originate in the House. If true, the Senate bill must go to the House, then back to the Senate. In the process, the House can modify the bill. Still, it must go back to the Senate. (As I recall).
Even if we put a republican in the white house, most of the bill will only be repealed with 60 votes. Of course, we could probably get away with using reconciliation, because America would remember how the democrats played the system.
Thanks for that explanation. But if Reid did replace the language of a HR with the Senate bill, isn’t that resulting new monstrosity now un-voted upon by the Senate?
Bullshit!
at this point there is no Senate Bill.
There is going to be a new Senate Bill that the Senate Won’t vote on until passage is assured in the Senate.
That Bill will be voted on in the house and then in the Senate without ammendments.
It depends. If it's a "small dice", it's a 1/4 inch cube. a "medium dice" would be a 1/2 inch cube.
OK, there's a large dice, but they are so big (3/4 to 1 inch), you might as well say you are "cubing" the vegetables at that point.
They cannot fix abortion in reconciliation. It is not germane and would be ruled out of order. This is what is meant by swiss cheese in the Senate. So the Senate abortion language stands, which exactly what the pro-abortion crowd wants.
He’s already resigning, but maybe she could promise him not to do an investigation. Obama just gave another house member’s brother a court nomination.
No, Reid concluded the process successfully in the Senate on Christmas Eve.
The House must now pass the Senate bill as-is. They cannot change a single comma or it has to go back to the Senate where it would face another 60 vote requirement.
So the House passes the Senate bill; BO signs it; and we’ll see if the Senate upholds its end of the deal on the reconciliation package. BO and the Senate have every incentive to quit right there and screw the House.
Wouldn’t it take a long time for anything in this bill to reach the Supreme Court, since it does not contain a provision for expedited judicial review? Enough time for the system to be set up and become entrenched? I tend to think we should not be bamboozled into depending on the Court, for this reason.
[snip]
Now, the Speaker finds herself in the position of having to pass a bill she says she does not have the votes to pass.
Without passing the Senate bill she can’t pass, the Speaker can’t do reconciliation. (See Sen. Conrad, above.)
OK. Now, this next part is really, really important.
The Speaker and the White House find themselves in this position because of Senator DeMint (R-SC). He insisted that Senator McConnell object to the appointment of the House-Senate Conferees, thus preventing a Conference on the bill.
The inability of the Dems to have a House-Senate Conference then forced the Speaker to have a House floor vote on the Senate bill, which she can’t pass. And there the process has been stuck. Has not moved an inch since Sen. DeMint’s objection. It can’t, she does not have the votes.
The Speaker could fix the Senate bill on the House floor by amendment, then pass the Senate bill amended and fixed, but then it would have to go back to the Senate, where it would have to get 60 yes votes, or die. Since it will not get 60 votes ever again in the Senate, it will die — if the Speaker tries the amend the Senate bill on the House floor and send it back to the Senate route.”
[snip]
You are absolutely wrong. The House must pass the Senate bill that was passed on December 24, 2009. After the House passes the Senate bill, they can proceed to reconciliation - IF the Senate and BO keep their end of the deal.
It wouldn't have to reach the Supreme Court, or be litigated in any way. The next bill that would reppeal this mess would be the one to be challenged. That suit wouldn't even be heard because of the political question doctrine. IOW, it will pass without review as well, undoing whatever it says this bill couldn't be undone.
But that was posted pre-Nuclear Option. Now all they need is to bribe the proper number of Dem Reps to vote for the Senate bill or a changed House bill which will then pass the Senate by only 51 votes, not 60.
You cannot reconcile a non-existent law. Don’t believe me?
Here is what Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee Chairman said:
“The general rule is, if there is reconciliation, you have to amend something that is passed [and signed into law]. You can’t amend nothing.”
The House must pass the Senate bill first. San Fran Nan has 205 votes MAX. So sorry...No Obamacare for you.
It’s dead Jim.
From the same article:
“When Senator DeMint (R-SC) denied the Speaker the ability to fix the bill in Conference, he put the Speaker and the White House in their current box. If there had been a House-Senate Conference, then the House could have fixed the bill without a floor vote and the bill could have changed, without having to send it back to the Senate to face 60 vote margins.
But now, they can’t have a conference, and the Speaker and the White House must pass the unpassable Senate bill, in order to even try reconciliation.”
Well I hope it’s unpassable in the House. That is our only saving grace.
But as others have pointed out, the House could hold its nose and vote for the Senate bill but the Senate doesn’t have to reconcile it. If the House passes the Senate bill unchanged, game over.
The Zero administration is the master of dirty political tricks. Holding out the bone called “reconciliation” to the hungry dogs of the House to coerce the vote and then snatching it away is extremely possible.
Yes, but Dan Perrin cited no sources for his claim, and I find no evidence for it anywhere.
You can poke around more. You’ll find that Dan Perrin “recommended” this. It was a bad idea — if they had a conference, they would change the bill, and then the senate would get to vote again.
The Democrats didn’t want a conference, they wanted to meet in secret, put a bill together they could get through the house and senate with more buyouts, and then take it to a vote.
You will note that none of the predicted “ping-ponging” has happened. It was never going to happen.
It is possible McConnell objected to the makeup of the conference — he would do that if Reid picked the wrong people, and Reid would do that so he could blame McConnell for the conference not happening.
On the other hand, the only newspaper reference I have found so far was pulled from the web site.
Something called “the conservatives.com” “confirmed” it with a facebook entry that said nothing to indicate they confirmed anything.
And I can’t find anything in the record showing an objection, and no reference in any newspaper about an objection.
It really seems like a story that was created out of nothing, and in any case it makes no sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.