Posted on 07/12/2011 7:28:45 PM PDT by ejdrapes
Mark couldn't understand why it was done this way, because it would have had enough votes if done the right way.
That was my question, what friggin “rules” require a 2/3 majority to pass a simple bill? It’s not like a constitutional amendment. And when they passed the original bill it didn’t require 2/3rds for passage. Besides it would have died in the Senate anyway.
So the FR armature headline writer needs some practice.
That makes sense.
So, it will pass within the next week. Basically a procedural vote, and not really worth a thread on FR.
Republicans who have portrayed the new light bulb efficiency rules as a symbol of Washington regulatory overreach fell short of the two-thirds majority required for expedited action on the repeal measure, the Better Use of Our Light Bulbs, or BULB, Act.
But with a 233-193 vote in favor of it, the House GOP leadership may bring it back for approval under procedures that require only a simple majority. The repeal faces dim prospects in the Democratic-controlled Senate, however.
"I don't think it will go anywhere," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
Fred Upton brought it up under a suspension of the rules because he knew there wasn’t a 2/3 majority. He never wanted this to pass.
Conservatives wanted to give the chairmanship to Barton because Upton is so liberal.
Pubbies most likely in the pocket of GE and Phillips voted NO.
It will still be DOA once it gets to the senate.
Talk about a Rorschach test of a vote. Very clear which party likes govt to boss people around.
Yeah, that's what I said.
:”WASHINGTON– Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) issued the following statement today regarding H.R. 2417, the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act:
“Tonight I cast a tough vote. I agree that Congress should not have included language banning traditional light bulbs in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and that is why I am a proud co-sponsor of H.R. 91, which would be a straight repeal of that law.
“Unfortunately, the bill before the House tonight, H.R. 2417, not only repeals that law, but goes further and prohibits state action regarding traditional light bulbs. While I think it would be bad public policy for a state to ban traditional light bulbs, I recognize states retained that right and many others under the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Constitution, in my opinion, does not give Congress the right to prohibit states from banning the use of lighting products within the confines of the respective state, and I accordingly voted no.”
“
According to Mark Levin it was.
Incompetence personified.
Because of the procedure Boehner used to bring it to the floor, a 2/3 super majority vote was required. He didn’t get it.
So what? It gets the Dems on the record for another useless bill, and GE is pouring all of their lighting money into fluorescent bulbs.
Hey it came through that way on my twitter feed. And until the House brings it up for a vote under normal rules it has failed.
Who knows what it means? The thread title is meaningless.
Why was a simple majority insufficient?
I’d rather wait for the bill that dismantles the EPA altogether, anyway...
If only Bush had not signed this in the first place and from what I understand this was put into an Energy bill
by a Democrat and Bush signed it.
Hmm...odd then that so many R’s voted yea. Also Barton sponsored both HR 91 and 2417. Why are there two bills? And why didn’t the House vote on the original bill?
Upton brought it up?
Figures...He needs to go.
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.