Quote:
Originally Posted by kutulu
They aren't talking about using the Nuclear Option, they are talking about presenting the health care bill as a Budget Resolution and therefore using Reconciliation. There is a big fucking difference. The NO involves the majority declaring that a filibuster is unconstitutional and therefore they can proceed to a straight up or down vote.
Reconciliation is an established practice and has been used for numerous pieces of legislation, including the Bush Tax Cuts. The R's had no problem with it then.
The R's are total hypocrites. They wanted to use the NO over some freaking judicial appointments. It was fine for them then.
But then again, we can't expect Breitbart to be listing facts, can we?
|
I did some more research:
The Constitution states that the Senate must "advise and consent" to the President's nominees. Because it is required, a simple majority can be used (reconciliation), and a filibuster can be stopped.
The Constitution states that the Senate must pass a federal budget. Because it is required, a simple majority can be used and a filibuster can be stopped.
The Constitution does NOT require the Senate to pass legislation. Since it is not required, it is unconstitutional to change the Senate rules to a simple majority for passing legislation. Calling this a "budget resolution" is just the slight of hand they are using to break the rules. A budget is comprehensive and occurs once a year.
In short, the Senate was right in 2005 to stop filibuster and vote on nominees. The Senate is wrong to stop a filibuster in 2010 to pass a piece of legislation.