Skip to main content

View Diary: On Motions to Recommit and their danger to health care (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's possible. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    andgarden

    But if there were Dems opposed to the self-executing rule, there'd probably be more opposed to denying the minority a motion to recommit.

    •  Thereby giving the Republicans (0+ / 0-)

      just enough power to scuttle the deal. Not unexpected, but stupid. This is a good reason to vote on the Senate amendments first.

      Ok, so I read the polls.

      by andgarden on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:14:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If the MTR involves putting the Stupak language (0+ / 0-)

      into the reconciliation sidecar, can't the House Parliamentarian just say "sorry, no can do"?  Doesn't that elegantly solve the problem?  (And can't Pelosi, if it comes to it, overrule the House Parliamentarian and make sure it's rejected?)

      Or is this about trying to change the main bill?  If the latter, it would seem that any Dem could honestly say "I favored the policy, but I couldn't vote for it because it would mean sending the bill back to the Senate, where we couldn't get 60 votes."

      I get the sense that I must be missing something, but I'm not sure what.

      "So if you don't have any teeth, so what? ... Isn't that why they make applesauce?" -- GOP leader Rush Limbaugh

      by Seneca Doane on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:28:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unsure. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane

        The role of the House parliamentarian is very different than in the Senate, since any rules can be set aside by majority vote in the House. So you less frequently get a good look at what's driving decisions in the House, and therefore learn less about them.

        There's certainly something to the theory, I just don't know how the House parliamentarian would deal with it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site