Politi-Quiz-PollFollow

So, it comes to this. A plan to pass a rule in the U.S. House of Representatives to deem the senate health care bill passed, rather than actually vote on the bill.

Seeing as there is not credible poll in the United States that shows a majority of people in favor of the legislation before congress, I have a question for my more left-leaning friends here (actually 2): Do you support this plan to deem the health care bill passed without actually voting on it? If you do, what's going to be your reaction the next time the GOP controls the government and decides to deem a bill outlawing homosexual behavior or abortion passed?
I'm not including options anti-health care reform act, because I don't give a f'uck what the people who agree with me think.

It's fine. It's just a way to say "we accept the Senate's version of the bill and will not spend weeks arguing about reconciling our version with theirs."

If y'all can get homosexuality outlawed via the Senate and the House chooses to waive debate and accept the Senate's version, then that's what happens. I am perfectly serious in saying I would look for another place to live at that point.

It's been done before, it'll be done again. Pass the damn bill, already.

That's a really bad analogy.

It's more like Mommy and Daddy getting together behind your back to agree that you can't have a pony, thus stopping you from playing them off against each other.

It *isn't* a technicality.

I'm sorry, creating a rule in the house of representatives explicitly to avoid calling a vote on a bill, deeming it passed, so that it can be sent to the President isn't a technicality?

Again, maybe I'm just not smart enough to follow your advanced logic, but how can exploiting a loophole not be a technicality?

Isn't what they're doing simply accepting the bill that has been voted on and passed without altering it? Rather then try and change little details here and there, they're just going, ok, good enough, we can pass this bill as it was originally voted on.

Sort of. Rather than voting on their own version of the bill, which would usually be the case, the House would approve the Senate version, on which they haven't debated.

Scroll down past the break, there's a brief discussion here including a little bit of the history of the maneuver.

Yes.

Who cares? Is there a special copy of Robert's Rules of Order that they keep on reserve for really important bills? Is it proper to continuously filibuster the bill with no intent for actual debate but simply to kill it and force a super-majority vote? Is it proper to say you'll attempt to bury a reconciliation bill with thousands of amendments, forcing a vote on each one?

"Deem & Pass" has been used many times before and the GOP even went to court to defend it in the past:

If the GOP is suddenly having a change of heart and thinks the bill deserves a straight up-or-down vote in both Chambers, they should come out and say so. Or else stop crying that the Democrats found a rule to circumvent the procedural rules the GOP was using to avoid such a vote.

Personally, I'm skeptical that they'll attempt it and think they'll stick to good ole fashioned arm twisting but I could easily be wrong. If they do use it, it'll just cap off a long road filled with both sides playing rules lawyer to game the system and get their way.

I followed the initial senate and house bill votes, does the house not have to vote to accept the senate bill? The point in this case is to avoid another senate vote right?

I'll point out as well that if Deem & Pass is unconstitutional, then it will no doubt be ruled as such in the inevitable lawsuit following the bill's passage. If it's constitutional then there was nothing wrong with doing it this way beyond objections to procedural wranglings in lieu of straight votes.

As I said, if it's unconstitutional, it'll be judged as such in the inevitable lawsuit. Marbury v Madison and all that.


Actually, if the GOP wasn't trying to filibuster (i.e. if they allowed a straight vote), the House would pass their bill, the Senate would pass theirs (as both have happened), the House and Senate would bang out a compromise bill and that would only need 50%+1 to pass in both chambers.

But we both know that won't happen. And so here we are with the GOP bellyaching over being outmaneuvered in procedural trickery.

Fine. It'd be a non-issue, because the votes aren't there in the house.