Home » That super-majority to repeal health care: “our rules mean nothing”

Comments

That super-majority to repeal health care: “our rules mean nothing” — 12 Comments

  1. The only hope of overturning this healthcare bill is if enough Democrat senators and representatives are scared enough by the public’s response to push for repeal and, together with the Republicans, a veto proof majority (2/3rds of both houses) is attained. Otherwise, not enough Republicans will be elected in 2010 to obtain the 60 seats necessary for cloture and, even if they could pass repealing legislation, they will not be able to override an Obama veto. Should a Republican win the presidency in 2012, the Republicans will still need at least 60 senators to get by a Democrat filibuster. But, with the Maine twins in favor of passing good healthcare legislation, who is to say the Republicans will have the will in 2013 or later to undo the healthcare bill.

    I suggest another strategy might be more effective. That is, force the Democrats to live with the bill they passed. If the Democrats try to amend the bill after it becomes law, try to pick off one or two Democrat senators to filibuster the amendment. There is a lot of stuff hiding in the bill that probably should not see the light of day. By fighting any amendments, those provisions will come to light and public anger over the bill can be prolonged and deepened.

    After 2010, assuming that the Republicans gain at least three seats (one more than necessary to cover the Maine twins), the Republicans can fend off all attempts at amending the bill. If doctors or hospitals or drug companies or makers of medical devices, or insurance companies, or ambulance companies, or nurses, or whomever, start to scream, remind them whose bed they found themselves in in 2009 and that they had better go back to the Democrats (and only the Democrats) for relief. If the screams are loud enough perhaps the Democrats will relent, but I doubt it.

  2. Two thousand pages of impenetrable Senate legislation (and then a several hundred page “manager’s amendment” on top of that at the last minute) can confuse and make analysis under extreme time pressure nearly impossible, can hide and obscure a lot of things; one example of how hard it is to determine which shell the pea is hidden under in this hustler’s game of Three Card Monte is the current scramble to determine which state gets the bribe of a hospital.

    It has often been commented on–even by far left Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, no less–that Democratic members of Congress don’t need to “read the bill,” and some commenters, who I agree with–say members haven’t read the bill because they don’t really care what is in the bill–it is just a vehicle, helping to set up what Glenn Beck calls “a new framework,” and once this framework is erected on an emergency basis, allowing for no real analysis or debate in order to hide its real purpose, they can fill in the details of the operating mechanism inside the framework at leisure.

    This impenetrability and the compressed time schedule also offers members of Congress cover after passage, so that they can argue that they were too rushed to pick up on parts of this legislation that–had they known of them–they would never have voted into law.

    I believe that these massive House and Senate bills–drafted by far Left think tanks, SEIU and other key individuals–are stuffed with thousands of deliberately inimical, objectionable, illegal, unconstitutional, insane items–many of which are intended to be “game changers”–in the hope that enough of them will not be found and/or stripped out in a House-Senate conference or–in view of how many their are–will just not objected to because other items seem to be more harmful, that enough may become law to really, decisively “change the game,” and the hell with whether there is a coherent whole left, to hell with whether the final bill really reforms health care or saves money, as long as enough malicious items that help to destroy the Capitalist system and our Democracy, and massively increase government’s power, reach and control vis-a vis the individual citizen, become law.

  3. Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:

    DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”

    The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.

    Senator DeMint responded:

    DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.

    DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

    So there you have it, Up is down, black is white and all animals are equal, though some may be more equal than others.
    Ten years or so ago, some member of the house, a republican, said that there are democrats and there are Americans. He was roundly excoriated, as he deserved to be, by all sides. Today, I’m no longer so sure he wasn’t just ahead of the curve.
    Where’s the outrage??

  4. On hopes not, one hopes we’ll fight, but still, it’s impossible not to be a bit kicked over by all this.

    Adieu, l’ancien regime? . . .

  5. As I understand it each convocation of the houses adopts it’s own set of rules. Usually they accept last years set, but I don’t think anything really binds a future congress to an old ones rules.

    What these seem to be are laying a marker in the sand requiring the new session to take time out and strike that provision rather than simply accept the prior rules.

  6. Where is the MSM? This incident illustrates the blatant betrayal and lack of respect for somewhere in excess of 50% of Americans, a constituancy which deserves significantly more consideration than these kinds of deceptions exemplify. The MSM, by their complicit silence, are aiding and abetting the most insidious kind of dishonesty for whatever personal reasons these people have one can’t imagine. The MSM have abdicated their fiduciary responsibility to the nation in favor of shilling for the radical left-wing Democratic Party. It’s getting more personal everyday…

  7. The MSM are the preeminent hypocrites in this Republic today; if this sort of thing was being orchestrated by the Republicans and George Bush, they would be all over it. Hypocrites!

  8. Perhaps if Congress’s gold plated healthcare coverage (paid for by us) is repealed and that they have to look to the same insurance/Medicare coverages that the rest of us have to settle for. Then we might see some real reform.

    If only…

  9. There’s a petition by Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana’s 4rth District to force members of Congress to enroll themselves in any health care plan they vote for. Make them have to live under what they impose on the nation. Anyone can sign the petition. Link below:

    http://tinyurl.com/m6v2ph

  10. In recent discussions on this blog, I’ve been arguing against the notion that a “coup” is imminent, or that totalitarianism is about to dscend on the U.S.. I still hold to that. (The discussions on Volokh seem to suggest this provision is either unconstitutional or rescindable, the language notwithstanding.)

    Nevertheless, I am taking to heart Neo’s previous comment to the effect that:


    Remember that what the Nazis appeared to be when they came to power is not what they were ten years later. The tyranny they so clearly implemented grew and built over time. Nor did they come to power through a coup. Everything Hitler when he first to come to power was strictly legal . . . Again, don’t get me wrong–I do not see Obama as Hitler. I see him much more as a Chavez wannabee, a smoother and seemingly more erudite (although I believe Obama’s erudition is merely a veneer) version.

    Here is evidence to that point: Obama’s Dems attempting to entrench the power of one of their beareaucratic creations.

    Point well taken, Neo. Point well taken.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>