President Obama's Thinking On Sen. Reid's Threat Of Using The Nuclear Option

[ben stein fan]

The real question becomes will Vice President Biden over-ride the Senate Parliamentarian? 

In another post I explained in detail how what the President and Senate were attempting to do was not the nuclear option but it wasn't really reconciliation either. 

The fact remains unless the House passes the Senate bill then health care is dead.  I'm sorry I don't see the House passing the Senate bill.  Not only do you have a problem with the Pro-Life Democrats but you have problems with the far left.

If PV Biden over-rules the Senate Parliamentarian then all hell brakes loose.

[Just Win]

The real question becomes will Vice President Biden over-ride the Senate Parliamentarian?  

In another post I explained in detail how what the President and Senate were attempting to do was not the nuclear option but it wasn't really reconciliation either.  

The fact remains unless the House passes the Senate bill then health care is dead.  I'm sorry I don't see the House passing the Senate bill.  Not only do you have a problem with the Pro-Life Democrats but you have problems with the far left.

If PV Biden over-rules the Senate Parliamentarian then all hell brakes loose.

The House of Representatives Slaughter option slaughters both the constitution and our Federal Representative Republic. It is even more nefarious than the use of the nuclear option in the senate. These legislative maneuvers make lucid that liberals hate the rule of law and will destroy our form of government and constitution in pursuit of a Socialism hades in the USA. They know they have not the consent of the governed in trying to place into operation Socialized medicine.  Is this the reason brave Americans gave their last and full measure of devotion on the beaches of Normandy or in the jungel of Iwo Jima?




Advocacy for Socialized Medicine: Dan Mote, President, University of Maryland, College Park; The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; House Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (Democrat of Tennessee); and Christopher W. Hansen, CEO Emeritus, TechAmerica (L-R)

 

[Flummoxed Lummox]

The House of Representatives Slaughter option slaughters both the constitution and our Federal Representative Republic. It is even more nefarious than the use of the nuclear option in the senate. These legislative maneuvers make lucid that liberals hate the rule of law and will destroy our form of government and constitution in pursuit of a Socialism hades in the USA. They know they have not the consent of the governed in trying to place into operation Socialized medicine.  Is this the reason brave Americans gave their last and full measure of devotion on the beaches of Normandy or in the jungel of Iwo Jima?

You mean the same Slaughter option Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert used dozens of times when the GOP was in the majority? That Slaughter option that you're suddenly so concerned about now that the Dems are in control?

Where was your outrage in the 90's and 2000's when the GOP used the Slaughter option several times to get legislation through? Did the GOP "hate the rule of law" and try to "destroy our government" when they did exactly the same thing? Hmmm???

You fu#king hypocrite. 

[LTC]

k-newt used the Slaughter Solution Dreier Doctrine 25% of the time his first term as speaker and 35% of the time his second....FL, repugnacraps are such hypocrites ...and so damned UN-INFORMED!  LEt's give them an orgasm....Jesus was tortured!!!!  They do love them some torture!

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Just Wind,

We're still waiting on a response ... not that I expect one from a craven poster like you.

[Sasquatch]

Seriously, people are so ignorant about what's actually IN the constitution

Consitution? We don't need no stinking constitution. Blah, Blah, Blah.

[NCVol]

Yep, the founders wanted a 60 vote majority for the Senate, which is why they wrote the requirements for a super majority right there in the constitution.  

I forget, what section of the Constitution was it that included the filibuster rules?  Help me out JW, aren't you a legal expert?  It's probably where it says minority parties get to dictate the President's appointments with a super majority.  People think it says, advise and consent, but that's not what it says, it says, "President shall ask minority opposition party's approval for ALL hires."  (emphasis in the original - It's a rare case where the founders used BIG CAPS to make a point....)

Seriously, people are so ignorant about what's actually IN the constitution and you have to point out the long history of the minority in the opposition party dictating hiring decisions of the President especially when pork projects in the home state are at risk.  Seriously, if one party loses an election, the rules are clear, they have the authority to make up for that loss with a veto threat over every executive branch appointment!  It's right there in the dang document- show us JW! 

I had to go back to see what you were quoting - can't find anything more recent that three weeks ago to comment on?  And the comment you cherry picked was clearly meant as sarcasm, so I reproduced it above to make it clear. 

JW was pointing out that "a simple majority vote" could be used to pass something in the Senate!  HORRORS!  The fact is the Constitution contemplates a simple majority being sufficient, since it provides for the VP to break ties in the Senate.  There would be NO role for a VP if the founders thought a super majority was appropriate for bills in the Senate, since a super majority by definition cannot in any case result in a tie. 

So the sarcasm was pointing out how silly and ignorant JW was citing the Constitution when he says reconciliation is anti-constitutional.  I'm quite sure the founders never anticipated filibusters since the rules governing them are made up by the Senate and can be changed at will with the next Congress.  There is exactly NO, NADA, ZILCH constitutional requirement that health care pass with a super majority. 

[Sasquatch]

Maybe you missed my point. When you discuss the Constitution and whether it is being violated or not, the follow-up should be:

Blah, blah, blah.

IOKIYAD

[LTC]

So the final healthcare bill, the one that will go to Obama's desk for his signature, will have arrived at his desk NOT using a 50 plus 1 option. Correct?

Absolutely correct! Passed the House and Senate with A SUPERMAJORITY in the SENATE!

[Sasquatch]

Blah, Blah, Blah: Constitution be damned. Hip, Hip, Hooray!

[NCVol]

Maybe you missed my point. When you discuss the Constitution and whether it is being violated or not, the follow-up should be:

Blah, blah, blah.

IOKIYAD

No, it's not OK if you're a democrat.  What constitutional issue is at stake except for the mandated coverage, which I fully admit could be ruled unconstitutional.  Where did I say the Supreme Court shouldn't have a say, or that the lawsuits being filed are without merit and should be dismissed out of hand?  I'm VERY sure I never said that, since I don't believe it.

You're beating the dog crap out of a straw man of your own making, with multiple posts to old stuff that you've taken out of context to fit some weird idea that I don't respect the Supreme Court or our Constitution or believe the President has special rights.  THAT is the realm of "conservatives" who argued while Bush was Dear Leader that the Executive branch had equally valid rights to interpret constitutionality of laws as our court system.  They believed the President was dictator of the Executive branch and couldn't be checked in how he ran that by Congress, and that Congress could not make ANY laws that would infringe on how Bush ran his little fiefdom.  It's the whole "Unitary Executive" theory thing that I've written about dozens of times.  Now Obama is the Dictator of the Executive branch and for some reason conservatives don't LIKE that much.  Interesting.  

Anyway, part of the whole robust executive branch thing was the assertion that Bush could declare something unconstitutional on his own and not follow it - hence the hundreds of signing statements that got around line item veto prohibitions by him simply declaring the executive branch restrictions unconstitutional.  

If you want to discuss any of that, be my guest. It might be easier to claim that I don't care.....