Democrats have used self-executing rule over a hundred times

[Dr.Traveler]

wah wah wah, karma can be a bitch sometimes

I said in another thread on this topic:

You know, back in the Frist/Delay/Bush era, moderates and libertarians tried to warn the GOP faithful that the shennanigans going on under the GOP leadership would come back to haunt them.

Lo and Behold, today is the day.

If you're surprised that Pelosi is suddenly a favor of the "deem and pass" option, then you're just naive. And come the GOP's turn at bat, I guarantee that they'll use "deem and pass" options too for stuff as important as healthcare. Once a new trick is in the playbook, its only reasonable to expect the other side will use it too.

Doesn't make it right. It just makes it... unsurprising. Maybe next time the GOP are in power they'll stop expanding Federal power and shredding the Constitution. Or maybe they'll do it too because the Democrats did it. Or worse, maybe they'll come up with some newer, better, tool to get around a Democratic minority that will be turned on them the next time the DNC is in power.

 

[hboats]

The OP seems to think that the Slaughter Rule and Reconciliation are the same thing. They are not even close. The Slaughter Rule is something new that Pelosi is trying to get done so that they don't have to vote on this bill, but just claim that it is passed. Reconciliation would be using a majority vote to pass one version of the bill and then reconcile it with the other version. They are two vastly different things, and the Slaughter Rule has never been used before.

People really should know what they're talking about before making posts that claim that the Republicans did something that has never been done before.

Rick

 

[Truthmatters]

IT IS FINE TO USE IT.


It is now established and unchallenged procedure to use it.

If it were constitutionally illega like you twits claim then Gingrich and Hastert would both be in prison.

If you doint like it then write your reps a nd tell them to outlaw it.

Until then its legal and has been used hundereds of times by republicans alone.

Shut up and FACE the repercussions of your failed ideas, you crashed the economy for the second time in one lifetime as well as LIED this country into war so that Haliburton could have a great bottom line.

You got Americans killed for your failed ideas and now this bill is going to safe much more than it will cost while SAVING LIVES!

You people are dispicable

 

[hboats]

IT IS FINE TO USE IT.


It is now established and unchallenged procedure to use it.

If it were constitutionally illega like you twits claim then Gingrich and Hastert would both be in prison.

If you doint like it then write your reps a nd tell them to outlaw it.

Until then its legal and has been used hundereds of times by republicans alone.

Shut up and FACE the repercussions of your failed ideas, you crashed the economy for the second time in one lifetime as well as LIED this country into war so that Haliburton could have a great bottom line.

You got Americans killed for your failed ideas and now this bill is going to safe much more than it will cost while SAVING LIVES!

You people are dispicable

That depends on what your definition of "it" is.

If "it" means Reconciliation, then yes, "it's" been used on budget items in the past.

If "it" means the Slaughter Rule, then no, "it's" never been used because "it" is a totally new rule that Democrats are trying to justify.

Once again, the Slaughter Rule and Reconciliation are two totally different things.

Get your facts straight before you post.

Rick

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IT IS FINE TO USE IT.


It is now established and unchallenged procedure to use it.

If it were constitutionally illega like you twits claim then Gingrich and Hastert would both be in prison.

If you doint like it then write your reps a nd tell them to outlaw it.

Until then its legal and has been used hundereds of times by republicans alone.

Shut up and FACE the repercussions of your failed ideas, you crashed the economy for the second time in one lifetime as well as LIED this country into war so that Haliburton could have a great bottom line.

You got Americans killed for your failed ideas and now this bill is going to safe much more than it will cost while SAVING LIVES!

You people are dispicable

What's wrong? You're really melting down here

 

[Oldandtired]

IT IS FINE TO USE IT.


It is now established and unchallenged procedure to use it.

If it were constitutionally illega like you twits claim then Gingrich and Hastert would both be in prison.

If you doint like it then write your reps a nd tell them to outlaw it.

Until then its legal and has been used hundereds of times by republicans alone.

Shut up and FACE the repercussions of your failed ideas, you crashed the economy for the second time in one lifetime as well as LIED this country into war so that Haliburton could have a great bottom line.

You got Americans killed for your failed ideas and now this bill is going to safe much more than it will cost while SAVING LIVES!

You people are dispicable

So tell me...and try to not curse when you do it...

If it is an acceptable maneuver for a situation such as this....why wasnt it used already?

Why are they threatening and not just using it?

Why are they desperately trying to get the votes in an effort to NOT use it?

Now be careful....you dont want to come across as a foul mouthed naive child as you have been lately. Just answer the question like an adult...if you have it in you.

I believe you dont. So prove me wrong.

 

[MikeHoncho]

IT IS FINE TO USE IT.


It is now established and unchallenged procedure to use it.

If it were constitutionally illega like you twits claim then Gingrich and Hastert would both be in prison.

If you doint like it then write your reps a nd tell them to outlaw it.

Until then its legal and has been used hundereds of times by republicans alone.

Shut up and FACE the repercussions of your failed ideas, you crashed the economy for the second time in one lifetime as well as LIED this country into war so that Haliburton could have a great bottom line.

You got Americans killed for your failed ideas and now this bill is going to safe much more than it will cost while SAVING LIVES!

You people are dispicable

That depends on what your definition of "it" is.

If "it" means Reconciliation, then yes, "it's" been used on budget items in the past.

If "it" means the Slaughter Rule, then no, "it's" never been used because "it" is a totally new rule that Democrats are trying to justify.

