The Senate bill that stole Christmas in today’s podcast

091222beelertoon_c

Billed by the Washington Post as the bill that stole Christmas, after whoring in Cash for Cloture, senators are stuck in DC,

With the final vote on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act slated to start after sundown Dec. 24, senators and hundreds of their health policy analysts, press secretaries and other aides — not to mention the universe of police officers, clerks and student pages who keep the place humming — wishing to be with their families will instead spend the holiday in Washington. And there’s a possibility the Senate could be called back next week, to take up debt-limit legislation.

In today’s podcast at 11AM, Rick Moran talks about how REFORM IS A TRIUMPH OF PROCESS OVER PRUDENCE. Join us live, and you can listen to the archived podcast at your convenience.

UPDATE
At Red State, Erick Erickson posts, We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare

The Senate Democrats declare a super-majority of senators will be needed to overrule any regulation imposed by the Death Panels

Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.

To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

Go read Erick’s post.

How’s that hope and change working for you now?

UPDATE 2
VIDEO via Ed:

Tags: , ,

5 Responses to “The Senate bill that stole Christmas in today’s podcast”

  1. Tweets that mention Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » The Senate bill that stole Christmas in today’s podcast -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fausta and Fausta, mirpod. mirpod said: RT @Fausta: The Senate bill that stole Christmas in today’s podcast http://ff.im/-dfapc [...]

  2. Senate Democrats continue to show blatant disregard for the Constitution | Liberal Whoppers Says:

    [...] Merry Christmas? [...]

  3. Pat Patterson Says:

    But Section 3403 could be ruled a procedural change and then easy to amend or repeal if ruled such by the parliamentarian. Or Congress might notice that repealing the power to set up that type of voting has nothing to do with the healthcare bill itself.

  4. The Republicans have zero right to complain about abuse of power | Political Byline Says:

    [...] Yankee, Moonbattery, QandO, Washington Post, Hot Air, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Sister Toldjah, Fausta’s Blog, Riehl World View,  Atlas Shrugs, Megan McArdle, National Review, No More Mister Nice Blog, The [...]

  5. A_Nonny_Mouse Says:

    Agreement with Pat Patterson.

    After reading the transcript on RedState’s blog, my
    understanding is that DeMint tried to argue that since there’s a “rule change” in the Obamacare bill, there should have been 67 votes required to pass it. The Presiding Officer of the Senate declared that it was a procedure change, therefore 60 votes was sufficient. Since the P.O. declared that the requirement in 3403 was not a “rule change” (presumably because it didn’t change the standing Senate rules), and then stated it was a procedure change (and therefore he is ON RECORD as saying so), couldn’t the Republicans use his very own words to challenge this section 3403 as a procedure change not a rules change and thus undo the “ha-ha you can’t touch my bill” clause? _IF_ the “do not touch” can be dumped, the the REST of this Pile of Excrement Obamacare bill might also be able to be dumped??

    PS- The P.O. said it was common to include modifications to “procedures” in bills. DeMint essentially said (about 7:39 pm) “Show me, I’ve been here 11 years and not seen this done before.” I see no response to that request. Is there any way that he could protest this “first time application of procedural change” if it turns out there really ISN’T any precedent for Reid to have used this language?