Slaughter: hey, I know! Let’s change the rules so that we don’t have to vote at all
I must confess I don’t understand how this could possibly get by:
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
How would this actually work? And why not just abolish Congress and pass everything by acclamation or silent auction or magic wands? It’s almost as though the Democrats want to warn the American people that they are willing to go quite far along the Chavez/Zeleya route to tyranny.
[ADDENDUM: And if your day wasn’t pleasant enough, Harry Reid announced that as his parting gift to the Americans he’s served so proudly in the Senate, he approves of a plan to abolish the filibuster by a simple majority vote at the beginning of the next session of Congress. Chuck Schumer of NY says they’re going to start talking about it in a couple of weeks
This would refer to the so-called “nuclear option,” a technique by which the need to have a 2/3 majority to change Senate rules (such as the filibuster) could supposedly be overcome at the beginning of a new session of Congress by a simple majority vote. The argument goes this way:
…[O]n the first day of a new Congress, Senate rules, including Rule XXII, the cloture rule, do not yet apply, and thus can be changed by majority vote. Under this argument, debate could be stopped by majority vote as well.
The strategy became well-known (but was not actually used) when Newt Gingrich threatened to employ it to overcome Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial appointments (and these Democratic filibusters themselves were a break with Senate tradition; routine judicial appointments previously had usually been given the courtesy of an up-down vote). The Democrats, of course, opposed the nuclear option mightily at the time, although now they would be attempting to use it for far larger and more transformative (and more unpopular) matters than mere judicial appointments.
The opposing party can do a number of things after a nuclear option that would threaten to shut down the Senate; I believe that’s one of the reasons it’s called “nuclear.” But the most important point for our purposes today is that this sort of thing makes it even more vital that the election of 2010 not only result in Republican control of the House, but accomplishe the much more difficult task of taking control of the Senate too.
Harry Reid will probably not be a part of that next Senate session, which begins in January of 2011, but Schumer is more likely—although not certain—to be re-elected in 2010 and keep his seat. Because Senators are only up for re-election every six years, only a third of the Senate will run for office in 2010 (unless a few more resign), and only eighteen of these are Democrats (see a list here).
So the Republicans would have to retain every seat they hold and gain ten of the current Democrat seats in order to take control. A couple of months ago I would have thought this completely impossible. But after the Massachusetts election, it seems there’s a chance. But it will be very, very difficult.]
The esteemed Louise Slaughter enhanced the Health Care Summit by pointing out that one of her constituents was so healthcare-deprived that she’d been reduced to wearing her dead sister’s dentures. Uhhh, Louise, dentures are not going to be covered, even under the Great Baraq
.
She must be dumber than her dumbest voter, and she chairs Rules. Ain’t democracy great? You cannot make this stuff up.
Just remember “unintended consequences”. The Leftists won’t be in power forever.
“It’s almost as though the Democrats want to warn the American people that they are willing to go quite far along the Chavez/Zeleya route to tyranny.”
But the tyranny will be for our own good, after all they do know better.
Hail Hail King Barak Obama, long live the King. Well I guess we have a monarchy now. It was a nice run.
I have the boiling tar ready. Who will bring the feathers?
Amen to that!
I still have great hope that our system of representative democracy, and the awakening of the American people, will pull us out of this in the end. But its been waaaayyy too close for comfort. Even if, as I hope, an end will be put to these outrages in the November election, we have still come way too close to the Chavez/Zelaya/Morales/Ortega model of centralized socialized power.
As for the Nuclear option, as I’ve commenteon previously , the Nuclear option was a bad idea when the Republicans tried it over judicial nominations, and were seeing the reason why now. Thankfully, we were saved from that catastrophy before, and now that they Dems are trying to remove the 60-vote safeguard so they can ram socialism down our throat, its all that much more urgent that they be prevented from doing so.
One year ago Patty Murray seemed to have a Senate post for life. Today, not so much. She’s got a ton of money, but her numbers are down and some very able people are making noises about running against her. Exciting stuff for we kulaks here in the People’s Republic of Puget Sound.
What I want to know is this: what did that woman use for teeth before her sister died?
