• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Parliamentarian Weighing GOP Challenge to Reconciliation Bill

yes, and gop parliamentarians forced the party in power to INCLUDE veteran heroes who've suffered amputations in the NEW TAX obamacare IMPOSES on PROSTHETICS and other medical DEVICES

obamacare---EXEMPTIONS FOR THE SEIU

AND EXTRA TAXES FOR WOUNDED WARRIORS WHO'VE LOST A LIMB!

Are you saying this a good thing to force the Democrats to include? Don't quite follow you here? Do you have a link to this Parliamentarian decision, because I have not seen it.
 
Your point is moot. The bill was passed by majority vote.
Tell me...
When a SCotUS decision goes 5-4 against the leftist position, it is dismissed as being along 'partisan lines' - that is, it apparently has no real meaning.

Given that, how do you describe a bill that passes with three votes past the required simple majority?

(Hint: the answer is the same for the SCotUS decision)
 
i'm saying it's gonna be one hellacious looking AD

i don't have a link, i heard it on ksfo560, abc affiliate here in the bay area

of course it's true, it was the very purpose of the gop amendment process

ie, politics at its most normal

there IS a link for the SEX DRUGS FOR SEX OFFENDERS the dems were forced to ASSENT to

Republicans send health care bill back to House for another vote - Meredith Shiner and Chris Frates - POLITICO.com

i don't like that one as much, tho, it's kinda silly season sounding

EXEMPTIONS FOR THE SEIU, TAXES FOR ONE LEGGED WARRIORS, however---THAT's gonna be one helluva ad

you see, we're PREPARING

your side better get READY

cuz HERE WE COME

DEFEND THE PIG

(nothing personal, pure politics)
 
Tell me...
When a SCotUS decision goes 5-4 against the leftist position, it is dismissed as being along 'partisan lines' - that is, it apparently has no real meaning.

Given that, how do you describe a bill that passes with three votes past the required simple majority?

When the Supreme Court decision goes 5 - 4 against a progressive position, it is the law of the land, just as it is when it goes against a conservative position. That is if you believe in the rule of law, which I do.

There are some that don't believe in the rule of law however. Some still think SS and M/M are unconstitutional, even though they have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

As far as Congressional legislation goes, it only requires a simple majority to pass. Otherwise, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, passed by a simple majority, would have been struck down as unconstitutional.
 
i'm saying it's gonna be one hellacious looking AD

i don't have a link, i heard it on ksfo560, abc affiliate here in the bay area

of course it's true, it was the very purpose of the gop amendment process

ie, politics at its most normal

there IS a link for the SEX DRUGS FOR SEX OFFENDERS the dems were forced to ASSENT to

Republicans send health care bill back to House for another vote - Meredith Shiner and Chris Frates - POLITICO.com

i don't like that one as much, tho, it's kinda silly season sounding

EXEMPTIONS FOR THE SEIU, TAXES FOR ONE LEGGED WARRIORS, however---THAT's gonna be one helluva ad

you see, we're PREPARING

your side better get READY

cuz HERE WE COME

DEFEND THE PIG

(nothing personal, pure politics)

DAMN Prof.. I think I got a chubby!
 
When the Supreme Court decision goes 5 - 4 against a progressive position, it is the law of the land, just as it is when it goes against a conservative position. That is if you believe in the rule of law, which I do.
So you fully accept the vailidity of Bush v Gore, Heller v DC, etc.
Good to hear.

There are some that don't believe in the rule of law however. Some still think SS and M/M are unconstitutional, even though they have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
That a court decides a certain way doesnt necessarily mean that they way it decided had a sound argument behind it; that decisions are overturned illustrates the validity of that point.

As far as Congressional legislation goes, it only requires a simple majority to pass. Otherwise, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, passed by a simple majority, would have been struck down as unconstitutional.
Based on.... what?
 
So you fully accept the vailidity of Bush v Gore, Heller v DC, etc.
Good to hear.

You haven't seen me breaking out windows or threatening people have you?

That a court decides a certain way doesnt necessarily mean that they way it decided had a sound argument behind it; that decisions are overturned illustrates the validity of that point.

Right. And how many years have SS/M/M been upheld (not overturned)???

Based on.... what?

Based on the Congressional rules.
 
Last edited:
You haven't seen me breaking out windows or threatening people have you?
A simple yes will suffice.

That a court decides a certain way doesnt necessarily mean that they way it decided had a sound argument behind it; that decisions are overturned illustrates the validity of that point.
I know - but thanks anyway.

