quote:

Originally posted by Rick Zimmer:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

When? Give me specific examples, please, of controversial bills that were tucked into the reconciliation process.

I am not going to go into 12 years of GOP rule in the Senate to find examples for you. Feel free to go back and show me that the GOP never played fast and loose with the Senate rules to get what they wanted.

You're kidding, right? You didn't just ask me to prove a negative, did you?

Shall I remind you of how this issue started? Someone said this:

quote:

The GOP used this same method when they had the majority.

You made the assertion. I challenged it. It's your job to back it up, because you're the one who made the assertion.

Personally, I don't think you can. I think you made a wholly unsupportable statement, and now you're trying to spin it around on me because you know you can't support it.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Zimmer:


But quirt...

No filibuster rule is being ditched. It is there and remains there. There is a rule in the Senate about filibuster and it is being respected. The GOP intends to use it to get what they want. So, the Democrats have to work around it because it is there and remains there. That's how the filibuster rule works.

Because, there is also a rule about reconciliation. No one is breaking any rules nor is any one suggesting any rules be ignored. The Democrats simply may use this rule to get what they want.

What is the difference? Both sides are playing by the rules and both sides are using the rules.

Why is it that you think the majority party has to ignore one rule and cannot use it but you think it is mandatory the minority be able to invoke another rule?

Why not argue that the minority should not even invoke the filibuster? They don't have to. Why tie the majority's hands behind its back not allowing it to use the rules of the Senate while you raise the minority party's use of the rules to a sacrosanct level?

Because this is a perversion of the reconciliation process. I don't believe it's ever been used this way before, and I don't believe it's appropriate to use it this way. Any more than I believe it was appropriate for the Republicans to threaten to re-interpret the rules so that the filibuster rule didn't apply to judicial nominations.

Either you respect process and precedent, or you don't. I do. You apparently don't.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Zimmer:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Doing it on reconciliation is nuclear war. I think the filibuster should be killed, but do it the right way ... at the beginning of a new Congress, when you're adopting the Senate rules. This way would be just chickensh!t.

I think ... at least, I hope ... that some members of the Democratic caucus will jump ship if Reid tries to use the reconciliation process for this.

Moreover, do you really want to set that precedent? There won't always be a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President. The sword cuts in both directions.

You are overreacting, Quirt.

The GOP used this same method when they had the majority.

When? Give me specific examples, please, of controversial bills that were tucked into the reconciliation process.

quote:

We are also faced with having the minority party unwilling to do anything other than kill any bil whatsoever. And many of their leaders have made it very clear they want to kill it simply to give Obama a major defeat. For the Demcorats to simply give into this sort of unthinking block voting would be a slap in the face to the American people who overhwlemingly want something done.

Someone need to govern. The GOP has abdicated its role on its own volition.

That is exactly what the filibuster is all about. Being able to block legislation, unless you have 60 votes in favor. That's what it's always been. The Democrats have used it to do exactly that in the past.

As I said, the sword cuts both ways. If you're willing to ditch the filibuster, be willing to have the Republicans cram all sorts of things down your throat when they get 51 votes.

What am I? Chopped liver? I just did give you a short list of controversial bills for which Republicans used the reconciliation.

You write, "... be willing to hve the Republicans cram all sorts of things down your throat when they get 51 votes."

Quirt, they did.

This has nothing to do with changing the rules in the middle of the game. Absolutely nothing at all. The Senate has rules. You seem to want to use them sometimes, but not at other times. Lieberman went on and on about how following through with his threat would be his "privilege." The leadership can use reconciliation for a public option. These are the Senate's rules.

Why would Lieberman's threat to not let the Senate even vote on a public option be viewed as any more or less legitimate than the Senate leadership using reconciliation when the rules allow it.

I think some of you haven't come to terms with the idea that conservative Democrats might not get their way on this policy question. This seems to be anathema to some of you. This seems to be unthinkable.

