Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
Apparently too fast-paced for you. That "one more specifically about Conrad" is the exact link I gave you in the post you were just quoting.
I think we may be talking about the same thing, but I'm not sure. I'm trying to be as clear as I can here ... try making a good-faith effort to understand even if my word choice doesn't meet lawyerly standards, just for once, eh?
Here's the process I was referring to:
House passes current Senate bill in its entirety, no changes. Senate subsequently passes a new (2nd) bill via reconciliation to amend the 1st bill, and appease House Dems who object to the 1st. House then passes 2nd bill.
That's what I called the "pass it in the House first, then amend it with reconciliation" or "we'll fix it later" approach. Perhaps using the word "later" is misleading because it implies a lot of time.
Either way, I don't think that option is going to fly. It will look so nakedly partisan, I don't think nervous Dems are going to go along with it. I guarantee you the American public won't. It's tantamount to outright cheating.
Can you honestly flip the R's and the D's and not say you'd feel the same way in reverse? |
No, not quite.
Senate already passed its bill. Senate then passes reconciliation bill (with 51 votes). That bill incorporates changes agreed to between House and Senate. House then passes reconciliation bill (so there is no threat they get jilted). House then passes Senate bill. Both go to the President. President first signs Senate bill, then seconds later signs reconciliation bill.
There is nothing "cheating" about the process. Republicans certainly weren't shy about using reconciliation in the past (including for the Bush tax cuts, as you may recall), and it is no more "nakedly partisan" than filibustering every single thing presented by Democrats in the Senatee (what happened to the party who fought for an "up or down vote?").