I concur.
I wonder if at any other time in the last 77 years the Deem & Pass procedure has been used, many many times and plenty by both parties, if he (or she) got in a fuss about it?
And of course, everyone must remember that the only reason the original Senate Bill (Bill A in my hypothetical) needs to be pass in order for the amended compromise (Bill B) to become law is because the Senate GOP leadership is filibustering everything. Which means that the Senate must act through reconciliation. Which means the House must pass a Bill that a majority of its members do not want so that it can enact a bill that a majority do want.
And now the Republicans are claiming to be the guardians of majority rule. I’m going to call that Chutzpah, because any other word can only be used in the Pit.
No, dammit, there’s no justification at all! Dresden was not a valid military target!
. . . What?
But it does pass the House. A vote on the bill doesn’t require a vote on the text of the bill – it requires a vote on the bill. A majority of House members, in official vote, will assent to the passage of the Senate bill. That’s perfectly acceptable, and has been so held by the courts. It’s also become standard procedure – 30% of bills by both parties were passed this way, as I understand it, over the last decade.
And as noted above, it’s an issue only because of the GOP’s extraordinary use of the filibuster to frustrate the will of the country and deprive this legislation of the opportunity for majority vote. While I won’t go so far as to suggest that the imposition of a de facto supermajority requirement for legislation in the Senate is unconstitutional, it’s certainly extraconstitutional.
–Cliffy
Until recently, the Dems had a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Any failure to get bills passed there is purely the fault of the Dems, who can’t even get all of their own party members on board. If they could, then filibustering would have been a non-issue.
No, they did not have a filibuster-proof majority. You know better.
It’s constitutional.
The time to complain about the constitutionality of this practice is long past. I don’t particularly like the current use of the practice, but I don’t like lots of things that are, amazingly, not violative of the Constitution.
So you admit they are filibustering (i.e. preventing a vote on health care) now, right?
I’m not aware of a current filibuster. As I understand it, the Senate has actually passed a bill, and the House is now deciding what to do about it. I hope the bill dies a slow miserable death. I also hope the plague of liberalism infecting parts of this country and this board is cured. And I hope the Saints repeat as Super Bowl Champs again this season.
Oh. Read a newspaper?
Nah. There’s a basketball tournament going on. Why don’t you go find me a cite to a current filibuster on the health care bill in the Senate…and bring me a cold beer, while you’re at it.
Don’t be deliberately obtuse. The Republicans have been threatening a filibuster since Scott Brown got elected, this is why reconciliation is on the table. And don’t talk down to me.
You did not ask about threats of future filibusters. You asked about an actual filibuster currently in progress. I remain unaware of one, and invite a cite to the contrary. I strongly suspect you won’t be able to produce one.
That is absolutely ridiculous. There is not one whit of difference between forty people saying they are going to filibuster, and getting up and actually doing it. Not one. Grow up.
Don’t be deliberately obtuse.
Actually, there is a difference. One is conditional, “if A happens, then B will happen”. The other is “B is happening right now”. You erroneously claimed the latter. Now that I’ve identified your error, you want to move the goal posts and argue something different than the wrong thing you originally said. I’m not playing that game. Show me a current filibuster in the Senate, on the health care bill, in progress as of 3:00 PM Central Daylight Time on 3/19/2010, or concede the point.
That argument is so pedantic, pathetic, and small, and its only real purpose is to muck up the debate on health care. At the moment, there is no one standing up in the Senate reading from a phone book or Dickens or whatever; congrats.
But there are still forty Republican senators blocking the health care vote, which means the House has to jump through the hoops debated earlier in this thread. When you return to the real world, we can debate that.
Do you realize that the part about the yeas and nays being required only refers to a roll-call vote being mandatory to override a presidential veto?
I’m not sure if you were trying to play fast and loose with what Art I Sec 7 says, or if you just don’t understand it. So, I hope this clears up any confusion.
There you go with that “blame the GoP for Democratic failures” thing again. It is not the GoP’s problem that you could not rally your own troops to your own cause on either side of the aisle. There were, until recently, only 39 GoP senators…yet the Dems failed to get a bill passed that is really acceptable to their own party in the House. And in the House, the valiant Jedi are only 9 votes away from lopping the head off Darth Liberal Wetdream HealthCare II forever. Currently 56 Dem congress critters have not announced their intentions. If this bill fails, as it should, it will be because the bill was so bad, not even all Democrats would support it…
9 more votes on the side of the Jedi will kill this bill. Come on, Blue Dog Dems!
No :rolleyes:, it’s blaming the Republicans for irresponsibility.