I don’t know what your point is to me. I didn’t say it had been addressed by SCOTUS. Neither did Levin.
Many issues are addressed by SCOTUS for the first time after simmering somewhere for years. The old saying, there’s a first time for everything.
I am addressing only one thing. A lady called in to Rush, saying she worked in the Republican Justice Dept. and she believed a provision of the Constitution allowed 20% of House Members to demand and get a recorded vote on a piece of legislation. The problem is, she was saying that this could be used to demand a recorded vote on the Senate bill, which is what the Dems are trying to shield from being voted on, and want to wrap up and cover within a bill of changes to the the Senate bill, in which the vote would not be on the Senate bill itself, which would be written up as having been Deemed and Passed.
Levin called after she was on and said this would not work in the case at hand. He isn’t talking about a prior ruling or a current court case...he’s talking about the situation in the House that the lady thought a Constitional Provision could be used to force a vote. And in this situation, he correctly pointed out that until a bill is brought to the Floor for a vote, you cannot have 20% of members stand and demand a recording of the yeas and neas.
And the Dems are planning NOT to put the Senate bill on the floor for a vote.
See my post # 593 ...
My interpretation of Article I, Section 7 and the Supreme Court case [post #593] is that each bill must have the yeas and nays recorded for it [although SCOTUS has yet to decide this question].
If the "Slaughter Rule" is used, they are folding the Senate Bill into the House Concurrent Resolution, voting on the HCR [that "deems" the Senate bill to have passed], then stripping the Senate bill from the HCR, and then sending to the President for signature.
So, the Senate bill [with NO recorded yeas or nays] ends up on the Preisdent's desk.
Seems to violate article I, Section 7.