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?

girldetective

I believe the above is correct. The problems are evident
and roachboy pointed them out simply.

My disappointment with our president and his staff now lies before he was even elected.
It was my hope then that he and Pelosi and et al would have things ready to go,
that they had a cohesive plan to bring us round, knowing the dems had the majority.
I see now that 1, 2, 3 seats really wont make a difference.

Dont even get me started in re the media. There needs to be an abrupt change of thinking
in the minds of any ratassbackwardsshitfucker reporter who glorifies inhumane or rude
assholes of any kind and that includes ruckmongers of any sort and opinionated evildoers.
And we public need to hold them to better standards by not reading, listening, watching,
talking about, or paying any fucking attention to them or their moron views.

I would like to see this admin present a clear plan to us
via an socially educated/educational, unbiased media that included
only the unbiased plan, with no advertisements or opinions
of the corporatists (who the supremes seem to looove these days).
I would like to see us listen carefully and weigh the benefits
of the overall picture. I would like us to think carefully of each other.
I would like us to pressure our reps en masse.
Itll never happen, but a girl can dream.

And we need some fuckinpeace and some spending on education
so people know what theyre reading and can piece together that
overall big global pic.

(This is why Im not always allowed to talk politics at home. Sorry.)

__________________
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata

ASU2003

I haven't figured it out yet either. There are a few blue dog democrats that he might be trying to protect, but either way they will be in trouble. They need to get something serious done and move on. They have had long enough to figure this out.

If the Republicans suggest they start over, I would love it if Obama pulled out a single-payer universal health care plan to start from.

Cimarron29414

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.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

kutulu

Of course you would interpret it that way.

While you were reading up, did you read up on all the other health care reform that was passed using reconciliation, like COBRA? Was it wrong when the GOP used it to pass tax cuts?

It's not new, it's not unprecedented, it's not anything put the GOP whining because they aren't getting their way. Looking at the history of changes health care policy, it looks like that is one of the main ways to get bills though. Like usual, the GOP is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Cimarron29414

Yes, it was wrong for the GOP to do it. As I am not a Republican, it does not pain me to say that.

It seems your argument is that because 50 other murders occurred without prosecution, my murder is perfectly fine.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

kutulu

No, the argument is that it is a well established practice that has been used for the past three decades.

Cimarron29414

The well established, unconstitutional practice. Correct.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

dippin

How is it, exactly, unconstitutional? Which specific parts of the constitution does it violate?

kutulu

Both the House and the Senate are free to set their own rules. The process is allowed by the rules.

dc_dux

Others beat me to it.

US Constitution Article I, Sec.5: "......Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Rekna

Doesn't the constitution say anything done by a Democrat is unconstitutional?

Cimarron29414

It was a poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize. In my attempt to be terse, I misused the word unconstitutional. I meant "in spirit," not literally. The bi-cameral system set up was to have the wise Senate debate legislation and slow down the passion of the House. The rule of a 60 member vote is key to that system. Because there are provisions set forth in the Constitution which require a vote (budget and nominees), it is necessary to override that rule at times. However, legislation is not required and overriding that rule for legislation sets the two houses of Congress on equal terms, which is definitely a violation of system intended by the framers. Of course, in order to accept that, one must read history as to the "intent" of the framers - and I know how you guys feel about The Federalist Papers, the Great Compromise, etc.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

ratbastid

Wait a minute. Now you get to interpret the "spirit" of the Constitution?

Who nominated you to the Supreme Court while I wasn't looking?

Cimarron29414

I have as much right as they do:

Breitbart.tv Obama & Dems in ‘05: 51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founders’ Intent

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

dippin

Actually, the senate was supposed to do all that because it does not allocate it's seats proportionally, and as such it is a sort of protection for smaller states.

This whole thing about the "rule of 60" and the "spirit of the constitution" is a bit meaningless, given that cloture was established in 1917 and current 60 vote rules were established in 1975.

Add to that the fact that filibusters were never used this widely



and it's hard to argue for "tradition" or "spirit."

The fact is that the filibuster is a procedural move that has been used historically to block an up and down vote. The reconciliation process is also a procedural move that has also been historically used to get around a filibuster. There is no more nobility to one of these acts than the other. And as far as using a reconciliation to pass healthcare legislation, isn't healthcare legislation essentially a matter of budget? Especially this bill: raises taxes on some types of insurance, subsidize others, etc.

rahl

People need to realise that they aren't using reconciliation to pass this bill. The bill has already passed, they will use it to pass the "fixes" once it leaves the house again.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

kutulu

Good point.

ratbastid

Not until some constituency elects you to be its representative, you don't.

Cimarron29414

You are absolutely correct.

However, it does say that a rule change requires 60 votes. Isn't this a "rule change" since the current rule is "must have 60 votes". So, aren't they still violating the current Senate rules by using 51 votes to proceed without first having 60 votes to change the cloture rule from 60 to 51?

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

So, let me get this straight: You have used an interpretation of the "general welfare" clause to justify every federal social program we have ever debated and now you are saying I don't have the right to interpret the Constitution during an internet argument? Um, okay.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

dippin

But using reconciliation isn't a rule change. Reconciliation is being talked about as a way of fixing discrepancies between the house and senate bills.

ratbastid

No, you don't have that straight.

You have as much right as I do. Neither of us has the authority a legislator or especially a Supreme Court Justice has, not by a LONG shot. Their job is the management of and maintenance of the nation established by that document. You and I have never been hired for that task.

I'm really surprised at your surprise about this. It seems like... Is there a term like "crocodile tears", but for surprise? Crocodile surprise?

dc_dux

For the record, budget reconciliation is codified in law...it is not just a rule.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ottopilot

The keyword here is "budget". To attempt reconciliation on a health care bill will be difficult and not without political peril for the democrats and the president.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

dc_dux

It wouldnt be that difficult...simply stripping out provisions that dont have direct budget implications.

I assume some Congressional staffers are working through that process as we speak.

Political peril? Probably so, but it works both ways.

Much of the anger, perhaps not as widespread or as vocal as the Tea Parties, is directed at the obstructionism.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ottopilot

Stripping non-budgetary provisions? Such as? It might be a good start to begin to appear honest, but honesty is not the game here.

And what is being obstructed, besides the will of the public? The public doesn't want the sorry crap-sandwich the president and congress is trying to sell. Scrap it and start over... do it right.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

dippin

I think it is incredibly funny that using a certain set of procedural rules is the "will of the people" and another set of procedural rules is somehow completely illegitimate.


As far as what the "public" wants, when you actually poll each provision in the current bill separately, most of them are overwhelmingly popular. But I guess it is easier to imply dishonesty in others than to actually check things for yourself...

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8042-C.pdf