Can’t Get the Votes? Just “Deem”
Wow…
There is no bottom in determining how low the House Democrats will go to force the Stalinization of health care on an unwanting public.
Latest, it turns out, the Rules Committee is drafting a scheme that will allow them to deem the Senate bill “passed” without even voting on it.
If it seems like something odd and underhanded, I don’t know what to tell you.
NRO has a couple pieces on the Corner about it.
Here we go again.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)
17 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Unfortunately this doesn’t tell us if they have the votes to pass the Senate Bill or not. All it tells us is that House Democrats are desperately trying to figure out a way that they can change the Senate bill without actually passing it first. It’s possible that Pelosi still has the votes to pass the Senate bill, but they are holding on to that as a last resort.
Let’s hope that’s not the case!
What everyone in Washington knows, and Democrats are desperately trying to keep their base from finding out is that “reconciliation” is a LIE. It cannot happen. Republicans can and WILL block it from ever happening.
The ONLY way Obamacare becomes law is the Senate bill. Reconciliation is just a lie they are telling their base to get them to support passing the senate bill and when they cannot reconcile the bill, will blame it on Republicans while Obama signs the senate bill into law.
Pelosi claims she has the votes. Others say she does not.
Everyone of us should be calling the fence sitters to make sure they do NOT vote for the Senate bill.
I wonder if it would help stop this bill if Republicans promised to investigate any corrupt deal making should they take control of either house. Might be hard to accept Pelosi and Obama’s pay-offs if congressmen knew they would go to jail for it.
Comment by American Elephant — March 10, 2010 @ 7:41 pm - March 10, 2010
Very good point AE. Landrau, Nelson, Matteson should all be investigated to expose the bribes. And then Obama should be prosecuted for violating federal law. Offering Sepeck (sic) a big job for his vote is clearly illegal. And God please, don’t ever make me take a shower with Rahm.
Comment by John in Dublin CA — March 10, 2010 @ 10:16 pm - March 10, 2010
But you could convince me to shower with Marco Rubio, woof!
Comment by John in Dublin CA — March 10, 2010 @ 10:17 pm - March 10, 2010
It’s scary that ‘deeming’ is even an option. And to John in Dublin: I’d much prefer Paul Ryan. I’ve never heard anyone say the word ‘actuary’ so sexy. ;o)
Comment by Brendan in Philly — March 10, 2010 @ 10:20 pm - March 10, 2010
Actually Brendan, as an old man, I could find myself quite amenable to Mike Pence.
Comment by John in Dublin CA — March 10, 2010 @ 10:22 pm - March 10, 2010
The “Rule” (for how the fix will proceed) deems the Senate bill passed, but the Rule itself needs to be voted on and passed by a majority. So in order for the Senate bill to be approved by the House, the Rule needs to get a majority vote, then the fix needs to get a majority vote.
So, the notion that this maneuver will allow the bill to become law even though the votes are not there, as stated in the title of the post, is completely false.
Comment by Tano — March 11, 2010 @ 9:33 am - March 11, 2010
To quote here about the bill: So now Democratic leaders say they’ll package a two-for-one vote: Moving the original Senate bill simultaneously with a “reconciliation” bill — thus, if the House votes for the bill of fixes, the main Senate bill will be deemed to also have passed. Then the reconciliation bill will go back to the Senate, where it only needs 50 votes (plus Vice President Joe Biden’s) to pass.
So, Tano, they won’t vote on the bill, they’ll vote on the reconcilliation then say ‘the bill passed’ Stupak and co get to avoid a vote for the Senate bill, then the Senate can kill the reconciliation part. The House will declair the bill passed without voting on it.
When the house flips, we can then put an ammendment to repeal Obamacare and attach it to the budget. That sound acceptable to you Tano? Or will your support of this trick disappear like you have in every global warming post?
Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2010 @ 9:43 am - March 11, 2010
Tano decrees:
Tano has long conversations with the mule he rode in on and the mule has spoken. Naturally, as an expert on semantics, Tano has in the palm of hand the clear and only meaning of “deem” in parliamentary parlance.
My question, dear Tano, is why does a special rule have to appear with the word “deem” in it? How has the House proceeded to clutter up the universe will laws that did not have such a special rule? Could you talk that over with the mule?
Comment by heliotrope — March 11, 2010 @ 10:02 am - March 11, 2010
The problem for Tano and the rest of the regressives is that the Slaughter the Constitution rule accomplishes NOTHING! Even if it were legitimate, its just another gimmick. The original Senate bill would be passed, Obama would sign it, and Republicans would still use the Byrd rule to block reconciliation from ever happening in the Senate.
The ONLY health care bill that can become law is the Senate bill, the House cannot change SQUAT, and Stupak says the Senate bill is dead, that Pelosi cannot pass it. Its just more lies and more corruption from a deeply corrupt and defeated speaker.
Comment by American Elephant — March 11, 2010 @ 10:17 am - March 11, 2010
AE,
You’re missing the true evil of this plan.
Democrats get the Senate bill they want. Reconciliation dies.
Obama gets his bill, we get our free colorectal exam, Stupak et al get to say “I didn’t vote for the senate bill, I voted for the reconciliation bill. Those evil republicans stabbed their pro-life people in the back.”
Everyone but the American people win.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2010 @ 10:45 am - March 11, 2010
“Passing” legislation without a House vote, that the House should and probably would vote against. Nothing could be more unconstitutional. This is a step in the descent to dictatorship.
But then, ObamaPelosiGreidCare is already laden with unconstitutional provisions characteristic of a dictatorship. Like the mandates.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2010 @ 1:27 pm - March 11, 2010
I think I’ll deem my taxes paid this year. How far do you think I’ll get with that.
Comment by Draybee — March 11, 2010 @ 1:57 pm - March 11, 2010
Draybee, that reminds me of the guy who got one of those photo tickets. They sent him the photo of him running the red light. He sent back a photo of the money. They sent him a photo of handcuffs.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2010 @ 1:59 pm - March 11, 2010
Livewire,
According to Republicans, the Senate Parliamentarian has confirmed that the House must pass and Obama must sign the Senate bill before anything else happens with this bill. That would seem to rule out the attempted Slaughter.
Comment by American Elephant — March 11, 2010 @ 6:36 pm - March 11, 2010
For eight years the left lectured us with sophistry on the shredding of the Constitution. Well, as Freud’s “projection theory” suggests, they are actually doing it. Mark Levin who is a constitutional lawyer is calling it an attempt at martial law and Louise Slaughter should resign for breaching her oath of office.
Comment by Rob — March 11, 2010 @ 6:48 pm - March 11, 2010
AE,
you’re assuming the Dems will follow those rules.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 12, 2010 @ 6:41 am - March 12, 2010
My trucked crapped out last July and has been sitting in my driveway since. Clearly, Tano is richer than I am. It is my belief that I have a fundamental RIGHT to a new truck so I can get to and from work and the bars easier.
Therefore, I deem that he buy me a new truck. You can reach me through Dan and I’ll provide information on where to send the check. About $28,000 ought to get it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 12, 2010 @ 6:50 am - March 12, 2010