So after this can they pass everything through reconciliation or the Slaughter solution?
I’ve noticed a lot of discussion in the comments section of various conservative blogs that goes like this: once the HCR vote is over and if the Democrats succeed, what’s to stop them from passing their entire agenda via reconciliation and/or the Slaughter route?
I’m not a parliamentarian, but a possible answer that comes to my mind is this: forty-one Republicans in the Senate.
Unless I’m sadly misunderstanding the way it works—or unless the Democrats decide to suspend the remaining pretense of following any rules—the reason reconciliation and/or the Slaughter solution have both been considered as methods to be used to pass HCR is that HCR legislation had already passed in both House and Senate, albeit in different versions.
The House only needs a simple majority to pass its bills, but the Senate needs sixty votes to force cloture and have a vote. Before the election of Scott Brown, the Democrats in the Senate had those sixty votes for cloture, and that cut off debate and enabled HCR to be passed by that legislative body.
Remember the Brown campaign, and how he promised to be the 41st vote against health care? That pledge was predicated on the idea that the Democrats would be so statesmanlike as to follow the usual rules, iron out the disagreements between the Senate and House versions of the HCR bills in conference, and then have both houses vote on a new combined bill that would again need sixty votes for cloture in the Senate.
But the election of Scott Brown, and his pledge to block cloture, threw a monkey wrench into that process. And so the Democrats have jettisoned the entire procedure in their attempt to pass HCR, proposing to use the reconciliation and/or Slaughter gambits. We don’t know whether either will ultimately work, but we do know that both are predicated on the fact that the original HCR bill passed the Senate in the first place. If (and it’s a big “if”) in the future all forty-one Republicans hang tough to block legislation on new issues, then there will be no Senate bills on these topics to “reconcile” with House bills, and no Senate bills for the House to subsequently “deem” to have passed in the House as well. So reconciliation and/or Slaughter would be moot.
Of course, it HCR passes, and so many Democrats realize they won’t be re-elected as a result of their “yes” votes, then we’ve got something we’ve never had before: a rogue Senate majority party whose days as a controlling majority are numbered, composed of leftists in safe seats combined with other party members who’ve lost all hope of re-election, all dancing to the tune of “when you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose.” They could have the deep desire to pass whatever suits their fancy in whatever fashion they “deem” acceptable, and stick it to the American people even further, since they are no longer answerable to those people.
Who knows what the results of such a situation will be? But you can best believe they’re not likely to be good.
In reality, when push comes to shove, all of these supposed more centrist Democratic factions within Congress–the Blue Dogs, Stupak’s anti-abortion coalition–will vote for this bill if that is what it takes to pass it, all the while trying to justify/disguise what they have done by saying that they have gotten “assurances that their concerns will be listened to,” a vote on their particular issue, that their position “will somehow be taken into account,” that they will have influenced the final bill,” etc., etc.
At this point Democrats, have been so tainted by this process that it is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible for them to disguise or disclaim responsibility for what they have done and how they have done it come November, but they will try, oh how they will try.
Yesterday, for the first time I saw a editorial (in the Washington Times) calling for the Impeachment of the President Obama, the UK’s Telegraph says Impeachment is a possibility (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100030703/barack-obama-could-the-president-face-impeachment-if-the-supreme-court-strikes-the-slaughter-solution/), and the Baltimore Sun yesterday had an opinion piece that very incisively pointed out that what we are seeing here–the willful ignoring of constituent’s wishes, the unconstitutional parliamentary maneuvers, passage of a mammoth bill that has not been read much less analyzed or debated–is really the stuff of Tyranny (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.healthreform19mar19,0,7066729.story), to quote from this opinion piece:
“If the Democrats are willing to ignore the public, their own political futures, the Constitution and the nation’s empty coffers in pursuit of their health care chimera, my question is this: What won’t they ignore? What legal, moral and political stricture won’t they bend, break or disregard? In short: What won’t they do?
A ruling party willing to ignore these things can conceivably ignore anything. The thought sends chills down my spine, for from such seeds are the flowers of tyranny often sown.
That our governing class would seek to create another trillion-dollar entitlement, even as our state and national governments are awash in red ink as never before and our children are shouldered with unshakable debt before they are even born is more than just disgraceful. It is terrifying.”
“when you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose.”
They’ve always got something to lose. Ask Salvador Allende.
The problem here is that the Republicans don’t have 41 consistently reliable senate votes. Just off the top of my head we have Lindsay Graham and John McCain ready to throw open the nation’s borders at the drop of a hat, and Graham is also making environmentalist noises about Cap and Tax. Of course, Olympia Snow may run off the reservation at any moment, etc.
