Senate Parliamentarian Makes A Ruling

[/dev/null]

http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html

[Doc]

Harry might want to talk with his fellow Dem Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, on what the Senate can pass via reconciliation. Because according to Kent, the Senate CANNOT pass the health care bill this way. Oh and in the past, reconciliation has only been done with bipartisan votes, not wholly partisan.

 

If they try this, the time for revolution may be at hand.

[IDBillzFan]

They really seem to be running out of options. It comes down to this: House pass the Senate bill. Period.

[jjamie12]

They really seem to be running out of options. It comes down to this: House pass the Senate bill. Period.

Personally, if I were the Dem leadership, I would force the Republicans to you know, ACTUALLY filibuster, not just threaten it. There really is no reason that there shouldn't be an up or down vote on this thing, even it its bad. We live in a republic. Elections matter.

 

For the record, I hate this monstrosity.

 

Just my opinion.

[Doc]

Personally, if I were the Dem leadership, I would force the Republicans to you know, ACTUALLY filibuster, not just threaten it. There really is no reason that there shouldn't be an up or down vote on this thing, even it its bad. We live in a republic. Elections matter.

 

For the record, I hate this monstrosity.

Actually precedence matters more. There has NEVER been a bill of this magnitude to be passed via reconciliation, reconciliation has NEVER been used without votes from both sides, and reconciliation is NOT for non-budgetary bills, which this is mostly.

[Keukasmallies]

Aren't you just salivating to see what the Dems come up with next on HC? Political theatre at its finest!

[jjamie12]

Actually precedence matters more. There has NEVER been a bill of this magnitude to be passed via reconciliation, reconciliation has NEVER been used without votes from both sides, and reconciliation is NOT for non-budgetary bills, which this is mostly.

Doc, I don't think I ever advocated passing this bill through reconciliation.

[Doc]

Doc, I don't think I ever advocated passing this bill through reconciliation.

Perhaps I'm interpreting this wrong, but an "up or down vote" to me says reconciliation.

[jjamie12]

Perhaps I'm interpreting this wrong, but an "up or down vote" to me says reconciliation.

Maybe I didn't word it correctly. Let me re-state. If I were Dems, I would actually force the filibuster. Not just cave to the 'threat' of one. Make them stand there and talk for days, weeks, months, whatever. I hate this bill, but I hate parliamentary gimmicks even worse; there's nothing honorable in this nonsense (maybe there's nothing honorable left in the Senate... a point worth making and thinking about).

 

A bill like this deserves to be debated and given an up or down vote, you know, like a republic is supposed to work. And then anyone who votes for this nonsense should get their ass handed to them in the next election. Elections matter.

[Doc]

Maybe I didn't word it correctly. Let me re-state. If I were Dems, I would actually force the filibuster. Not just cave to the 'threat' of one. Make them stand there and talk for days, weeks, months, whatever. I hate this bill, but I hate parliamentary gimmicks even worse; there's nothing honorable in this nonsense (maybe there's nothing honorable left in the Senate... a point worth making and thinking about).

 

A bill like this deserves to be debated and given an up or down vote, you know, like a republic is supposed to work. And then anyone who votes for this nonsense should get their ass handed to them in the next election. Elections matter.

From what I understand, the rules have changed so that now one party just needs to say they are filibustering, and that's it. No need to stand there and read or do anything to waste time.

 

And they've had time to debate. And time to do polls. Which say that the majority of Americans, while they want health care/insurance reform, DON'T want this bill. Allowing one party to saddle the country with an apocalyptic bill just because they have a vested interest in doing it is NOT how things should be run. Again reconciliation in the past always had both parties supplying votes, and was only done with budgetary measures on much smaller-scope bills. By the time the elections roll around, the damage will have already been done and may be irreversible. I say "may" because I heard a Republican Senator say that the battle cry for the November elections, if this is rammed through, is to repeal it.

[DC Tom]

From what I understand, the rules have changed so that now one party just needs to say they are filibustering, and that's it. No need to stand there and read or do anything to waste time.

 

Yep.

 

I still think they should go back to the old style.

[jjamie12]

Yep.

 

I still think they should go back to the old style.

I was under the impression that the Senate Majority leader can actually require the 'standing and talking'. I'll do some checking on this.

[Doc]

Yep.

 

I still think they should go back to the old style.

It would definitely make for some good "reality TV" on C-SPAN.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yep.

 

I still think they should go back to the old style.

 

 

 

I agree. It would make great theatre. Then they could install a cheering section. People can shout and hold up signs like: "Read from the dictionary!" Just think how much fun it would be. Or they can read what you are Darin have said through the years. Even with the namecalling and useless attacks. Oh wait, they couldn't pass more than 5 minutes with that non-existant material.

 

Now me... They sure can pass a lot time with my 17k posts: "Hell yay! Carp must stay!" Just reading that thread verbatim would keep the filibuster going a few weeks. You guys... Only so much one can get be done with: "Gov't bad!" "Conner sucks!" "I'm great!" They can come to me, I would be their filibuster consultant. My useless information is better than yours... And attacks are far more entertaining and creative. Just think how long this post is. And that's only been rattled off in a few seconds. The key would be to talk a lot more slowly than me!

 

[DC Tom]

I was under the impression that the Senate Majority leader can actually require the 'standing and talking'. I'll do some checking on this.

 

It's got me thinking, though...even if that's not required, is there anything that can stop them from trying an old-school "monopolize the floor and don't yield" fillibuster?

