The Slaughter Rule

[Old Rocks]

"Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it."

-- from Heritage.org

And every single liberal who "supports" such bullshit should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, since there's not a person on the planet who honestly buys any claim that this tactic is appropriate.

Liability, since this is some sort of New Rules for the Congress, will the Supreme Court even look at it as an unconstitutional action on the part of the Legislature because of the Separation of Powers we have? If they don't, it might be the final straw that brings about another civil war.

Oh whee......... Another fruitcake running around in a little tin hat, waving his pop gun, screaming revolution.

 

[Liability]

Democrats Prepare “Slaughter Solution” to Ram Unpopular Health Care Takeover Through Congress Without a Vote

....

The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House.

....

Republican Leader John Boehner | Democrats Prepare ?Slaughter Solution? to Ram Unpopular Health Care Takeover Through Congress Without a Vote

Screw our Democratic system. Screw Democracy!

Well, I would expect you to believe anything at all that ol' Boner states.

And we expect you to deny what Boehner had to say regardless of the truth behind his words.

Moldy Socks: are you one of the imbeciles in this world who actually believes that the House can just kinda sorta pretend that they already passed the Senate version even though they didn't do any such thing? Can this sleight of hand bullshit be done via a "Rule?"

Are you always this overtly hostile to the plain and unambiguous language of the Constitution? Or is that just a matter of convenience when it's some liberoidal agenda that's getting accomplished in an improper fashion?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

-- from Heritage.org

And every single liberal who "supports" such bullshit should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, since there's not a person on the planet who honestly buys any claim that this tactic is appropriate.

Liability, since this is some sort of New Rules for the Congress, will the Supreme Court even look at it as an unconstitutional action on the part of the Legislature because of the Separation of Powers we have? If they don't, it might be the final straw that brings about another civil war.

Oh whee......... Another fruitcake running around in a little tin hat, waving his pop gun, screaming revolution.

Our Founders had less reasons to be pissed off with their British Ruler than we do currently with Dear Leader.

 

[SFC Ollie]

WTH? "That was then this is now" What the heck does that even mean in this context?

So you fall back on "oh he's just old"...then say it proves hypocrisy? Maybe you need to dumb it down for me. I'm not getting anything from that group of letters other than you seeing what you want to see...and defending yourself with an old man's senility.

The audio from that clip was played on a local radio show in the afternoon as some sort of "gotcha" about the REAL purpose of reconciliation. OF COURSE Byrd's going to spin things his way. I'll give you that he would be the expert on the intent of the rule, but you gotta admit that he has the ability to take advantage of that position too. You author a rule, it gets passed, make sure you have the historians write down notes on the legislative intent...then you put it out there. That's really the best you can do.

Let me spell it out for you.
The clip was like 15 years ago, maybe less. Byrd was explaining why reconciliation should not be used to pass the Clinton Health Care bill, despite then-president Clinton's requests to do so.
Fast forward to today when Democrats are poised to do just that. Why hasn't Byrd spoken out against it like he did 15years ago? Because he can barely sit straight, being over 90 years old.
But it isn't just Byrd. There are scores of clips on Yuotube and elsewhere of Dems decrying GOP use of reconciliation to approve judicial nominees. Now those same idiots think it's fine to use the exact same process to re-order 1/6th of our economy in the biggest social engineering legislation of this century.
That is hypocrisy.

Hey silly ass, the Repukes used reconciliation 14 times recently. The Dems, only 8 times. So we have six free ones to catch up with.

Hmmm....... Health Care, Cap and Trade, Banking regulations, Tax hikes on the very wealthy, More Federal support for scientific research, more Federal support for higher education. Just a few suggestions

Eventually you will run out of other peoples money.

 

[The Rabbi]

WTH? "That was then this is now" What the heck does that even mean in this context?

So you fall back on "oh he's just old"...then say it proves hypocrisy? Maybe you need to dumb it down for me. I'm not getting anything from that group of letters other than you seeing what you want to see...and defending yourself with an old man's senility.

The audio from that clip was played on a local radio show in the afternoon as some sort of "gotcha" about the REAL purpose of reconciliation. OF COURSE Byrd's going to spin things his way. I'll give you that he would be the expert on the intent of the rule, but you gotta admit that he has the ability to take advantage of that position too. You author a rule, it gets passed, make sure you have the historians write down notes on the legislative intent...then you put it out there. That's really the best you can do.

