In the latest twist to the ongoing quest for health care reform, Republicans have found a new loophole in the reconciliation route: filibuster through amendment. Republicans appear ready to tie up the Senate until the Democrats give up, all in the name of stopping an up or down, majority rules, democratic vote, which they now consider "tyrannical." Details below.
From "The Hill" :
As it turns out, Senate Democrats may not be able to force healthcare legislation through the chamber on a simple majority vote.
Republicans say they have found a loophole in the budget reconciliation process that could allow them to offer an indefinite number of amendments.
Though it has never been done, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says he’s prepared to test the Senate’s stamina to block the Democrats from using the process to expedite changes to the healthcare bill.
Experts on Senate procedural rules, from both parties, note that such a filibuster is possible. While reconciliation rules limit debate to 20 hours, senators lack similiarconstraints on amendments and could conceivably continue offering them until 60 members agree to cut the process off.
Another option for Democrats would be to seek a ruling by the parliamentarian that Republicans are simply filing amendments to stall the process. But such a ruling could taint the final healthcare vote and backfire for Democrats in November.
Or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could use a tactic similar to the so-called nuclear option to quash the GOP tactics.
---
...Republicans may end up having that power even under reconciliation.
"You could keep offering amendments until you don’t have any more to offer," said a congressional aide, who said he did not know how long senators would be willing to stay in the chamber to move the reconciliation package. "What the body’s tolerance would be is unknown."
A former Senate Republican leadership aide said: "The limit is on debate, not on consideration of amendments."
DeMint said he’s ready to try anything.
"You’ll see Republicans do everything they can to delay and stop this process," DeMint said.
---
DeMint said that using reconciliation rules to pass the House-requested changes to the Senate healthcare bill with only 51 votes is "tyrannical."
"I think you’ll see us offering amendments to get us into November, if we can," said DeMint.
---
Parliamentarian Alan Frumin could rule Republican amendments after a certain number out of order. But he could also allow the GOP amendments, since they are not expressly barred.
If Frumin ruled with Republicans, Reid would be in a difficult position. He could either pull the bill off the floor or he could appeal the ruling of the parliamentarian.
With a simple majority of 51 votes, Reid could overturn the ruling of the chair and set a Senate precedent that amendments must be limited to within reason. This tactic would be similar to the so-called nuclear option Senate Republicans considered using in 2005 to overrule Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees.
One sentence says it all: "DeMint said that using reconciliation rules to pass the House-requested changes to the Senate healthcare bill with only 51 votes is 'tyrannical.'"
So, following that logic, Democracy - the rule of the majority - is tyrannical? Let us consult our Parliamentarian (aka Wikipedia) for a ruling:
In modern usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls.
That seems like a pretty good definition of Republicans these days, especially Republican Senators, placing "his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population."
Isn't it amazing that when Democrats seek to use the tools that are available to them - reconciliation (majority rule) - they're accused of tyranny, willing to melt down the will of the people by using the "nuclear option." Yet when Mr. DeMint vows to "do everything they can to delay and stop this process" and put a wrench in the works of Democracy, that's considered (at least to Republicans) an acceptable and necessary way to play the game.
In light of DeMint's comments, Senate Democrats should view this a fight worth having. The continued Republican obstruction in the Senate implies that not much will get done there this year anyway. So, make them filibuster the reconciliation process. And put it all on TV. Maybe then, finally, we can have our "Have You No Sense of Decency?"moment:
As an amazed television audience looked on, Welch responded with the immortal lines that ultimately ended McCarthy's career: "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness." When McCarthy tried to continue his attack, Welch angrily interrupted, "Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?"
Who's Waterloo will it be then?