Replies

I think they are holding together on this one.

We're witnessing an interesting dynamic involving the conflicting political realities faced by House members and Senators -- even in the same state. A House member may represent a district where there is a lot of political pressure to repeal ObamaCare completely, while a Senator representing the entire state where that House district is located may be seeing very different political pressure.

Interesting dynamic related to the functions of a bicameral legislature.

And good political move by Boehner, because it would keep this monstrosity of a law in the limelight well into next year's midterm elections.

Good point.

It raises a couple of interesting thoughts. First, since House Republicans for the most part have been insulated by gerrymandering from losing their districts, it is surprising and frustrating that the house has not been more aggressive not only with respect to Obamacare but with respect to holding hearings etc.

Boehner's entire methodology in this Congress has been rope-a-dope as though he were protecting the Senators or looking ahead to a presidential election two cycles away. Politics like wars are not won on defense or by passivity.

A second interesting thought arises in that your point demonstrates how changing the venue changes the result and that implies that a convention of the states pursuant to Article V would probably have an entirely different culture than the Senate and even different from the House. There is some encouragement in the thought that an Article V convention might just have a different complexion than many of us assume.

while a Senator representing the entire state where that House district is located may be seeing very different political pressure.

Absolutely. Any rat senator who crosses Obama will be denied DSCC, DNC campaign funds and can count on a primary opponent.

The executive's influence in the senate is an accepted, yet gross violation of separation of powers that our framers sought to avoid.