November may change things considerably, but I was reminded of the mindless nature of the opposition the other night on Fox when a liberal female pundit, confronted with the fact that the USA is broke, said that when the earthquake in Haiti occurred, we just “got out the checkbook,” and therefore we can just get out the checkbook to pass Obamacare and every other leftist wish. They really do believe that there is an unlimited pile of cash somewhere and it’s only evil Republicans keeping them from accessing it.
mikemcdaniel: that’s why I wrote “If (and it’s big ‘if’) in the future all forty-one Republicans hang tough…”
It is indeed a very big “if.” I am disturbed especially by Lindsey Graham and Gitmo and amnesty lately, although at least we’ve not heard a peep from Snowe and Collins in terms of breaking ranks on HCR. However, although I don’t trust any of them as far as I can throw them, I was answering the question of “what’s to stop the Democrats from ‘reconciling’ or ‘deeming’ all future legislation?,” and my answer is “forty-one Republicans sticking together—if they can stick together.”
“You’re invisible now, you’ve got no secrets to conceal”
/sorry, couldn’t help it
If the democrats pass ObamaCare by vote and then advance out of the House illegal immigration, cap and trade, etc. there will be tremendous pressure on the Senate republicans to hold firm.
If they do not, when next they run for reelection, the public will not have forgotten nor forgiven and, in the next primary election, the party will not support them.
In the coming mid-terms, there are 3 Senate incumbents considered RINO’s; McCain, Murkowski and Bennett.
If the Dems use the Slaughter Rule…it’s war and no Republican will dare join the Dems on anything. Which is what Graham was alluding to when he warned Obama that if the Slaughter Rule is used to pass ObamaCare, immigration reform is dead.
There’s another aspect to this;
“I was answering the question of “what’s to stop the Democrats from ‘reconciling’ or ‘deeming’ all future legislation?,” and my answer is “forty-one Republicans sticking together–if they can stick together.””
If the 41 Senate Republicans use the filibuster and do stick together and hang tough before the Nov. mid-terms…
The Democrats could eliminate Senate filibusters – by changing Senate rules, using the ‘nuclear option’. As only 51 votes are required to change Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster or any other Senate ‘rule’ they don’t like.
It’s known as the “nuclear option” because it effectively eliminates any input from the minority to affect legislation. It effectively disenfranchises the minority.
But using the nuclear option, before the midterms to jam more unpopular legislation down our throats is really risky.
If a political war erupts over democrat’s tactics, they’re going to need that filibuster to keep us from sending out the subpoenas, getting people Mirandized and under oath and then going to jail for the corruption used to pass this Health Care abortion.
They know they’re about to be in the minority … so unless they truly are ‘pulling an Artfldgr’ they need to keep the filibuster viable as a threat against the Republicans.
It’s their choice, they can eliminate the filibuster any time they want to.
Indeed if the Dems succeed a this there will be nothing to prevent them from passing their entire agenda via reconciliation and/or the Slaughter. As Geoffrey Britain points out, they can eliminate the filibuster and just go at it.
Which is exactly why we need to vote all of them out of office.
Geoffrey Britain: the Democrats have to wait till the next session of Congress to use the nuclear option. The rules can only be amended at the start of a session. It is possible (although not likely) that they could lose their majority in the Senate in 2010. It is more possible that they could lose it in 2012, and then the Republicans could take advantage of the nuclear option to do whatevery they want. What goes around comes around—perhaps.
I wrote about the nuclear option here. The other thing about 2010 is that, even if the Democrats retain a majority in the Senate and try to change the rules then to use the nuclear option, they are quite likely to have lost the House at the same time. So passing legislation may not be all that easy for them at that point, despite the use of the nuclear option.
As far as I’m concerned, if this means the next Republican President can have his judicial appointments approved without having the process hijacked by a Democratic minority, then let’s have at it. Democrats today are setting the stage for the most profound conservative revolution imaginable.
With all due respect to previous commentors, the Senate adopts its rules at the beginning of each Congress by simple majority vote; this must be done, because no Congress can bind another except by passing laws, and it may be done because a majority vote is sufficient unless there is an explicit requirement for more than a simple majority. The Senate can change its rules after adoption, but a 2/3 majority is required because they rules they adopted at the beginning of this Congress require a 2/3 vote to change a rule. I believe a rule can be suspended, but only by unanimous consent.
It ought to be emphasized that, whatever rules the Democrats might be trying to get around in this Congress, are rules that they themselves adopted for themselves last year in January.
I stand corrected. It’s good to know that the Democrat’s options are, at least somewhat limited.