Should House Deem Senate Bill Passed Under Slaughter Rule, Where’s Guarantee Senate Will Consider House “Fixes”?
In a recent comment, one of our perennial critics, Tano, makes a somewhat cogent defense of Slaughter Rule, a defense which works only if it works out as he says it will. First, here’s the defense:
What they are trying to avoid – what the whole “deem passed” maneuver is about is their hope to avoid a recorded vote on the UNAMENDED Senate version of the bill. The one with all the Cornhusker – Lousiana stuff in it – y’know the stuff that is coming OUT of the bill. The problem for them, is that they have to vote FOR the Senate bill before they can amend the Senate bill. So technically – they have to vote in favor of all the things that they are going to vote against a day later – things they do not support.
Now, if the House could “deem” the Senate bill passed as part of their actual vote on the amendments (pulling out the Cornhusker Kickback et al.) and then the Senate revisit the whole package (as passed by the House) before the president signs it, this whole process would pass constitutional muster (even if it is a bad bill) . House Democrats wouldn’t be on the record backing Cornhusker and the Senate would have to vote on the whole thing (its bill plus amendments) before it become law.
But, here’s the problem. If the House deems the Senate bill passed, then (I’m assuming) that bill would exist independently of all the amendments passed in the House, meaning the president can sign it and it becomes law without the Senate even considering said amendments. (Where’s the guarantee the Senate will even vote on them?) Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase along with a whole passel of payoffs become law.
And since the Senate can’t even begin to consider reconciliation (as per the parliamentarian’s recent ruling) until a bill becomes law, then every House member who accedes to the Democrats’ deeming will have allowed the kickback to become law.
Will the Senate want to move forward on those amendments once its bill has become law? Obama will have had his signing ceremony, the historic moment will have passed. Will he want to expend any more energy into getting the Senate to act on amendments crafted in the House? Will Senators?
That’s the main problem with the “deeming” solution. It’s a sure-fire way to make the Senate bill the law of the land, with no guarantee that the House “fixes” will even be considered.
UPDATE: Just after posting this piece, caught this memo from Hugh Nathanial Halpern, Rules Committee Republican Staff Director which pretty much confirms my point:
The only certainty for any Member who votes for a rule that “deems” or otherwise passes the Senate health care bill is that the Senate health care bill will become law. The “fixes” contained in reconciliation are subject to the Byrd Rule, amendment, and the other vagaries of the Senate process. The outcome of reconciliation is by no means certain.
Read the whole thing for his explanation of the history of “deeming.”
11 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Tano’s explanation is a nice piece of propaganda, but its still a load.
Democrats dont give a rat’s hind end about the corrupt deals — they’re making more corrupt deals as we speak. They dont like the Senate bill because its not leftwing enough for them, it doesnt pay off unions well enough, and doesnt go far enough towards forcing the free market system to collapse. They also dont want to vote on the Senate bill because they don’t trust the senate to join them in reconciliation.
For good reason!
Because one thing Republicans can and WILL do, is prevent ALL the changes Democrats want to make that are not budgetary. Republicans can and will use the “Byrd Rule” to strip most changes out of the reconcilliation bill which means the Senate would need to overcome Republican filibusters on those provisions.
Which they cant.
Reconciliation is a lie. Obama knows it, Reed knows it, Nancy knows it. They are lying to House Democrats to convince them they can change the senate bill, and they have proposed this “Slaughter” rule to further that charade.
If the house passes the Senate bill, which they must, Obama will sign it, it will become law and the GOP will block any attempts to change it.
Reconcilliation is a lie. And were Obama to sign a law that the house had not voted on, the law would be invalid before he even signed it.
Tano simply believes what he/she is told to believe, but those are the facts jack.
Comment by American Elephant — March 17, 2010 @ 3:50 am - March 17, 2010
Speaking of which — where IS KKK Grand Dragon Robert Byrd? He is on video having previously excoriated congress for trying to use reconciliation to pass non-budgetary items before.
Is he no longer in command of his own faculties? Who is running his Senate seat?
Comment by American Elephant — March 17, 2010 @ 3:52 am - March 17, 2010
Dan, it’s really simple. House Democrats propose to “deem passed” a gravely controversial bill *that in fact they have not yet voted on*, much less passed. But as Halpern points out, “Traditionally, when the House has used this [questionable] procedure it has been to address internal matters or to move legislation to the President at the very end of the process.” Added to that is the base illegitimacy of House Democrats’ motive: they want to escape accountability for passing the Senate monstrosity, which your update points out is in fact “The only certainty…” of outcome of the House’s proposed action.
I have been suggesting/wishing for some time that Senate Republicans would aggressively negate all promises the Democrats are making about the “fixes” to ObamaCare, waging all-out warfare to hold up other Senate business if they cannot hold up Obamacare reconciliation as such.
