Will it pass?

[joeydb]

Quick, non-scientific poll

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Quick, non-scientific poll

lol..real objective choices there

[joeydb]

They're all true.

Yes, I could have said "The Slaughter Rule Change" instead of "parlimentary trickery".

And since that technically is not "passed" under the constitution, all that is required is a lawsuit to get it to the Supreme Court. I think that case would progress quickly, like "Bush V. Gore" in 2000 because of the importance of it.

And people will, if they have the money, fly elsewhere for procedures when the care here starts to go down the toilet, as it must. Why? Because 46% of doctors say that they are considering leaving medicine if this passes, and adding many million of new insured people who will not pay premiums will put more patients against less doctors. That will result in Soviet-style lines, like the Russians used to wait in for toilet paper, and similar to the Canadian debacle of a healthcare system now.

As I said, all are possible outcomes for this legislation.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

They're all true.

Yes, I could have said "The Slaughter Rule Change" instead of "parlimentary trickery".

And since that technically is not "passed" under the constitution, all that is required is a lawsuit to get it to the Supreme Court. I think that case would progress quickly, like "Bush V. Gore" in 2000 because of the importance of it.

And people will, if they have the money, fly elsewhere for procedures when the care here starts to go down the toilet, as it must. Why? Because 46% of doctors say that they are considering leaving medicine if this passes, and adding many million of new insured people who will not pay premiums will put more patients against less doctors. That will result in Soviet-style lines, like the Russians used to wait in for toilet paper, and similar to the Canadian debacle of a healthcare system now.

As I said, all are possible outcomes for this legislation.

both houses of congress are allowed to set their own rules. whomever is getting you all revved up for a supreme court challange is doing you a disservice.

i won't engage in a pointless exercise like guessing if the bill passes. it's a close call and it either will or won't.

but if it passes there is exactly zero chance the supreme court gets involved in the mechanics of how the legislative branch chose to do that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

And since that technically is not "passed" under the constitution, all that is required is a lawsuit to get it to the Supreme Court..

I think you need to read up on the Senate and House Parlimentary rules, before you get all hyped up on "technically not passed-lawsuit" nonsense. That's just not true.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think you need to read up on the Senate and House Parlimentary rules, before you get all hyped up on "technically not passed-lawsuit" nonsense. That's just not true.

No one disputes that both chambers can and do define parliamentary rules. The question is whether the "voting for a rule to declare an unvoted piece of legislation as passed" violates the intent of the Constitution. That is certainly a legitimate question for the Supreme Court, and given the contentious and sweeping nature of the bill, I expect to see that angle used.

The best bet of those who support the bill, even you Riot, is that the bill pass on a straight up and down vote as we've been passing legislation for 231 years, and then the President can sign it. Anything other than that will not get support or even compliance from those of us opposed.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

No one disputes that both chambers can and do define parliamentary rules. The question is whether the "voting for a rule to declare an unvoted piece of legislation as passed" violates the intent of the Constitution. That is certainly a legitimate question for the Supreme Court, and given the contentious and sweeping nature of the bill, I expect to see that angle used.

The best bet of those who support the bill, even you Riot, is that the bill pass on a straight up and down vote as we've been passing legislation for 231 years, and then the President can sign it. Anything other than that will not get support or even compliance from those of us opposed.

no. it's not.

The judicial branch has no business dictating how the legislative branch does it's buisness. it would be a sweeping change to the balance of power between the branches of government if the supreme court inserted itself in the legislative process as you suggest.

and it's not going to happen. i don't know what blog you're reading that suggests this is a possibility but it simply isn't.

i'm not into political astrology which is why i stay away from guessing what happens on the vote. but this isn't astrology. you have as much chance of this happening as the birthers do of removing obama because he's not a natural born citizen.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

The judicial branch has no business dictating how the legislative branch does it's buisness.

They do this every time they rule a law unconstitutional.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court has the power to judge the laws, but not how the law was "passed", even if the passage mechanism may not itself have been implemented in a constitutional way?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

They do this every time they rule a law unconstitutional.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court has the power to judge the laws, but not how the law was "passed", even if the passage mechanism may not itself have been implemented in a constitutional way?

they rule on the content of a law when they rule it unconstitutional.

they would be ruling on the process the legislative branch used (not the content of the law itself) if they did what you suggest.

so yes, i'm saying the judicial branch of government has no say in how the legislative decides to do it's buisness.

if a majority of the house makes a rule, it takes a majority of the house (not the supreme court) to change that rule.

what you're suggesting (the judicial branch deciding how the legislative should operate) is what's actually unconstitional.