On the issue at hand… I don’t care whether they’ve done it before, and I don’t care what any judge in the country would have to say about it, if the House pretends to have passed a bill it didn’t vote on, it cannot become a law, as far as I’m concerned. I’d bet a few tens of millions of other Americans would think the same way.
If Washington wants to start an insurrection, that looks to be the quickest route to go.
The problem for House Democrats: They don’t want to approve the Senate healthcare bill without modification. Obama would immeidately sign, and the House would have approved a bill they don’t like. But, how can the Senate pass changes to the Senate version, before that version is approved by the House?
Slaughter wants a “rule” that would make the modifications (the reconciliation bill) and the original Senate version both approved automatically in the House when the modification bill is passed by the Senate.
It is like sending this statement to the Sente for approval: “This modification bill is approved by the House. When approved by the Senate, it simultaneously passes the Senate bill in the House and applies these modifications.”
See this discussion at National Review: The Rules Committee Can Do Just About Anything
Oh, dear. This could end badly.
Anyone still think these guys aren’t trying to take over the government? Rules are for fools, and they appear to think there’s no reason any self-respecting Democrat should pay any attention to them, except to the extent that they might require changing, over-ruling, or, um, ignoring. Looks like they’ve been engaged in some rules hanky-panky over Massa, too, along with some nice blackmail/bribery. Check this out:
http://tinyurl.com/yzn63oo
Once again, I’m very afraid that if we think a November juggernaut will take care of matters, we will be mistaken. At the rate things are happening, that really involves waiting too long.
The business with Massa has the added advantage of making him an example to others. Anyone wonder whether there might be more waiting in the wings? Maybe Hoyer and/or Pelosi know something unsavory about Stupak. . . .
The Democrats are engaged in governing against the will of the people, and while it’s not clear how it will turn out, they may pull it off. If there is a more precise definition of “tyranny,” I do not know of it.
So when they can’t get their way, the Dems throw a tantrum and change the rules until they do. Pathetic
Obama’s cousin, Dr. Milton Wolf, a radiologist in Kansas, is weighing in against Obamacare.
Heres a link to his article.
Heres a quote from Dr. Wolf:
So, apparently, theres a family split: the actual doctors in the family oppose the Obamacare monstrosity, the “community organizers” are the ones who support it.
Yes, unintended consequences. Gingrich threatening the rule changes in the 90’s, thinking that the issues before him were the only important ones, now it gets threatened the other way. And of course these folks believe that the worm will never turn again…
I don’t think it would be leaked if they were actually considering doing this as a Plan A (though I suppose it could be a trial balloon). More likely, it is an implied threat to wavering Democrats: We’ll pass this anyway without you and then you will have accomplished nothing except insulting people who now have you by the short hairs.
I’m trying to understand why the Slaughter Slaughter wouldn’t be unconstitutional. Doesn’t the Constitution require a bill to pass both houses of Congress in order to be signed into law? I don’t see how the Senate bill can be “deemed” passed if it is not, in fact, passed — like, with an actual vote.
The House can make whatever rules it wants, but ISTM they can’t, by rule, declare they do not need to actually pass a bill in order for it to become law. See Const., Art. 1, Sec. 7.
I think that a lot of commenters here are basing their analysis on a false assumption, and that false assumption is that the Democrats care at all about the rule of law, parliamentary procedure, Democracy, our traditions of government, or the rules of the House or Senate. The far left ideologues in charge of the Congressional Democrats, and most rank and file Democrats in Congress too, from what I see, couldn’t care less about these things, and believe a la Bill Maher, that the American public is a collection of ill-educated, dumb, hicks, hillbillies, religious fanatics and bozos–virtual sub-humans–bleating, stinking sheep who do not have the ability to comprehend where there best interests lie, and will, thus, have to be, in the immortal words of the French Revolution “forced to be Free,” as the Democrats define freedom.
Nothing must stand in the way of the Democrats “helping” us to be “Free,” and they are determined that nothing, certainly nothing so trivial as rules or law or procedures or Democracy, can be allowed to stop or delay their imperative errand of mercy, during which–not coincidentally–they will gain tyrannical power, and loot the country to fill their pockets as well.
Looks like a new inscription on the barn wall: Rules are for everybody, except pigs.