Yes… and, again, without the House having voted on the bill that actually passed (and the President signed). How can that be constitutional? Just because a questionable procedure has been used in the past – for, again, House-internal and/or non-controversial matters – does not make it constitutional, here or ever. Just imagine if the police’s defense for breaking down your door without a warrant was that, well, they’ve done it before. Repeating / perpetuating a wrong does not make it right.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2010 @ 4:33 am - March 17, 2010
AP headline: FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan.
That’s at the time of this writing. It defies the AP-Democrat party line. Let’s see how long it takes AP to “fix” it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2010 @ 4:40 am - March 17, 2010
“Will the Senate want to move forward on those amendments once its bill has become law? Obama will have had his signing ceremony, …:”
Maybe not. Maybe Obama will not have a signing ceremony till he can sign both the bill and the bill of amendments.
I know this scenario of yours is one of the many talking points that the GOP is pushing – this one has been Judd Greggs pet argument for the past week as he tries to gin up reasons for House Dems not to vote for the bill – but it seems pretty silly to me. Its one thing to double-cross and screw over the opposition party – but for the Dems in the Senate to do even dream of doing that to their own party members in the House would be pretty remarkable. Obviously the president could not let that happen – it would tear apart his own party and imperil anything and everything else he would ever want to do.
No, this is just more attempts to sow dissension and hope to persuade House Dems to vote no. Aint gonna carry any water.
Comment by Tano — March 17, 2010 @ 9:39 am - March 17, 2010
Tano, what?, you are not going to tell us about the results of a poll showing that 63% of Americans favor “deeming?”
Comment by heliotrope — March 17, 2010 @ 9:47 am - March 17, 2010
Yep, this was a huge question about this process I was asking, and it was hard to find the answer. Seems that the demonpass method doesn’t prevent the original Christmas Eve Senate bill from becoming law even if the Senate does not pass or even consider the “fixes” the house will be attaching to the rule.
Comment by Doug J — March 17, 2010 @ 9:57 am - March 17, 2010
You should vote for the bill and commit political suicide for your party. • Check.
You should sell your principles for goodies for your district. • Check.
You should forget the Constitution and let the ends justify the means. • Check.
You should lie, weasel and flip off your district. • Check.
You should not double-cross and screw over your own party members. • ????????? How does that fit with the first four which are all double-crossing screwings within the party?
Then Tano sat down and wrote
Wow, I didn’t know that The Won had not already torn apart his party and imperiled his Presidency. I guess that is why he has been able to grease this thing through with his loyal majority and without having to resort to smoke, mirrors, threats, bribes, and postponing the most historic trip of any presidency ever.
Tanovision, don’t drive or operate heavy machinery while using it.
Comment by heliotrope — March 17, 2010 @ 10:30 am - March 17, 2010
actually, Tano, your scenario is the talking point.
You write:
How is that obvious?
You mean, the party’s not torn about already?
Simply put, there is no guarantee the Senate would touch it. Call it a talking point if you like but it’s based on reality, your point on wishful thinking.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 17, 2010 @ 1:09 pm - March 17, 2010
“You mean, the party’s not torn about already?’
Ahhh,,,no – why would I think that? We are on the cusp of an historic achievement, one won with unanimous support from Senate Democrats and most members in the House. How is that evidence of a torn party?
[Unanimous support bought with arm-twisting and payoffs. Very much a torn party--if you don't see it, you're not reading the news, not hearing of Democrats complaining about the procedures and many House Democrats unwilling to commit on supporting the latest incarnation of the overhaul when they already voted for one last fall.]
“Simply put, there is no guarantee the Senate would touch it.”
There not being some formal guarantee does not mean that there is any chance whatsoever the bill will not be taken up. Seriously – why on earth would the Democrats in the Senate want to have 216 howling House members, in their own party(!) – calling them low-down double crossing SOBs? These people all have an election to face – some this year – and they all have to work together to advance their party’s agenda. It would be totally nuts to do something like that.
[Tano, many Senators just don't want to revisit the issue. You know, such things take up time.]
Seriously Dan – you spout Judd Gregg’s talking points and don’t even realize what they are. He is trying to needle Dems and maybe even find one dumb enough to believe him – and give that fellow pause about what might happen. You are not supposed to actually take it all seriously, y’know… (don’t your instructions come with the requisite disclaimers?)
[Um, Tano, how could I spout talking points of which I had been totally unaware until you mentioned them? And you're one to talk about talking points. Let me repeat, I had not heard about Judd Gregg's argument until you mentioned it. An apology is in order. -Dan]
Comment by Tano — March 17, 2010 @ 4:37 pm - March 17, 2010
Ahhh,,,no – why would I think that?
Because your pathetic black child has screamed that he will oppose and destroy any Obama Party member who dares vote against this bill.
Very typical of the narcissistic, immature, and emotionally-unstable Obama. But as expected, Tano, you beclown yourself for him. Truly, you must be desperate for that paycheck from the White House. Better start saving now — you’ll need it for legal fees when you’re put on trial for defrauding the government.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 18, 2010 @ 2:44 am - March 18, 2010