Hence, the public option was dead last summer, now that Reid has put it in the bill and Lieberman has threatened, as Rick points out, all of health care reform, the public option is dead [again]. Lieberman makes one threat about a procedural votes two procedural votes from now, and Reid is going to turn on a dime, because he doesn't have 60 votes. The Senate leadership would not use reconciliation. Much better to defer to the wishes of one man. But whatever happens, something will happen to kill the public option. We have to cram health care reform including mandates with no public option down people's throats. We're "moderates". That's our job. /s

I respect what you are saying, Quirt. I simply do not agree with you.

The best legislators, the most productive ones are viewed so positively because they knew how to use the rules in order to achieve what they wanted. If one rule stopped them in one way but another could be used to let them move forward, they followed the rules that allowed them to move forward. I see nothing wrong with this at all.

If the rules on reconciliation allow the Democrats to do what they may have to do, there is no perversion of them. How can there be if the rule allows them to do what they are doing. Indeed, I have yet to hear anyone say the reconciliation process cannot be used this way. Most criticism is like yours -- it can be, but it shouldn't be.

I would argue the filibuster rule should not be used simply as a political tool to do political harm to a new President. But simply because I don't think it should be used that way does not mean it can't be used that way or that the GOP does not have the right to use it that way.

No doubt as an attorney you have found ways the law can be used properly to accomplish what your clients want even if you were using the law in ways it normally is not used. There is nothing wrong with that. If the law allows it, the law allows it, even if it is not the standard way a given law is used.

I think I know you well enough from your posts here that I am positive I can say you would never advise your clients to do anything outside of the law. Nor would you ever advise them to do anything unethical. You are too honest and decent a man to do that.

But I also think you are a good enough attorney that if your client wanted to do something and you could find a way for them to do it legally, you would advise them about how they could legally use the law to accomplish their goals -- even if it is somewhat out of the ordinary. And if they chose to follow your advice, you would help them implement their plans.

To me, it is the same with the Senate rules. If the rules dealing with reconciliation allow the Democrats to do what they might have to do, there is nothing wrong with that. Even if they are pushing the envelope to accomplish their goal.

To me, if there is a perversion of the legislative process, it is the GOP refusing to work together with the Democrats on this and then using the filibuster simply for political purposes. But I also know the filibuster is a political action and they can use it the way they want. I may not like it, but they have a right to filibuster simply to hurt the President if they want.

But they do not have the right to assume that if they use one rule, their opponents do not have the right to use another rule to get around the roadblock they have created.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

What am I? Chopped liver? I just did give you a short list of controversial bills for which Republicans used the reconciliation.

Do you have any cites or links? I don't recall that happening.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200904010002
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...8web-hulse.html?_r=1
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/...dget-reconciliation/

I did make an error though. I said Medicare Part D. I meant Part C (Medicare Advantage).

http://mediamatters.org/research/200909010033

Daniel is much better at finding these things than I am!

Those were all budget and tax bills, which is what the reconciliation process was intended for.

Nevertheless, I recognize that it does undercut the Republican argument. Particularly the Arctic National Wildlife part, which I had not remembered.

One thing I truly admire about Quirt: His ability to acknowledge a correction.

Lieberman's motivation

follow the money

quote:

Originally posted by CHAS:
Lieberman's motivation

follow the money

That link seems to need to go to your e-mail account first for redirection... which won't work for us.

Got a direct link to the article you intend to share?

Thanks
Try again.
Corrected it.

My right brain and left brain need reconciliation. Help!

quote:

Originally posted by Beacon Chris:
My right brain and left brain need reconciliation. Help!

BC, many of us have been trying to reconcile your right and move it to the left. But you seem to be resisting.

In the end, of course, resistance is futile.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Zimmer:

quote:

Originally posted by Beacon Chris:
My right brain and left brain need reconciliation. Help!

BC, many of us have been trying to reconcile your right and move it to the left. But you seem to be resisting.

In the end, of course, resistance is futile.

and further being a Yankees fan from Boston? Talk about surrender? Why bother resisting.