Let me spell it out for you.
The clip was like 15 years ago, maybe less. Byrd was explaining why reconciliation should not be used to pass the Clinton Health Care bill, despite then-president Clinton's requests to do so.
Fast forward to today when Democrats are poised to do just that. Why hasn't Byrd spoken out against it like he did 15years ago? Because he can barely sit straight, being over 90 years old.
But it isn't just Byrd. There are scores of clips on Yuotube and elsewhere of Dems decrying GOP use of reconciliation to approve judicial nominees. Now those same idiots think it's fine to use the exact same process to re-order 1/6th of our economy in the biggest social engineering legislation of this century.
That is hypocrisy.

Hey silly ass, the Repukes used reconciliation 14 times recently. The Dems, only 8 times. So we have six free ones to catch up with.

Hmmm....... Health Care, Cap and Trade, Banking regulations, Tax hikes on the very wealthy, More Federal support for scientific research, more Federal support for higher education. Just a few suggestions

No dumshit. This isn't a contest to see who can shred the constitution faster.
I have a suggestion. WHy don't you go on ignore?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The 50 states aren't independent nation states. Sorry to tell you that. Only the most twisted interpretation of the Constitution takes you there. There's not a law school in the country that teaches that I can tell you.

How many law schools have you attended?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Back in the day they would pass bills they haven't read, now they pass bills they haven't voted on , Oh for the old ways.

 

[gautama]

If the Slaughter Rule doesn't work, let's see if Obama declares a State of Emergency due to the Dismal Economy & High Unemployment to Rahm health care through via Executive Order.

It would not be at all surprising if they were actually considering this.

I think that MARXIST Muslim PC Protector Obami Salami is a Second Nostradamus in foreseeing the future and PREPARING FOR IT.

Some of you will remember that this MONUMENTAL FRAUD, soon after being elected, PROCLAIMED ON NATIONAL TV, that SPECIAL GOVERNMENTAL POLICE are a good idea to secure stability.

And get this: (when I heard this I almost didn't believe what I heard) This wannabe Hitler stated that this SPECIAL GOVERNMENTAL POLICE ( I don't recall exactly the title Obami bestowed on this paramilitary force except that it did include the word "POLICE").....if need be.....WOULD BE LARGER THAN THE EXISTING ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !!!!

That truly ALARMING statement evoked some negative reaction......but surprising did not raise a NATIONAL UPROAR which it should have.

I suppose that we were all in a state of shock when we heard it, and thought his comment was a figment of our imagination not to be taken seriously.


HOWEVER......

With all these UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANEUVERS by the crazed PELOSI/REID COMBO.... the UNPRECEDENTED BEHAVIOUR IN SCOPE, INTENSITY and BLATANT VARIETY of BACKROOM ARM TWISTING.....ARROGANT EXCLUSION OF ANY BI-PARTISANSHIP except for the recent "dog&pony" show by (some call him ) The Kenyan...EVERYTHING indicates that there is a strong possibility that this MARXIST Muslim PC Protector Obami Salami FORESAW the predictability of America's reaction to his MARXIST AGENDA and actually had some trial runs of having"SEIU" UNION THUGS try to break up TEA PARTIES ....then TOWN HALL MEETINGS a la Hitler's SA (Sturm Abteilung) THUGS...the parallels were SHOCKINGLY IDENTICAL.

But.......our semi-NAZI, MARXIST Muslim PC Protector Obami Salami BACKED OFF this HItler "SA" tactic.

I guess this MONUMENTAL FRAUD feels that the "PEACEFUL" strong arming" tactics by the CRAZED PELOSI/REID team will accomplish the same goals "PEACEFULLY".

BUT.....let's not forget this "GREEN" BULLSHIT which is being VOCIFEROUSLY REJECTED by experts like FORBES, projections by US studies, and many other studies in Europe .....indicate that for every new job created 2.2 will be lost.....and meanwhile it would take at least a decade to get this debacle truly set up and running.....with the "benefits" STILL moot.

The "Cap and Trade" DISASTER, of the MARXIST AGENDA will SKYROCKET the energy costs and will REALLY TEST the MONUMENTAL FRAUD'S resolve to use Hitler's SA tactics.

WHY ????

Answer: Because I don't see any chance this arrant BULLSHIT will be PEACEFULLY accepted by the American Public.

IMO, he'll use the "PEACEFUL" CRAZED Pelosi/Reid tactics to ram his "VISION" down America's throats.......THE FIRST TERM.

If this MONUMENTAL FRAUD survives the political fall-out of his PRESENT SOCIALISTIC BULLSHIT during THE FIRST TERM......THEN.......WATCH OUT AMERICA !!!!!!

If this semi-NAZI, MARXIST Muslim PC Protector Obami Salami gets elected a SECOND TERM.......then like the WISE jews of the NAZIFYING GERMANY......I'd bug out on the first boat to ...... TIERRA DEL FUEGO if necessary.

Frankly, I have enough FAITH IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE......although, I must admit I'm not sure that they have indicated sufficient political acumen in even THINKING of electing this ABOMINATION....which NEGATIVE MIRACLE of all NEGATIVE MIRACLES they did.....

HOWEVER, with the exposure of the MONUMENTAL FRAUD's SOCIALISTIC Health Care...and America's reaction to it........I feel that there is a damn good chance this MARXIST Muslim PC Protector will be sent packing.

BOTTOM LINE: I hope AMERICA's NIGHTMARE WILL BE OVER !!!

Hopefully this MARXIST Muslim PC Protector Obami Salami will get his arse kicked out of the White House together with his "I'm not glad to be an American" wife Michelle with her retinue of 120+ servants to his COMMIE Kenyan Cousin ODINGA, a RAPIST and a MURDERER, leader of the COMMIE "Orange Democratic Party", known throughout Africa as the "AFRICAN STALIN".

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Vanquish]

The 50 states aren't independent nation states. Sorry to tell you that. Only the most twisted interpretation of the Constitution takes you there. There's not a law school in the country that teaches that I can tell you.

How many law schools have you attended?

Three. The first where I went up until the last semester of the total three years. I had to go home to take care of my mother who was dying of cancer. Then the second where I graduated from after having to redo the whole thing. Finally a third where I got my LLM.

Any more questions?

 

[Vanquish]

But that was then, this is now. Byrd is about 10 years older and in no shape to give speeches like that. But it reveals Democratic hypocrisy. Like anyone had any doubt.

Here's the best quotation I've seen on the whole thing so far:
from Heritage.org

WTH? "That was then this is now" What the heck does that even mean in this context?

So you fall back on "oh he's just old"...then say it proves hypocrisy? Maybe you need to dumb it down for me. I'm not getting anything from that group of letters other than you seeing what you want to see...and defending yourself with an old man's senility.

The audio from that clip was played on a local radio show in the afternoon as some sort of "gotcha" about the REAL purpose of reconciliation. OF COURSE Byrd's going to spin things his way. I'll give you that he would be the expert on the intent of the rule, but you gotta admit that he has the ability to take advantage of that position too. You author a rule, it gets passed, make sure you have the historians write down notes on the legislative intent...then you put it out there. That's really the best you can do.

Let me spell it out for you.
The clip was like 15 years ago, maybe less. Byrd was explaining why reconciliation should not be used to pass the Clinton Health Care bill, despite then-president Clinton's requests to do so.
Fast forward to today when Democrats are poised to do just that. Why hasn't Byrd spoken out against it like he did 15years ago? Because he can barely sit straight, being over 90 years old.
But it isn't just Byrd. There are scores of clips on Yuotube and elsewhere of Dems decrying GOP use of reconciliation to approve judicial nominees. Now those same idiots think it's fine to use the exact same process to re-order 1/6th of our economy in the biggest social engineering legislation of this century.
That is hypocrisy.

Oh I'm with you about the hypocrisy. I don't think that you should decry something one day...then extol it the next. But both sides do that. Not just Dems. If you want to say it's only the Dems then, not to be too blunt, but you're not being honest with yourself.

But go back to the clip. He's saying that the bill wont reach the light of day and that the people wont know what it's about. That's not true. Nothing's being hidden. The Republicans have dug in their heels to stop health care reform and the Dems are using whatever they can to get it passed...within the rules.

There's a non-partisan arbiter in place AND there's the SCOTUS as well. We'll see how it plays out. The fact that it's come to this show just how broken our system really is.

 

[The Rabbi]

WTH? "That was then this is now" What the heck does that even mean in this context?

So you fall back on "oh he's just old"...then say it proves hypocrisy? Maybe you need to dumb it down for me. I'm not getting anything from that group of letters other than you seeing what you want to see...and defending yourself with an old man's senility.

The audio from that clip was played on a local radio show in the afternoon as some sort of "gotcha" about the REAL purpose of reconciliation. OF COURSE Byrd's going to spin things his way. I'll give you that he would be the expert on the intent of the rule, but you gotta admit that he has the ability to take advantage of that position too. You author a rule, it gets passed, make sure you have the historians write down notes on the legislative intent...then you put it out there. That's really the best you can do.

Let me spell it out for you.
The clip was like 15 years ago, maybe less. Byrd was explaining why reconciliation should not be used to pass the Clinton Health Care bill, despite then-president Clinton's requests to do so.
Fast forward to today when Democrats are poised to do just that. Why hasn't Byrd spoken out against it like he did 15years ago? Because he can barely sit straight, being over 90 years old.
But it isn't just Byrd. There are scores of clips on Yuotube and elsewhere of Dems decrying GOP use of reconciliation to approve judicial nominees. Now those same idiots think it's fine to use the exact same process to re-order 1/6th of our economy in the biggest social engineering legislation of this century.
That is hypocrisy.

Oh I'm with you about the hypocrisy. I don't think that you should decry something one day...then extol it the next. But both sides do that. Not just Dems. If you want to say it's only the Dems then, not to be too blunt, but you're not being honest with yourself.

But go back to the clip. He's saying that the bill wont reach the light of day and that the people wont know what it's about. That's not true. Nothing's being hidden. The Republicans have dug in their heels to stop health care reform and the Dems are using whatever they can to get it passed...within the rules.

There's a non-partisan arbiter in place AND there's the SCOTUS as well. We'll see how it plays out. The fact that it's come to this show just how broken our system really is.

No no. "He did it first" doesn't cut it anymore. And the GOP never used reconciliation for major legislation. That is a Democratic talking point and wrong.
And didnt Nancy Pelosi say "you have to pass the bill first to see what's in it"?
The Republicans cannot stop health care reform. Only Democrats can do that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember, in order to score it as not adding to the deficit the tax increases come first, then the 'reforms" come into play.

So, God forbid but Allah willing, this monstrosity passes, we will simply undo in it 2010 and 2012

 

[The Rabbi]

Remember, in order to score it as not adding to the deficit the tax increases come first, then the 'reforms" come into play.

So, God forbid but Allah willing, this monstrosity passes, we will simply undo in it 2010 and 2012

I dont think it will get that far.
First the House has to pass this POS. That assumes members will be stupid enough to believe Pelosi and Obama that they can engineer fixes that will pass the Senate. Said fixes have already been rejected.
Then they have to get it past the Senate where the GOP is promising an eternity of amendments and everything short of filibuster.
Then there are 11 AGs from the states standing by the challenge the thing in Federal court.
Then there are states passing pre-emptive laws forbidding prosecution of their citizens under the law.
This is far from done.

 

[The Rabbi]

Didnt Nancy say she had the votes if the motion were proposed this weekend?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100314/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul;_ylt=AqSFsYtinV3v2mVO_fzAMlys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNpamJtc2JjBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzE0L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9vdmVyaGF1bARjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzcEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2RlbWhvdXNldm90ZQ--

The woman is either a liar or delusional.
Of course she could be both.

 

[CurveLight]

What kind of people vote for someone with a name like slaughter?

Butchers.

 

[Vanquish]

Let me spell it out for you.
The clip was like 15 years ago, maybe less. Byrd was explaining why reconciliation should not be used to pass the Clinton Health Care bill, despite then-president Clinton's requests to do so.
Fast forward to today when Democrats are poised to do just that. Why hasn't Byrd spoken out against it like he did 15years ago? Because he can barely sit straight, being over 90 years old.
But it isn't just Byrd. There are scores of clips on Yuotube and elsewhere of Dems decrying GOP use of reconciliation to approve judicial nominees. Now those same idiots think it's fine to use the exact same process to re-order 1/6th of our economy in the biggest social engineering legislation of this century.
That is hypocrisy.

Oh I'm with you about the hypocrisy. I don't think that you should decry something one day...then extol it the next. But both sides do that. Not just Dems. If you want to say it's only the Dems then, not to be too blunt, but you're not being honest with yourself.

But go back to the clip. He's saying that the bill wont reach the light of day and that the people wont know what it's about. That's not true. Nothing's being hidden. The Republicans have dug in their heels to stop health care reform and the Dems are using whatever they can to get it passed...within the rules.

There's a non-partisan arbiter in place AND there's the SCOTUS as well. We'll see how it plays out. The fact that it's come to this show just how broken our system really is.

No no. "He did it first" doesn't cut it anymore. And the GOP never used reconciliation for major legislation. That is a Democratic talking point and wrong.
And didnt Nancy Pelosi say "you have to pass the bill first to see what's in it"?
The Republicans cannot stop health care reform. Only Democrats can do that.

I never said "he did it first"...so you need to stop misquoting me.