It’s all so simple. You put on your sparkling shoes, hold Toto in your arms, and instead of wishing to be back home in Kansas, you close your eyes and wish that the House had passed the Senate health care bill. And, when you open your eyes, because you have been so good and so caring . . .
Anyone still think these guys aren’t trying to take over the government?
bestsybounds: I read it as utter desperation. Apparently Pelosi has no shot at mustering the votes in the House for Obamacare, and Obama’s presidency and his new New Deal are entirely dead if they can’t pass health care.
Obama and the Democratic leadership keep losing ground, then doubling down, and coming up with everymore fragile, fanciful schemes to will their agenda into being law. It’s not a sign of strength nor a predictor of victory.
As usual one can also read Obama’s actions in terms of FDR. In 1937 FDR tried a similar end-run when he judged the Supreme Court “obstructionist” and set about special legislation to pack the Court to his liking. It didn’t work:
huxley: you continue to pooh pooh these obvious attempts to override the usual checks and balances and constitutional processes by saying they won’t work. That is not only uncertain, but irrelevant to what we are saying here: which is that the intent is there.
You may or may not be right about their chances of success; many of us are agreeing that it is not at all clear that they will succeed, either. But they are trying very hard, and if they keep trying this way and that way and every which way at some point they may indeed succeed, even if they are desperate. Desperate people throw away all the rules, and sometimes a Hail Mary pass works. If not for Scott Brown, health care reform would be the law of the land, and the drive to more and more power would be that much further along. They wouldn’t be desperate at all. It is only by the skin of our teeth (and Ted Kennedy’s death, and Scott Brown’s election) that the opposition has become as strong as it has.
I wonder why it is that you have such a strong investment in denying the importance of intent on their part, as well as their tenacity, and elevating your own fortune-telling powers to such heights. We don’t know what will happen, and we need to be very aware and vigilant and fight this every step of the way with great vigor. A stitch in time saves nine and all that.
AVI: it is also a fish thrown to the base, who have been pushing for the abolition of the filibuster ever since the Dems got control of the Senate.
neo: From my point of view, you and others here continue to hit the alarm button too quicklly
As to intent — it’s still speculation on your part and my part what Obama et al. intend aside from their obvious, desperate need to pass healthcare.
And I wonder why you have such a strong investment in alarmism. That kind of talk cuts both ways. I prefer that we avoid it.
“I must confess I don’t understand how this could possibly get by:”
That is because you have principles and character. For you, getting to the end never justifies using any means possible.
The people in Congress do not feel this way.
It is just that plain and simple.
You might enjoy this speech that Mark Levin gave at the Regan Library. It is a light in the darkness.
http://www.wmal.com/goout.asp?u=http://wmal.com/showdj.asp?DJID=31219
huxley: alarmism? Hardly. Rather, preparedness and paying attention to what is observed. One does not have to be able to read minds to see that there is a very good chance this is their intent. There is nothing to be gained by ignoring what is clearly before us, and fighting it as best we can. Optimism about their intent, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, is the way the optimistic often allows tyranny to win.
One of the things I got out of therapy and reading various psychology books is that psychologizing the other person is not really helpful or fair in communication. IMO it’s a kind of ad hominem.
It’s also a debate style that I find more common on the left than the right, thankfully.
When I switched from left to right and got into disagreements with my former comrades that’s one of the first places they would go when their talking points failed. They would switch the subject to my need to take positions for Bush, for the Iraq War, or whatever, in terms of my age or maleness or more personal information they might have.
There is nothing to be gained by ignoring what is clearly before us, and fighting it as best we can. Optimism about their intent, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, is the way the optimistic often allows tyranny to win.
neo: Obviously we disagree about “what is clearly before us.”
I agree with Huxley. This deal is going down in the Congress vote. as well as Obies hopes for change. Even if it passes its going to get stalled out for years.
DaveH: As I have stated many times, I am not sure the attempt will be successful. But I didn’t think they’d get the votes in the House on cap and trade either, and they did.
I have a deep respect for the ability of the leadership to twist arms and/or offer perks. I don’t have much respect for the ability of moderate Democrats to stand on principle. What I do have at least some respect for is their desire to be re-elected. If that is strong enough, it may enable us to defeat this in the end.
