Comments on: As the Byrd Rule Flies: Why Dems Can’t Use Reconciliation to Pass Radical ObamaCare

By: Mae

Mae — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:38:51 +0000

I hope they try all kinds of nonsense. It will be such a spectacle. Laughing in the face of tragedy as our country slips away.

By: GarandFan

GarandFan — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:08:22 +0000

If the Dems are stupid enough to force reconciliation, they can kiss off doing any more business for the next 3 1/2 years.

By: Ace of Spades HQ

Ace of Spades HQ — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:55:23 +0000

AP: Democrats Could Lose Control of House…

Not really anything we didn’t know, but still nice to see acknowledged. (Link at Riehl.) Of course, this being AP, they propose a novel reason why the Democrats may lose. Is it because Democrats are attempting to take this country……

By: uber

uber — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:23:59 +0000

They Must not be willing to pull the trigger. They keep
trying to bully the week ones.

By: elduende

elduende — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:35:24 +0000

Excellent post. I agree the anti leftist opposition can shut down the congress until the next election. Scorched earth. Sounds good to me.

By: Viper1

Viper1 — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:56:11 +0000

Thank you for that explanation.

By: casel21

casel21 — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 04:11:02 +0000

i can’t figure these congresscritters out. with obamacare etc, they will be delegating so much of their power to the executive branch that there will be nothing much left. i find it hard to believe that the egotistic biden-ish blowhards love obama so much that they would do something that depletes their own power.

second, i don’t believe that they take kindly to being treated like doormats by rahm emanuel.

third, i can’t believe they don’t see that obama has no interest in the longevity of their careers or their political party. once obama gets what he wants, what does he need them for?

as far as the blue dogs in the house, if they’re threatened by getting cut off from democrat money, there is a solution: join the republican party. money and reelection problem solved.

By: Senate Finance Comittee Kent Conrad Ignores Jim Demint Amendments That Kill Reconciliation. Unanimous Vote? What Unanimous Vote? | The Substratum

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 04:02:27 +0000

[...] As the Byrd Rule Flies: Why Dems Can’t Use Reconciliation to Pass Radical ObamaCare [...]

By: toliver

toliver — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:52:08 +0000

I’ll need to delve onto this again tomorrow with a rested mind. Good work Dafydd ab Hugh. This deserves immediate promotion.

By: Uncle Pinky

Uncle Pinky — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 02:36:27 +0000

Wouldn’t it be luv-er-ly to respond to the next threat of ramming through the soi-disant reconciliation with:

“But that would violate the Byrd rule, that venerable lion of the Senate (who may have done questionable things in his past, but he should be forgiven due to his latter accomplishments) set and maintained as his life’s work. We simply must not do this, as he himself would tell you and will tell you if you call him to try to force a super-majority. Do be warned; don’t call at nap time, for he will be grumpy.”

By: Skandia Recluse

Skandia Recluse — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:52:24 +0000

This illustrates the Rules for Radicals thinking of Alinsky. The Democrats use the rules, the more complicated the better, when the rules suit their purpose. If the rules are complicated enough, then any argument they want to make can be applied.

When the rules work against them, they ignore the rules, argue against the rules.

There really is only one rule, the leftist democrats get what they want, or there will be war.

By: ginaswo

ginaswo — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:43:50 +0000

thank you for another wonderful post!

By: Chris_Balsz

Chris_Balsz — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:26:24 +0000

Another objection: if they try “reconciliation” they are declaring it is a budget bill, and a budget bill cannot originate in the Senate. The House would have to lead.

By: As the Byrd Rule Flies: Why Dems Can’t Use Reconciliation to Pass Radical ObamaCare | America Watches Obama

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:01:10 +0000

[...] to Hot Air’s rogues’ gallery… No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)Bookmarks Related News Mike Enzi (R-WY) [...]

By: conservativegrandma

conservativegrandma — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:41:29 +0000

If all members of the senate were sane, I would agree. However, based on how Harry Reid has been behaving, I wouldn’t put anything past these guys. Rules are for other people. They may think they can do whatever they want, the MSM won’t cover, and the majority of the people will remain ignorant. The libs are power drunk and deranged.

By: WWS

WWS — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:23:36 +0000

good post, I concur.

The actual law is really only of symbolic value here, since no Federal Judge at any level would ever interfere with the internal operations of the Senate. (separation of powers, that kind of thing) BUT you hit the nail on the head – a sufficient enough provocation, and a minority can totally shut down the Senate for *All* business until the next election, just as you said.

Revoking Unanimous consent coud do things such as requiring the public reading of a 1,000 page bill at each hearing about it. Although I think that would be a perfect piece of poetic justice, in practical fact the Senate would shut down for the next 14 months. Also not a bad outcome, the way things are going.

By: Browncoatone

Browncoatone — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:14:20 +0000

The one from OK at the very least.

By: Farmer_Joe

Farmer_Joe — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:00:25 +0000

Second, the Senate only operates at all because of comity; many ordinary procedures require unanimous consent, which is customarily given. Thus the minority conference and even individual senators have tremendous power to gum up the works and bring the entire body to a standstill, if they choose.

I’m sure there’s at least one senator who would call for the reading of the entire bill at every appearance.