Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt
I see the Slaughter Rule as "deeming passed" something they do not agree with. In the past, what was deemed passed was something that a majority favored.

By attempting this maneuver, isn't the House, in essence, giving the Senate more say in the legislative process than the House has? Taken to the limit, ANY Senate bill that comes to the House for reconciliation could just be Demon Passed by attaching an amendment that would receive a majority in the House. And whether or not the amendment passes the Senate is not necessary to the Demon Passed law being enacted.

I can just see Dingy Harry chortling gleefully about the way he has just rolled Madame P. What bargaining power does Madame have any more with the Senate? She doesn't like a Senate bill, Dingy Harry can just say tough, Demon Pass it and we'll consider your amendments (fingers crossed behind his back).

I'm astonished that Madame and other power hungry and self important Democrats in the House aren't concerned about giving the Senate this sort of power.

I guess because of the filibuster rule, Demon Pass could not be done in reverse (i.e. the Senate Demon Pass a House bill). I wonder if they're going to try something like this in the Senate with Cap and Tax.

And if they get away with this maneuver now, there's no doubt they will use it for Shamnesty which will most likely pass the Senate because there is GOP support (the Maine twins and Graham at least), but the Senate version of shamnesty could probably not pass the House on an up and down vote.

At some point, reasonable House Democrats (if there are any!), have to way whoa, we're giving all our power to the Senate.

70 posted on 03/20/2010 6:12:48 AM PDT by randita (Sarah Palin has the same computer that I have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: randita
-- By attempting this maneuver, isn't the House, in essence, giving the Senate more say in the legislative process than the House has? --

That's one way to look at it. Another is view it as a minority of the House asserting that it speaks for a majority of the House.

If the Senate didn't use "filibuster," the whole process would become transparent.

72 posted on 03/20/2010 6:24:00 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson