Will it pass?

[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.