 

I'd actually like to see that - Democrats avoid a declared fillibuster with reconciliation, Republicans decide to block reconciliation with an honest-to-God "You'll have to kill me to shut me up" real fillibuster.

[ExiledInIllinois]

It's got me thinking, though...even if that's not required, is there anything that can stop them from trying an old-school "monopolize the floor and don't yield" fillibuster?

 

I'd actually like to see that - Democrats avoid a declared fillibuster with reconciliation, Republicans decide to block reconciliation with an honest-to-God "You'll have to kill me to shut me up" real fillibuster.

 

Exactly! I was thinking that too... Scary aye? Isn't that the whole point of a filibuster (what you said).

 

I have some really nice material:

 

How long do you think it would take to wade through this?

 

Now mix in all the modern accoutrements and tools like PowerPoint, etc... This could get ugly! Scary... I don't think our founders ever evisioned how easy pulling off a filibuster could be... Heck it would not much unlike work for a vast number of people. Just as long as they planned it well and kept the supply-lines in tact... Make it like a big party!

[erynthered]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0031102904.html

 

Yeah, I know, its the post and Pat Caddell.

 

Good article anyways.

[jjamie12]

Some mixed results. I still don't really know.

 

Not Bill Nye

 

Relevant quote: "In current practice, actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses."

 

Not Wikipedia

 

Relevant quote: "In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to three-fifths (60) of Senate membership. At the same time, they made the filibuster "invisible" by requiring only that 41 Senators state that they intend to filibuster; critics say this makes the modern filibuster "painless."

 

So... I still don't know. You'd think there would be some clear understanding of this out there somewhere. In any case, these people need to act like grown-ups for a change and if you're going to try and block the will of a majority of the Senate, your ass should be up there actually filibustering. This candy-ass rule that you only have to 'threaten' is really just, I don't know the word, but non-gravitas'y'. I mean, if you feel so strongly that you're willing to stand there for hours and hours, I can respect that. If you're just going to say 'FILIBUSTER!', I don't respect that.

[OCinBuffalo]

Aren't you just salivating to see what the Dems come up with next on HC? Political theatre at its finest!

Not really. Actually, I am not taking much pleasure in this at all. This if far too important, and dangerous to our economy if it is allowed to proceed. The "base everything on DRGs" financial allocation crap is the worst. Most people don't understand the severe consequences, both intended and unintended, that this idea brings with it. I do, and it's not pretty. Imagine if: you can't get a kidney transplant because...everybody else isn't...but, you can get dentures, because everybody else is. That's a simplification, but it's fairly accurate.

 

Essentially this "cost savings" is not about actually going after real cost...as we would in cost accounting. Instead, its about averaging health care allocation, and then giving out "averaged" health care. Why would we want to go from getting good health care...to average, and have it cost more, because we STILL didn't do anything REAL to cut cost? Anybody who has ever worked at the executive level of any business understands this. I would venture to guess that many low level workers do as well. Hmmm. Have Obama and the rest of the supporters of this bill largely ever done this kind of work, at any level? No. It's simple really: they are ignorant.

 

But yeah, I can't wait for what they come up with next...

A bill like this deserves to be debated and given an up or down vote, you know, like a republic is supposed to work. And then anyone who votes for this nonsense should get their ass handed to them in the next election. Elections matter.

Yes, they do. And, we had one, in Massachusetts, recently, that gave the Republicans in the Senate 41 votes. Perhaps you were away? The rules are the rules, elections matter, and Scott Brown ran as Vote #41 against this health care bill, and won, in Mass. of all places. That should have been enough right then and there, because, Elections Matter.

 

But, instead, we are talking about cute ways to circumvent the rules. You want an up or down vote? OK. 59-41 against, bill fails. Why hasn't that happened, if, Elections Matter?

[jjamie12]

Not really. Actually, I am not taking much pleasure in this at all. This if far too important, and dangerous to our economy if it is allowed to proceed. The "base everything on DRGs" financial allocation crap is the worst. Most people don't understand the severe consequences, both intended and unintended, that this idea brings with it. I do, and it's not pretty. Imagine if: you can't get a kidney transplant because...everybody else isn't...but, you can get dentures, because everybody else is. That's a simplification, but it's fairly accurate.

 

Essentially this "cost savings" is not about actually going after real cost...as we would in cost accounting. Instead, its about averaging health care allocation, and then giving out "averaged" health care. Why would we want to go from getting good health care...to average, and have it cost more, because we STILL didn't do anything REAL to cut cost? Anybody who has ever worked at the executive level of any business understands this. I would venture to guess that many low level workers do as well. Hmmm. Have Obama and the rest of the supporters of this bill largely ever done this kind of work, at any level? No. It's simple really: they are ignorant.

 

But yeah, I can't wait for what they come up with next...

 

Yes, they do. And, we had one, in Massachusetts, recently, that gave the Republicans in the Senate 41 votes. Perhaps you were away? The rules are the rules, elections matter, and Scott Brown ran as Vote #41 against this health care bill, and won, in Mass. of all places. That should have been enough right then and there, because, Elections Matter.

 

But, instead, we are talking about cute ways to circumvent the rules. You want an up or down vote? OK. 59-41 against, bill fails. Why hasn't that happened, if, Elections Matter?

OC, I swear to God, I don't want this thing to pass. However, 59-41 it is not. You know this, I know this. It's 59-41 FOR. In reality, I would LOVE for us to have a real debat about health care. Unforutnately, all we'll get is soundbytes. I think, no, I know, you know this.