But I do not think it is productive to think defeat is in the bag. And I think that it is not “alarmist” to be concerned and wary about what is happening. It is much easier to stop things before they begin, or close to the beginning. Afterward it is often too late.
A man standing beside you at the bus stop contorts his face and pulls his arm back, fist clenched. It seems he is about to hit you.
Huxley: He hasn’t hit you yet. It is broad daylight, and this is merely a threat. We don’t know if he will strike. In fact, it is problably just an indication of how irrational and weak he is.
Neo-neocon: Duck!
Now, I have committed the offence of interpreting the thoughts and intent of the man at the bus stop, Huxley, and Neo. Relating cause and effect, threat and result, is what careful people do. It is a matter of survival.
Andrew M. Garland says:
J.L (to clenched fist man): Er…. the men’s room’s that a way, pal…
Just kidding. Seriously though….
I would suggest that while Huxley and Neo’s observations may bothbe correct, insofar as the intentions of the man may be the result of irrationality and may not be carried out… or, maybe he will carry them out, in which case ducking is a good idea.
In either case: I would suggest that merely making such a violent threat, and employing what are essentially (a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words”> “Fighting Words” , is by itself, without more, sufficiemnt provocation. In other words, this man has already crossed the line of propriety.
My point is this: that maybe we dont need to decifer intention here to now say that what is being attempted is contrary to the will of the American people, and contrary to the represenntative democracy form of government that we have. When the people’s representatives fail to properly represent the people, then maybe its time to recall them.
In the past, I have always opposed the alarmism of suggesting that were headed toward the equivalent of Communist-era Poland. And I’ve repeatedly suggested that the answer lies within the electoral system. I still hold to these previous views. What I would suggest is that its time to employ something less than revolution, but something equivalent to the concerns of the present moment: although I am not familiar with the “recall” procedures accross the nation, perhaps its now time to employ these en masse. This, coupled with more use of the First amendment: the tea party and town hall protests to make it clear our opposition to what Obama and Pelosi and Reid are trying to ram through against the will of the people. If they havent heard our voices yet, then maybe we need to raise them louder.
Is anyone here familiar with the “recall” process? Is this something which can be employed here and now against vulnerable congresspeople?? Serious question.
The above comment contains an error. I messed up a “link.” The paragraph in question should look as follows:
In either case: I would suggest that merely making such a violent threat, and employing what are essentially “Fighting Words” , is by itself, without more, sufficiemnt provocation. In other words, this man has already crossed the line of propriety.
Arrg… messed up again: the link above was supposed to go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
J.L.: recall is a state by state thing as far as I know. Most states do not allow it. See this.
There is also a movement towards nullification.
Dave H, are you really, really sure this deal is going down in the Congress vote? REALLY??? Because, as we speak and debate here, these wizards are in the process of doing away with the very Congress vote you have so much faith in.
I hear people day in and day out, including Rush and other public commentors, and our own Huxley, say that the Democrats are merely (!) desperate. I would like, at this point, for someone to tell me the difference between desperate and determined. “Whatever it takes,” is, I believe, what Robert Gibbs has said they will do. What do you suppose that means? I will tell you. It means, “WHATEVER IT TAKES” This is not desperation. It is no-holds-barred, full-tilt-boogie, pedal-to-the-metal, damn-the-torpedoes, full-speed-ahead-with-blinders-on, charge in all directions. There is no law they won’t break. There is no rule they won’t ignore. There is no majority they will respect. They may not mean to take over the country, but if they did mean to take over the country, this is what they would say and this is how they would act. We have no other basis upon which to judge their intentions than their words and actions.
betsybounds: “desperate” and “determined” are hardly mutually exclusive. In fact, they complement each other. Ever hear of what a cornered rat does?
The real question is whether they will be successful.
Neo: Yes, that’s the real question.
I hope we know the answer soon–the suspense is driving me crazy!
neo-neocon you are exactly right. Keep keeping on.
It’s hard to think my voice counts much amoung the din but you have a chance to be heard.
DaveH in Upstate NY.
Congressional Dist. 25. Rep. Dem. Maffei
Next to Slaughters Dist. 28 and Massa Dist. as well!