Is what Lawrence O'Donnell said about reconciliation on Morning Joe true?

[CTyankee]

He said that while reconciliation has been used before, both by Dems and Reps, it has never been done the way we are doing the HCR bill. That is because in this case the conference committee work on the two bills is being abandoned, unfinished. I'd like to know if that is true...he was very specific and very certain.

My question is, is there a rule that the House can't decide not to finish a compromise bill and instead just put up the bill that the Senate passed? Why can't the House just "give up" on a conference committee bill and decide to put up the Senate version?

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Rather than combine the bills, the house can simply pass the Senate bill...

They have that power.

[DrToast]

2. They can. Gloomy Gus is just causing problems again

[ChicagoSuz219]

14. Gloomy Gus... LOL n/t

[Perky]

3. because if amended in conference it had to go back to the Senate for final passage

and that vote is subject to cloture.

We do not have the senate votes for a bill voted out of conference.


I think O'Donnel is correct, but there is nothing in the rules of either body to prevent it and the courts will not intervene.

So the senate bill was poassed with 60 votes and the House will use there rules to "pass" the same bill with about ten votes to spare I am guessing

The reconciliation piece will have about 30 votes to spare and probably have about 55 in the Senate, but it it not subject to cloture.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Eeyore O'Donnell is spreading gloom and doom, as usual.

I think he's jealous because health care didn't pass when he was working for the Clinton administration.

[Cha]

5. He really sounds like

he needs to stop being such a eeyore and start dealing in the reality of the procedures.

Just reading DU..I can see a lot of people are reacting on misinformation and disinformation.

[CTyankee]

8. It does seem to me not to be that big a deal...but he's making it his "thing."

He says it's not a real bill, but it is, just the Senate bill...I don't get his "concern" here and he doesn't say exactly what is wrong with doing it this way...

[Kber]

9. What's wrong with doing it this way

is that it's not how he did in when he tried to pass health care reform.

Tried and failed, by the way.

[CTyankee]

10. So he is suffering because he "didn't think of that"...LOL

That's good...I like it.

But I also like Lawrence and just hope he gets off this thing SOON.

[xxqqqzme]

12. Yea, I think it is sour grapes

on his part. He's been a debbie downer from the beginning.

[Mass]

6. They can. It is done sometimes. In addition, it has nothing to do with reconciliation, which will

only happen on the fixes.

[CreekDog]

7. The House can pass whatever legislation it wants, it can abandon the conference

and pass the Senate bill if it so chooses, why not?

this isn't about what each body can do, they can do whatever they want.

it's about having them pass the same bills so that they can become law.

[CTyankee]

17. Do you know for sure that the House can do "whatever they want"?

Is it that simple? Just curious here...

[Zen Democrat]

11. He said that this morning, and then someone else came on and said Gingrich did it.

[babylonsister]

13. Unprecedented!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=222592

The Dumbest Complaint in Washington. (It’s Unprecedented!)

The debate over the use of budget reconciliation to pass relatively small changes to a health care reform is an unusual one. Republicans keep charging that it's unprecedented.

snip//


The question is why we should care. After all, since history almost never replicates itself in precisely every detail, nearly everything that happens is unprecedented in some way. That doesn't make it wrong. The first question we should ask ourselves in addressing a complaint about a legislative tactic is, is this within the rules? The second question is, does this tactic require changing the rules in some way that seems designed to benefit the current majority? (The Republican effort to change Senate rules in 2005 to prevent only filibusters of judicial nominees would qualify.) But if the party is question is using the existing rules, then except in highly unusual circumstances, they should be given a presumption of legitimacy.

more...

[CTyankee]

15. This was my essential point!

Of course, the so called "changinng of the rules" was nothing of a sort. O'Donnell is being strange on this. I don't know why. He's not what I would call a "sellout."

Anyone know what is up with him?

[CTyankee]

16. At this point, the ONLY question that should be considered by the Dems is

"What are the political consequences?" This is legitimate. And THAT is where this whole thing resides at this point anyway. Has that ever NOT been the way? Really?

[Aramchek]

18. that schmuck really ruins Countdown for me