Posted on 03/12/2010 2:10:24 PM PST by OldDeckHand
Republicans now expect Democrats to pass health care through the House with a trick only Capitol Hill could dream up: approving the Senate bill without voting on it.
Democrats will vote on a separate bill that includes language stating that the original Senate bill is “deemed passed.”
So by voting for the first bill — a reconciliation measure to fix certain things in the Senate bill — that will automatically pass the second bill — the original Senate bill — without a separate roll call taking place.
It’s called the “Slaughter Solution” (prepare for a weekend of endless TV gabbing about it).
And after debating House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on the chamber floor, Minority Whip Eric Cantor emerged convinced that Democrats are going to use the tactic, and that they won’t allow Republicans, and the public, to see the text of any legislation for 72 hours before a vote.
“I can infer that we’re going to see a rule that will deem the Senate bill as having passed, and at the same time not even have 72 hours to even look at what they are passing,” Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said in an interview outside his office at the Capitol.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Who’s waiting til November?
Politically, sure. Legally, nope. It's within his delegated power to overrule the parliamentarian. It's been done before, just not for a number of decades (late '60s).
As for Powell v. McCormack, that case is precedential with respect to the Judiciary intervening in a case involving election law and the seating of a duly-elected Representative. Would it be precedential here? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But, one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that when the Supremes heard and decided the case, it had already been rendered moot as Powell had subsequently been seated in another election. Even the dissenting opinion makes note of the fact, and if memory serves, was one reason for the dissent.
Be that as it may, there's a huge chasm between the Judiciary inserting themselves in a matter of settled election law, and inserting themselves in a matter of Parliamentary procedure. I just don't see this Supreme Court, or any Supreme Court intervening in such a way.
So by voting for the first bill — a reconciliation measure to fix certain things in the Senate bill — that will automatically pass the second bill — the original Senate bill — without a separate roll call taking place.
Suppose the House passes this cock-up bill (which I highly doubt)...
1. Am I right that it could not be sent to Obama for signature because the House and Senate would have passed two different bills?
2. The Senate would then have to vote on what would be a different bill from the one they originally passed, right? Because it's a new bill originating in the House, wouldn't the normal Senate rules regarding cloture and filibusters apply?
The Slaughter fix DOES NOT circumvent the SENATE Parliamentarians ruling. Slaughter is in the House.
Look, the House has to pass the Senate bill on a straight up or down vote. There is absolutely no way around that and the House CANNOT/NO/BAD DOG/ vote for reconciliation on a non-existent law.
Only Biden can circumvent the SENATE Parliamentarians ruling. And I have already cited Powell v. McCormick which proves that the U.S. Supreme Court can overrule Biden’s overruling of the Senate Parliamentarian. Why is that? Because Biden would be ruling ‘irrationally’ that’s why.
And what about the HOUSE Parliamentarian?
All Eric Cantor (R-VA) has to do is get a ruling from the House Parliamentarian which would follow exactly what the Senate Parliamentarian HAS ALREADY RULED.
Give it up Old Deck Hand.
It’s dead Jim.
How can they do this? Why do they bother even voting on anything anymore? Why don’t they just cut to the chase and just tell us, “Hey, f*** off, American people, we’re doing what we want and you can all f*** off and die.”
Time to clean out Congress.
are there any tax changes in the Senate bill?
my understanding is,
tax bills have to start in the House
No. In theory (wacky, wacky theory), the House would pass the Reconciliation bill which would procedurally also pass the original Health Care Senate Bill (H.R. 3590). That Bill (H.R. 3590) would then travel immediately to the President's desk for his signature, becoming enacted law. At the same time, the House would take up the Reconciliation bill, then pass it, then send it to the Senate for them to pass. That as-yet-to-be-written piece of legislation must, because of Constitutional requirements, be initiated in the House. Once the House and then the Senate pass the Reconciliation bill, it would then travel to the WH for Obama's signature.
"Because it's a new bill originating in the House, wouldn't the normal Senate rules regarding cloture and filibusters apply?"
No, because it's a Reconciliation Bill, not a bill passed under normal order.
Again, all in wacky theory.
I think if there 10,000,000 angry Americans in the Mall with hanging ropes, the United States Supreme Court might DEEM to hear the case.
Wouldn’t you agree?
They are behind closed doors the democrats can’t even get through. It’s not just a takeover of health care. It’s an all out TAKEOVER. No wonder they resent the term takeover cuz that’s what this is about. It’s not about health care.
It won't be dead until the first Monday of 2011, when the Republicans take back their majority in the House. Even if this doesn't get done now, you can make bank that it will come back during the lame-duck session. And, given many of the Dems in the reddish districts are the ones to get canned, there will be NOTHING keeping them from passing it after they've been fired.
Rush Limbaugh made the point a couple weeks ago that Republicans can't begin to imagine how badly the Dems want this. They will do anything at anytime to pass it. We forget that at our own peril.
Oh, that would certainly never be challenged in court. [rolleyes] OTOH, with the current crop of statist-fellating justices, it might not do any good. :-(
bttt
Gee, I wonder how 0bozo, the commie pig rat bastard, “constitutional law professor” will feel about this shenanigans? Oh I forgot...he’s a Chicago political hack “constitutional law professor”. What a pig 0bozo is!
I’ve been thinking exactly the same thing. Make them miscount their votes, and bring it to the floor while they still don’t have enough to pass it. Shoot, even get them to give you stuff like that judicial appointment. They can’t take it back later without admitting it was a payoff.
It gets a little complicated, but the Supreme has held in a number of cases (Twin City Bank v. Nebeker and US v. Munoz-Flores amongst others) that this provision applies only to bills that the primary intended purpose is to levy taxes, and they have given tremendous latitude to legislation that raises/levies taxes incidentally. Every year, there are dozens - perhaps hundreds - of bill that originate in the Senate, and yet have a specific revenue component attached to them.
However, because of this Constitutional mandate, the Reconciliation Bill MUST be initiated in the House because it's plainly a budgetary Bill, or so it should be by statute.
But it takes four votes to grant cert. I'll bet Thomas is chafing to lay waste to anything this totalitarian, but do you think Scalia and Alito can be counted on to vote for cert, plus Kennedy to vote against the procedure? The wild card might be Stevens. Once in a great while the logic circuits in his brain fire up and he does the right thing. A constitutional crisis might be the issue that does it this time.
By the way, I love this picture! I just added it as my desktop background on my laptop!
You SHOULD be correct. However the people who want to do this are counting on the idea that those who vote Yea will be able to tell their constituents "I didn't vote for Obamacare, I just voted on a rules motion" even though the rules motion does nothing except pass Obamacare. I don't know whether the voters are that stupid or not, but those guys may know how to read their own voters.
I think this is mostly a diversion to hide the fact that Nancy just doesn't have the votes. If she can't get the original Senate bill passed on a straight up or down vote, I find it most unlikely she could get enough support to pass this Rube-Goldberg scheme.
Here's the paradox - the justices least likely to involve themselves in cases surrounding the process of passing this legislation are the conservative justices. The most likely to intercede, are the liberal justices, because liberal justices are ALWAYS looking for ways to expand their influence in government.
It wouldn't be out of the question to see the 4 most conservative justices ignore cert, and the 4 most liberal justices vote for it. Again, it's a paradox and probably a little confusing to people who aren't close watchers of the court.
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.