It’s hard to believe. But they may, according to the NY Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/01/its-reconciliation.html#ixzz0dH1r09ON
Well, if they do, then they deserve to lose control of both houses as well as the White House and then have their bill REPEALED by reconciliation, which would NOT require a supermajority.
Contrary to my previous statements (which ordinarily would be true) that the Republicans would need 60 seats in the Senate to repeal the health care “reform” bill.
House speaker said today that she doesn’t have the votes.
Oh, I see. So the reconciliation talk was earlier in the day then. hah. Good. Nevermind.
I imagine they will.
Last I checked ya were only supposed to need a majority (i.e. >50%) to pass something.
What I’d really like to see is them bring it to a vote, and have the Republicans have to ACTUALLY filibuster. I’d really enjoy watching C-SPAN cover whatever they’d have to do with themselves, and who knows, they might actually have to debate healthcare in congress, in the open! Or just read names out of a phone book like idiots. Either way, procedural games are shitty for everyone. If someone things we need to change our Constitution so that a majority in the Senate means 60 votes, be my guest. Until then, this (fake) filibustering everything is just stupid.
Apparently, there is some confusion about all this: Paul Ryan tells NRO: The Dems are going to try reconciliation – HotAir
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
I imagine they will.
Last I checked ya were only supposed to need a majority (i.e. >50%) to pass something.
What I’d really like to see is them bring it to a vote, and have the Republicans have to ACTUALLY filibuster. I’d really enjoy watching C-SPAN cover whatever they’d have to do with themselves, and who knows, they might actually have to debate healthcare in congress, in the open! Or just read names out of a phone book like idiots. Either way, procedural games are shitty for everyone. If someone things we need to change our Constitution so that a majority in the Senate means 60 votes, be my guest. Until then, this (fake) filibustering everything is just stupid. [/quote]
Technically if the Constitution was listened to at all, this health care bill would have been recognized as horrifyingly out of the bounds set on the legislature.
The US Constitution does not say the US government can intervene in health care. Therefore, it cannot. Problem solved!
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
I imagine they will.
Last I checked ya were only supposed to need a majority (i.e. >50%) to pass something.
What I’d really like to see is them bring it to a vote, and have the Republicans have to ACTUALLY filibuster. I’d really enjoy watching C-SPAN cover whatever they’d have to do with themselves, and who knows, they might actually have to debate healthcare in congress, in the open! Or just read names out of a phone book like idiots. Either way, procedural games are shitty for everyone. If someone things we need to change our Constitution so that a majority in the Senate means 60 votes, be my guest. Until then, this (fake) filibustering everything is just stupid. [/quote]
Unless I’m mistaken, I thought the constitution left it to each house to determine their own procedure. It doesn’t say what is needed to for the senate or house to pass laws. This is a matter of individual house procedure. The way senate procedure is, it generally takes 60 votes.
More precisely, 60 votes to stop debate, which must occur before voting.
Only a simply majority is required to pass a bill once debate has ended.
It isn’t the case that every time a Senator knows he would vote no, he insists that debate continue. The Senate passes very many bills with fewer than 60 votes. The filibuster, which these days does not literally involve speaking and not yielding the floor, is ordinarily employed only when those opposed to a bill don’t see it merely as something to say No to, but “Hell no!!!”
I think the Dems are now walking on hot coals, careful of where they step, as well they should be. They need damage control right now, but of course, should they want to further wreck their shit up, I would not object one bit.
I’m very interested to see what Obama says regarding health care in his State of the Union address next week.
Will he be able to avoid laying blame on others? It may well take every milligram of self control not to, but he’d be well-advised not to.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Will he be able to avoid laying blame on others? It may well take every milligram of self control not to, but he’d be well-advised not to.[/quote]
I’ll vote for him in 12 if refrains from mentioning the last 8 years in his SOTUA. Like that might happen.
Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts.
I realize that Republicans have two sets of standards, and that their rules of conduct don’t actually apply to themselves though. I think that’s what they call “exceptionalism”.
So yeah, it would be an OUTRAGE if the Democrats used reconciliation, for anything.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts.
I realize that Republicans have two sets of standards, and that their rules of conduct don’t actually apply to themselves though. I think that’s what they call “exceptionalism”.
So yeah, it would be an OUTRAGE if the Democrats used reconciliation, for anything.[/quote]
Clyde, you’re obviously not all that up on what reconciliation is. There’s a big difference between using using reconciliation for budgetary and matters; and using it to create an entirely new program.
It’s because of idiots like you Clyde that many people, including me, believe that in order to vote in national elections you should have to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the Constitution and of how the Federal government works.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts.
I realize that Republicans have two sets of standards, and that their rules of conduct don’t actually apply to themselves though. I think that’s what they call “exceptionalism”.
So yeah, it would be an OUTRAGE if the Democrats used reconciliation, for anything.[/quote]
Today, it was mentioned that Dems are considering extending those Bush tax cuts, which were passed using reconciliation.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
It’s because of idiots like you Clyde that many people, including me, believe that in order to vote in national elections you should have to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the Constitution and of how the Federal government works. [/quote]
If only this were possible.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Clyde, you’re obviously not all that up on what reconciliation is. There’s a big difference between using using reconciliation for budgetary and matters; and using it to create an entirely new program. [/quote]
Smells like bullshit double standard to me. Reconciliation is only okay when you personally approve of the legislation… interesting how that works.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts.
I realize that Republicans have two sets of standards, and that their rules of conduct don’t actually apply to themselves though. I think that’s what they call “exceptionalism”.
So yeah, it would be an OUTRAGE if the Democrats used reconciliation, for anything.[/quote]
Today, it was mentioned that Dems are considering extending those Bush tax cuts, which were passed using reconciliation. [/quote]
Oh, the ironicalness!
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Today, it was mentioned that Dems are considering extending those Bush tax cuts, which were passed using reconciliation. [/quote]
Mentioned by who? You?
Post some attribution or stfu.