Second, dude, hate to tell you but it HAS been used for major legislation. If you can't concede that...then either you're lying to us or you're lying to yourself. Either way, that dog dont hunt.

See, this is me, trying to find middle ground...in the broadest sense...both parties complain about the other party doing shit that they've done themselves. If you can't admit that basic fact then there's no use talking to you.

But let's get back on the real topic...can they/should they ram it through. It's not like Republicans have given Dems much of an option now have they? They tried to be bi-partisan and got stonewalled.

So ...you get what you pay for.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh I'm with you about the hypocrisy. I don't think that you should decry something one day...then extol it the next. But both sides do that. Not just Dems. If you want to say it's only the Dems then, not to be too blunt, but you're not being honest with yourself.

But go back to the clip. He's saying that the bill wont reach the light of day and that the people wont know what it's about. That's not true. Nothing's being hidden. The Republicans have dug in their heels to stop health care reform and the Dems are using whatever they can to get it passed...within the rules.

There's a non-partisan arbiter in place AND there's the SCOTUS as well. We'll see how it plays out. The fact that it's come to this show just how broken our system really is.

No no. "He did it first" doesn't cut it anymore. And the GOP never used reconciliation for major legislation. That is a Democratic talking point and wrong.
And didnt Nancy Pelosi say "you have to pass the bill first to see what's in it"?
The Republicans cannot stop health care reform. Only Democrats can do that.

I never said "he did it first"...so you need to stop misquoting me.

Second, dude, hate to tell you but it HAS been used for major legislation. If you can't concede that...then either you're lying to us or you're lying to yourself. Either way, that dog dont hunt.

See, this is me, trying to find middle ground...in the broadest sense...both parties complain about the other party doing shit that they've done themselves. If you can't admit that basic fact then there's no use talking to you.

But let's get back on the real topic...can they/should they ram it through. It's not like Republicans have given Dems much of an option now have they? They tried to be bi-partisan and got stonewalled.

So ...you get what you pay for.

You deny what you then go on to say. You say "both sides ahve used it for major legislation" and then fail to prove that.
It isnt like Republicans have given Dems much of an option? How about scrapping this piece of shit and working out a bill both sides can support? Ever think of that one? Radical I know. But that's what bipartisan means. Not, I'll propose what I want and you go along with it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh I'm with you about the hypocrisy. I don't think that you should decry something one day...then extol it the next. But both sides do that. Not just Dems. If you want to say it's only the Dems then, not to be too blunt, but you're not being honest with yourself.

But go back to the clip. He's saying that the bill wont reach the light of day and that the people wont know what it's about. That's not true. Nothing's being hidden. The Republicans have dug in their heels to stop health care reform and the Dems are using whatever they can to get it passed...within the rules.

There's a non-partisan arbiter in place AND there's the SCOTUS as well. We'll see how it plays out. The fact that it's come to this show just how broken our system really is.

No no. "He did it first" doesn't cut it anymore. And the GOP never used reconciliation for major legislation. That is a Democratic talking point and wrong.
And didnt Nancy Pelosi say "you have to pass the bill first to see what's in it"?
The Republicans cannot stop health care reform. Only Democrats can do that.

I never said "he did it first"...so you need to stop misquoting me.

Second, dude, hate to tell you but it HAS been used for major legislation. If you can't concede that...then either you're lying to us or you're lying to yourself. Either way, that dog dont hunt.

See, this is me, trying to find middle ground...in the broadest sense...both parties complain about the other party doing shit that they've done themselves. If you can't admit that basic fact then there's no use talking to you.

But let's get back on the real topic...can they/should they ram it through. It's not like Republicans have given Dems much of an option now have they? They tried to be bi-partisan and got stonewalled.

So ...you get what you pay for.

Reconciliation has only been used for BUDGETS. You are making shit up as you go.

Repeating the Big Lie here will not fly

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If the House tries to pull the Slaughter Maneuver, I expect this to end up in the SCOTUS - and that an injunction will be put in place.

I wonder if Obama's attacks on the SCOTUS and the rumor put out that Justice Roberts was retiring is a set up for when this bill reaches the SCOTUS


Makes me wonder.

It's a good point... But all Roberts has to do is his job... that the Administration is trying to force a recussal is their problem...

It should be a first class lesson in not pissing off the Judge.

Who's he going to appeal to? The SUPER-SUPREME COURT?

I don't see Roberts falling for that. Although I do expect the Left to harp on it for 5 Sundays prior to the hearing; and we can all rest assured where Mr. Olberman and Comrades will come down on it.