Based on the Congressional rules.
Specifically, what congressional rule would support the court overturning the 2001/2003 tax cuts?
 
I know - but thanks anyway.

Does that mean you are not going to answer my previous question to you?

"how many years have SS/M/M been upheld (not overturned)???"


Specifically, what congressional rule would support the court overturning the 2001/2003 tax cuts?

You misinterpreted my statement. I did not say there was a Congressional rule that could overturn the Bush tax cuts passed by simple majority vote on a reconciliation bill. What I am saying is the the same rules that made the Bush tax cut legislation legal by a majority vote, makes the HCR legislation legal by a majority vote.
 
Does that mean you are not going to answer my previous question to you?
"how many years have SS/M/M been upheld (not overturned)???"
Your question is irrelevant to the accuracy and correctness of my statement - a statement you agreed to.

You misinterpreted my statement. I did not say there was a Congressional rule that could overturn the Bush tax cuts passed by simple majority vote on a reconciliation bill. What I am saying is the the same rules that made the Bush tax cut legislation legal by a majority vote, makes the HCR legislation legal by a majority vote.
No one has ever questioned that.
 
LOL! Good to know no one ever questioned the Democrats using Reconciliation to pass HCR.
I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about a majority vote passing a bill.
No one has ever questioned that.
 
We were discussing the Bush tax cuts which were passed by reconciliation, passed with a simple majority. Just as the HCR Reconciliation bill was passed by a simple majority vote.
And it was questioned.
The 'question' here is the validity of using reconcillaion in this partucular instance, not that a simple majoirty on the vote for bill itself is necessary to pass it.

Reconcilliation is a means to get the bill to the floor for a vote; no one questions that once that vote is taken, a simple majority passes it.
 
The 'question' here is the validity of using reconcillaion in this partucular instance, not that a simple majoirty on the vote for bill itself is necessary to pass it.

Too bad the GOP appointed Parliamentarian did not question the validity of using reconciliation in this "partucular" instance.
 
Too bad the GOP appointed Parliamentarian did not question the validity of using reconciliation in this "partucular" instance.
Which isnt relevant.
As I said - Reconcilliation is a means to get the bill to the floor for a vote; no one questions that once that vote is taken, a simple majority passes it.
 
Which isnt relevant.
As I said - Reconcilliation is a means to get the bill to the floor for a vote; no one questions that once that vote is taken, a simple majority passes it.

And the Parliamentarian decides what is valid to be included in a reconciliation bill.
 
And the Parliamentarian decides what is valid to be included in a reconciliation bill.
Which, again, is meaningless in regards to the 'no one has questioned the simple majority vote' point.
 
Which, again, is meaningless in regards to the 'no one has questioned the simple majority vote' point.

Glad to have you agree with the Parliamentarian decision that the HCR was valid to be decided via reconciliation.
 
Glad to have you agree with the Parliamentarian decision that the HCR was valid to be decided via reconciliation.
Not surprised that you do not have the integrity to concede the point that -no one- argued that a simple majority was necessary to pass the bill, contrary to your claim to that effect.
 
I guess you missed where I responded directly to your posting of that link.

The 'question' here is the validity of using reconcillaion in this partucular instance, not that a simple majoirty on the vote for bill itself is necessary to pass it.

Reconcilliation is a means to get the bill to the floor for a vote; no one questions that once that vote is taken, a simple majority passes it.

Nowhere does he article in your link say that anyone questions that the bill, once to the floor, will pass on a majority vote.

Like I said - Not surprised that you do not have the integrity to concede the point.
 
I guess you missed where I responded directly to your posting of that link.



Nowhere does he article in your link say that anyone questions that the bill, once to the floor, will pass on a majority vote.

Like I said - Not surprised that you do not have the integrity to concede the point.

In keeping with the OP, my point was to show the final decision by the Parliamentarian as it related to the GOP challenge to Reconciliation, which I have.
 
In keeping with the OP, my point was to show the final decision by the Parliamentarian as it related to the GOP challenge to Reconciliation, which I have.
You said:
What I am saying is the the same rules that made the Bush tax cut legislation legal by a majority vote, makes the HCR legislation legal by a majority vote.
I said:
No one has ever questioned that.
At this point, you could have simply said 'yes, you're right'
But instead, you deflected and eqvivocated.

Now, be honest and admit that no one has evern questioned the idea that, once on the floor, the bill would pass by a simple majority vote.
 
Back
Top Bottom