Once again, the Slaughter Rule and Reconciliation are two totally different things.

Get your facts straight before you post.

Rick

they dont want to let facts get in the way of their rant about things that have never been done before.

they dont understand that deeming something passed that was never voted on has NEVER Been done before. they still think that voting for the ammendments with a simple majority (reconciliation) is what the repubs are comlaining about right now.....lol its comical that they cant grasp this.

 

[Truthmatters]

The Arena: - Thomas E. Mann Bio


This man is a constitutional scholar.


I trust him over some silly internet posters and their hack sites.

 

[hboats]

The Arena: - Thomas E. Mann Bio


This man is a constitutional scholar.


I trust him over some silly internet posters and their hack sites.

It's amazing that what you post defends my statement, not yours. Do you even read what you post/link?

Quote from your link:

The speaker is considering the use of a self-executing rule to create for her Democratic members an opportunity to indicate that their support of the Senate-passed bill is coupled with the set of amendments to it that will be considered in a separate package under the reconciliation bill. Such a rule was used 36 times by the House Republican leadership in 2005-6 and 49 times by the Democratic leadership in 2007-8.

He's talking about Reconciliation, not the Slaughter Rule. As I've said now quite a few times, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

Rick

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When we win it all back in 2012, we'll use the same procedure to undo ObamaCare, eliminate the Department of Ed, and partially privatize Social Security and Medicare

 

[MikeHoncho]

The Arena: - Thomas E. Mann Bio


This man is a constitutional scholar.


I trust him over some silly internet posters and their hack sites.

you dont get it. quit why your WAY behind.

 

[boedicca]

She can't. She's not wired that way.

 

[Truthmatters]

Self-executing rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice try liars but the self executing bill is the slaughter option




A self-executing rule is procedural measure used by the U. S. House of Representatives to approve legislation. If the full House votes to approve a legislative rule that contains such a provision, it can be used to deem a second bill as also approved without requiring a separate vote, as long as that second bill is specified in the rule.

When considering a bill for debate, the House must first adopt a rule for the debate as proposed by the House Rules Committee. This rule comes in the form of a simple resolution, which specifies which issues or bills are to be considered by the House. If the House votes to approve a rule that contains a self-executing provision, it simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter as specified by the rule. For example, modifications or amendments can be approved while underlying bill is approved at the same time.[1]The self-executing rule has also been referred to in current media reports as the "Slaughter rule," after the current Chair of the House Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter .[2

 

[MikeHoncho]

Self-executing rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice try liars but the self executing bill is the slaughter option

i understand that. the examples you give of the republicans using this, all were done with a bill that was passed in the both the house and senate. which of course as you have to know already, the dems are trying to avoid doing. see the difference?

 

[Truthmatters]

Now that you have been proven wrong I'm sure you will be along any time to take back your lies and insults right??????


Yeah right

 

[Oldandtired]

Now that you have been proven wrong I'm sure you will be along any time to take back your lies and insults right??????


Yeah right

TM....seems you are in a different debate than the rest of us on here.

I highly suiggest you take a brak from this board. You are going to implode.

 

[boedicca]

I must admit to a begrudging admiration for TM's persistent determination to continue spewing misinformation despite being proven wrong uncountable times on this very topic.

The GOP has never used self-executing bills to pass House Amendments to a Senate Bill that was not the Bill originally passed by The House. She can't provide any specific instances to the contrary - so just tries to spread the the fog of repeating a false meme ad nauseum in the HOPE that some people will accept it as truth. In her case, truth doesn't really matter, it's the convenient meme that does.

 

[beowolfe]

They were wrong to use it, but had they used it to say privatize Social Security you might actually have a point

So because didn't use it on a large thing, that makes it okay?

That's like saying, "well it's okay, they only robbed a house instead of a bank."

You can admit in hindsight they were wrong, but this is the type of bullshit I'm talking about. Don't allow the RNC to string you along thinking they haven't pulled this bullshit either. Because odds are, they are the ones who were masters of it and the Dems took good notes.

No, it's not ok. It wasn't OK when R's did it and it's really not OK for Dems to use it to shred the Constitution

Cite one section of the constitution that passing health insurance reform would shred?

 

[MikeHoncho]

Now that you have been proven wrong I'm sure you will be along any time to take back your lies and insults right??????


Yeah right

If the full House votes to approve a legislative rule that contains such a provision, it can be used to deem a second bill as also approved without requiring a separate vote, as long as that second bill is specified in the rule.[/I]

from your link.

which would have to take place after the BILL WAS PASSED FIRST.

 

[Oldandtired]

So because didn't use it on a large thing, that makes it okay?

That's like saying, "well it's okay, they only robbed a house instead of a bank."

You can admit in hindsight they were wrong, but this is the type of bullshit I'm talking about. Don't allow the RNC to string you along thinking they haven't pulled this bullshit either. Because odds are, they are the ones who were masters of it and the Dems took good notes.

No, it's not ok. It wasn't OK when R's did it and it's really not OK for Dems to use it to shred the Constitution

Cite one section of the constitution that passing health insurance reform would shred?

I cant. I am not a constitutional lawyer.
If there are no grounds...it will be tossed.
IUf there are grounds.....it will be heard.

However, my guess is there ARE grounds or Pelosi would apply it and not just use it as a threat...

Seems she will only use it if she has to. Why would that be?