No, I read wrong. The court deemed it unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff had standing. But, my point is that the court ruled it had no jurisdiction in this case. If I am reading correctly the court is saying it has no business ruling on how Congress deals with a typo…almost as if this is a technicality. But, if the rule itself is unconstitutional then it seems the court would have jurisdiction.
I think what he is saying is that, if the judiciary cannot get involved when the rule may be unconstitutional, then Congress can make any rule they like. While the court has no right to tell Congress what kind of rules it may have, it can tell Congress that the rule is unconstitutional. For example, the court ruled that the line item veto is unconstitutional. But, if Congress passes a rule that treats every sentence as a separate bill, then the president functionally has a line item veto.
If I think about it, both are not 100% correct, but Fox is closer to the truth. The House won’t be passing the Senate Bill-- they’ll be passing the Senate Bill + the House Amendments. So, the WaPo is wrong. I think that (Senate Bill + House Amendments) can be called HCR. Now, the quibbling comes about how the votes are counted. The House won’t be voting on “it”, that is HCR, they will be voting on some very small portion of HCR (the House Amendments). Technically, those could be called HCR, but that would actually be wrong, too. If we want to be accurate, we’d have to say the House will be voting on the amendments.
So, both are wrong, but that’s just news. I don’t see Fox doing anything in this case that isn’t being done in other media outlets.
Nonsense.
They are voting on the whole thing, amendments included.
Nonsense.
They are deeming it passed when they vote on the amendments.
The 8,000lb gorilla in the room is a practical one. The Democrats CANNOT get a UHC bill passed any other way.
That is the real issue here, not legality of how they do so. That is why people see it as underhanded.
Which is exactly the same thing… what they are not voting on is the Senate bill by itself, exactly as WaPo points out.
And, obviously, they will be voting on something so Fox News is completely out to lunch with their “does not require a single vote” talking point.
Seems we’ve moved to flat out bullshit.
They are voting for THE WHOLE THING! Not just a few amendments. They are voting to pass all 1300+ pages of HCR that also includes those amendments.
Here’s how the Washington Post explains the procedure:
So, they are only voting on the changes to the bill.
You’re nitpicking a difference that is meaningless unless you are suggesting that when they vote the congresspeople really just think they are voting on the “Kittens are Cute” amendment and will be bewildered to find that they also ushered in the “All Your Base are Belong to Us” law.
When people complain about the “All Your Base are Belong to Us” law the congress people will just shrug and say, “Hey man, I only voted for the kittens are cute thing. Don’t blame me. I’m as surprised as you are!”
:rolleyes:
ETA: More to the point the amendments are meaningless without the underlying law. They cannot be separated inasmuch as they could just vote the amendments in only and ignore the rest.
Oh, they know very well that they consequence of their vote on the amendments will let the bill pass. But we’re talking about whether or not the quote from Fox was accurate or not. It appears to be in line with what other sources say about the process. They vote for the amendments, and not the whole bill. That’s what the procedure is designed to do.
And I suggest that a vote for the amendments is a vote for the whole bill.
The amendments cannot stand on their own. They are inseparable from the underlying bill. To suggest they are really only voting for amendments and not the underlying bill is disingenuous in the extreme.
It’s an all or nothing thing. To suggest the main underlying bill is not what is really at issue and they are sneaking it in is just outright fiction. They are voting for the whole thing or nothing.
Sheesh. Even Nancy Pelosi, per my cite, doesn’t agree with you. It is “deemed to be passed”. They don’t don’t vote on the whole bill. That is THE WHOLE POINT of using this parliamentary procedure.
Good grief.
I explained this upthread.
They do not want to vote on the Senate bill as it is because then Republicans would run ads in the next election that Congressperson-X voted for the Cornhusker Kickback (or insert other bit that is toxic). Nevermind that Congressperson-X voted a day later to amend that part out…it would be technically true that they voted it in. Congressperson-X would then have to try to explain to everyone that they really weren’t voting for that. Given the likes of death panel folks that explanation would likely not penetrate very far.
So, they are amending the senate bill and passing it as amended. This way they did not vote for the senate bill with the bad stuff, they voted for the fixed bill.
Nobody actually cares about arcane parliamentary procedures, aside from a few geeks who specialize in the subject . It’s just a fig leaf to disguise the real motives behind objecting to it.
My feeling is that 99.9% of those objecting to this issue on the process are also opposed to the substance of the bill, and 99.9% of those in favor of the substance don’t care about the process. I can guarantee you that when the shoe is on the other foot and the GOP regains Congress and the GOP is pushing something they love and Democrats hate, they’ll use deem and pass and all these crocodile tears they’re shedding now will be a distant memory.
I don’t think that is accurate. They are voting on the amendments and deeming the senate bill passed. If the senate does not pass the amendments via reconcilliation then the president can sign into law the senate bill minus the amendments. If the house was, in fact, voting on the entire bill plus amendments then the language would not be identical to the senate bill and the president could not sign it. So, in effect, the senate bill and the amendments are two separate entities.
If the House passed the Senate bill as it is now then it could go to the President. This was considered with an understanding that the Senate would then amend the bills after it was law. The House is dubious of the Senate actually doing this though (because of the high degree of dysfunction in that chamber). As a result the House wants the bill amended prior to becoming law.
If the House changes the bill (as they are doing with these amendments) then the Senate needs to vote on the version the House sent them (the amended bill). If they pass it then it goes to the president.
And you were wrong. They vote only on the amendments and the entire bill is only “deemed to have passed”.
So, if you’re interpretation is correct, what are people talking about when they say the bill is “deemed to have passed”?
You’re wrong…or I am missing something here. Here is a story from MSNBC that explains how deem and pass works…http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/16/2229330.aspx
Here is the relevant point:
Bolding mine.
So, the Senate bill will have to be signed into law before reconciliation. Therefore, the senate bill and the fix are two different entities. What am I missing here?