Knock on Wood

[firelizard5]

Now, nobody die of shock here, but it appears the national legislature actually managed to do something. It seems that the House of Representatives passed a health care reform bill--with a public option!

Read more

Truly, I am shocked, but rather pleased. Sure, it has it's flaws. The prohibition against paying for abortions, for example, seems like a

Comments

[elwood012]

Yes on both counts.

Anyways, as far as the senate thing, a bill takes >50 votes to pass if it makes it to the floor for a vote. If a senator chooses to fillibuster the bill (refuse to cut off debate), the senate is not allowed to work on any other business until the bill is either dropped from consideration or forced to the floor for a vote in a parliamentary motion requiring 60 votes.

It used to be that filibustering required actually standing up in front of the senate and endlessly talking about the bill, but how to handle filibusters is at the discretion of the Majority Leader. If they do not force the filibuster to the floor (time to bust out the cots and adult diapers), it becomes a simple procedural hold that takes 60 votes to overcome and prevents anything else from happening while it is in effect.

The two major ways that the Democrats could defeat a filibuster are:

1. Sen. Reid could force it to the floor and the Ds and Rs could slug it out to see who could withstand more sleep deprivation and talk longer, while still maintaining a quorum in the event a vote comes up. If this would happen, a lot of people would probably eat their words regarding him being an ineffective majority leader.

2. The Democratic caucus could request that the Senate Parliamentarian, a rather obscure individual who you only hear about in cases like this, allow the bill to be subject to Reconciliation, a special status intended for budget measures, which limits the amount of debate allowed on a bill, and therefore prevents it from being filibustered. Since the bill cannot be filibustered and automatically goes to the floor, it requires only 50+ votes and the permission of the Parliamentarian to pass. However, it gets more complicated, since the Parliamentarian is allowed to remove any portions from a bill under Reconciliation that are there for policy reasons (do not affect the budget), and since the senate leadership can fire the Parliamentarian if they do not like the Parliamentarian's decision. A finding that Reconciliation is allowed can also be overturned with a 60-vote procedural motion, though that requires 60 senators to say that filibusters are allowed, instead of the 41 needed to filibuster a bill.

In summary, Senate parliamentary procedure is complicated.

Hopefully the Senate leadership can either threaten Lieberman into backing down (e.g. "you'll get kicked out of the caucus, lose your Homeland Security chair, we'll reassign your office to the women's bathroom in the basement of the farthest senate office building from the capitol, and we'll raise at least (Dr. Evil finger) TEN MEEEELLLIONN DOLLARS for whatever Democrat will challenge you when you are up for election") or they will broker a deal with Snowe that doesn't compromise the public option too badly. Or the Republican leadership will threaten Snowe sufficiently that she becomes an independent and votes for the bill out of spite. Something like that...

[firelizard5]

I vote fillibuster! Our current crop of democrats has proved they are pretty good at talking. Plus, it would enliven CSPAN.