Home » So after this can they pass everything through reconciliation or the Slaughter solution?

Comments

So after this can they pass <i>everything</i> through reconciliation or the Slaughter solution? — 12 Comments

  1. 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.”

  2. “when you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose.”

    They’ve always got something to lose. Ask Salvador Allende.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.”

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

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>