Using "reconciliation" for healthcare

[NinjaguyDan]

TheRealMafoo said:
I would have rather seen Gore then Bush...

But I am not sure everyone is fully comprehending what Obama just said today.

He basically said I don't care about the form of government we have. I want to change the rule because I think the people would not mind.

I have never seen in my life a sitting president say such things (and mean it). He did not try and finagle the healthcare bill into whatever constraints are needed for reconciliation. He doesn't care.

He wants this passed because he thinks it's what's best, so the hell with the rules. Just do whatever it takes.

This man should be impeached. He has no business being the leader of this country.

He ended it when talking about reconciliation with "that's what elections are for" if voters don't like his means.

No, that's what jail is for Mr Obama. You don't just get to do whatever you want because you think it's popular.

Fuck I am pissed!

Your anger is a result of misinformation from an unreliable source.

here are key excerpts from the wiki


In the United States Senate, the Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless 3/5 of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators "duly chosen and sworn") http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXXII  brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=144&invol=1

 (1892), changes to Senate rules could however be achieved by a simple majority

    The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. [...] The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.

    The constitution provides that 'a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business.' In other words, when a majority are present the house is in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any single [144 U.S. 1, 6] member or fraction of the majority present. All that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises.

Nevertheless, the current Senate rules state that affirmative votes from two-thirds of the Senators present and voting are required for future rule changes. Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option, also called the "constitutional option" for political reasons and because of its roots in constitutional majoritarianism; that is, the Ballin decision.

The term "Nuclear Option" really refers to this:

In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of having Vice President Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule from the chair that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of the Senate (interpreting "consent of the Senate" to mean "consent of a simple majority of Senators," not "consent under the Senate rules"). Senator Trent Lott, the junior Republican senator from Mississippi, had named the plan the "nuclear option."  Republican leaders preferred to use the term "constitutional option", although opponents and some supporters of the plan continued to use "nuclear option".

On May 23, 2005, a group of fourteen senators was dubbed the Gang of 14, consisting of seven (spineless) Democrats and seven Republicans. The seven (spineless) Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances," while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the nuclear option unless they thought a nominee was being filibustered that was not under "extraordinary circumstances". Specifically, the (spineless) Democrats promised to stop the filibuster on Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William H. Pryor, Jr., who had all been filibustered in the Senate before. In return, the Republicans would stop the effort to ban the filibuster for judicial nominees. "Extraordinary circumstances" was not defined in advance. The term was open for interpretation by each Senator, but the Republicans and (bend me over the table "moderate") Democrats would have had to agree on what it meant if any nominee were to be blocked.

 

If the filibuster were used in 1964  as it is now then we wouldn't have the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Breitbart is nothing more than a corporate propogandist and a political vandal.

You're being used to advance a corporatist agenda.