[joeydb]

I'm only saying that because it is also the Constitution that determines how the powers are divided among the branches and what limits are on those powers.

It is possible for the legislature to adopt rules or parliamentary procedure that would in itself be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court would have to be the one to rein that in because the legislative branch will not do that for itself.

Usually it's the Supreme Court through judicial review. The President ideally would not sign a bill into law when he thinks the procedure to get it to his desk was unconstitutional. That's not going to happen here.

The branches by design do keep an eye on each other with regard to the constitutionality of their actions.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I'm only saying that because it is also the Constitution that determines how the powers are divided among the branches and what limits are on those powers.

It is possible for the legislature to adopt rules or parliamentary procedure that would in itself be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court would have to be the one to rein that in because the legislative branch will not do that for itself.

Usually it's the Supreme Court through judicial review. The President ideally would not sign a bill into law when he thinks the procedure to get it to his desk was unconstitutional. That's not going to happen here.

The branches by design do keep an eye on each other with regard to the constitutionality of their actions.

this is the incorrect assumption that leads to the wrong conclusion.

rules the legislative branch adopts to govern itself aren't subject to review by any other branch of government. a single senator recently stopped the senate in it's tracks for a week. no one that i'm aware of questioned the constitutionality of senate rules that allow this.

and for a good reason.

the constitutional crisis would occur when the judiciary inserted itself into the process of making laws instead of simply reviewing the law itself.

[AeWingnut]

I believe Social Security is unConstitutional

and this bs reform ain't even close

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

I believe Social Security is unConstitutional

and this bs reform ain't even close

meh.

i'll start to worry after you receive your judicial appointment.

[SOREHOOF]

They may be able to argue that it's "passage" was unconstitutional. I took out a personal health care policy today. It's called AR-15. Pelosi said something about kicking down doors, and I thought that was offensive. I took it as a threat. Not only to me but to anyone who understands what freedom is, or that it is our birthright, and we are compelled to protect it, at all times at any cost it must be defended.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

They may be able to argue that it's "passage" was unconstitutional. I took out a personal health care policy today. It's called AR-15. Pelosi said something about kicking down doors, and I thought that was offensive. I took it as a threat. Not only to me but to anyone who understands what freedom is, or that it is our birthright, and we are compelled to protect it, at all times at any cost it must be defended.

that's not the least bit hysterical.

you might want to back away from the angry right wing blogs for a day or two if this gets passed. i'd hate to see you fly a plane into a building.

[Nascar1966]

I wish they would vote soon im getting tired of seeing Pelosi on TV. If this bill does pass I guess you can say we no longer live in a Democratic society. Being forced to do something they a person doesnt want to do doesn't sound like freedom to me. If this bill does pass I would hate to be a Democrat up for election. Im just glad I have way better medical insurance for me and my family than this worthless bogus insurance is going to be.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

that's not the least bit hysterical.

you might want to back away from the angry right wing blogs for a day or two if this gets passed. i'd hate to see you fly a plane into a building.

Are you serious?

[Riot]

It appears that what is actually in the Senate bill (hardly anything) or the proposed reconciliation amendments (I posted that two or three times) remains a mystery to some.

It seems what some of you "know" about healthcare reform are just some scary ultra-right rumors from last summer.

None of which is in there

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I wish they would vote soon im getting tired of seeing Pelosi on TV. If this bill does pass I guess you can say we no longer live in a Democratic society. Being forced to do something they a person doesnt want to do doesn't sound like freedom to me. If this bill does pass I would hate to be a Democrat up for election. Im just glad I have way better medical insurance for me and my family than this worthless bogus insurance is going to be.

I don't want my neighbor owning a gun, but it looks like I won't have a choice there. How come all the bullsh*t the Republicans passed that I thought was an infridgement on my rights is part of a Democratic Society, but something you don't like is not? Typical double standard right wing crap

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I don't want my neighbor owning a gun, but it looks like I won't have a choice there. How come all the bullsh*t the Republicans passed that I thought was an infridgement on my rights is part of a Democratic Society, but something you don't like is not? Typical double standard right wing crap

You don't like your neighbors? Me neither, but I'm armed !