The Senate parliamentarian has advised the Senate that certain parts of its health care bill will need 60 votes (not 51) in order for certain parts to be valid. Probably the most significant part is the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Supposedly parts of the bill violate the Byrd Rule. So even if they do somehow get 51 yes votes, certain elements to the bill won't be allowed unless they get 60 votes (and that absolutely isn't happening).
A good victory for Planned Parenthood.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017...nate-rule/
Victory?
"some of the bill’s provisions don’t appear to qualify"
"probably “doesn’t pass muster"
"It’s possible that Republicans will try to overturn the parliamentarian’s decision"
It seems pretty clear that the filibuster as it is now used, is on life support.
Might this be the Trafalgar for the filibuster?
Why would defunding anything need 60 votes?
(07-22-2017 08:44 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]Victory?
"some of the bill’s provisions don’t appear to qualify"
"probably “doesn’t pass muster"
"It’s possible that Republicans will try to overturn the parliamentarian’s decision"
Such clear and concise language.
Straight repeal doesn't need 60---nor does defunding.
(07-22-2017 09:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Straight repeal doesn't need 60---nor does defunding.
Correct, There is a way around the fillibuster that allows this no matter what.
Defunding Planned Parenthood may require 60 - you can't say that as you have no direct knowledge on that fact. The Senate Parliamentarian - who I suspect knows a hell of a lot more about Senate rules that Attackcoug - advised that in fact, defunding Planned Parenthood violates the Byrd rule so it will require 60 votes now.
Yes, repealing may only require 51 but I wonder if a straight repeal without anything to replace it would be political suicide for some of the Republican senators in danger of not being re-elected. In fact, it's very possible they don't get 51 votes anyway - even if McCain is able to vote.
(07-22-2017 03:19 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Defunding Planned Parenthood may require 60 - you can't say that as you have no direct knowledge on that fact. The Senate Parliamentarian - who I suspect knows a hell of a lot more about Senate rules that Attackcoug - advised that in fact, defunding Planned Parenthood violates the Byrd rule so it will require 60 votes now.
Yes, repealing may only require 51 but I wonder if a straight repeal without anything to replace it would be political suicide for some of the Republican senators in danger of not being re-elected. In fact, it's very possible they don't get 51 votes anyway - even if McCain is able to vote.
You seem quite uptight that the baby killing factory may lose funding. Why is that?
(07-22-2017 05:59 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 03:19 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Defunding Planned Parenthood may require 60 - you can't say that as you have no direct knowledge on that fact. The Senate Parliamentarian - who I suspect knows a hell of a lot more about Senate rules that Attackcoug - advised that in fact, defunding Planned Parenthood violates the Byrd rule so it will require 60 votes now.
Yes, repealing may only require 51 but I wonder if a straight repeal without anything to replace it would be political suicide for some of the Republican senators in danger of not being re-elected. In fact, it's very possible they don't get 51 votes anyway - even if McCain is able to vote.
You seem quite uptight that the baby killing factory may lose funding. Why is that?
Republicans just need to defund it in the relevant budget. Then dare the Democrats to shut down health and human services over forwarding money to Planned Parenthood, one of their big campaign donors.
(07-22-2017 09:10 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 08:44 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]Victory?
"some of the bill’s provisions don’t appear to qualify"
"probably “doesn’t pass muster"
"It’s possible that Republicans will try to overturn the parliamentarian’s decision"
Such clear and concise language.
"they" try to 'almost' be passive aggressive
"nothing but nonsense" is the internutz' mantra....Imma cis-ss-wannabee-nazi...
shite just pops out of nowhere and somebody latches on to the leech.....there's some irony in that....
(07-22-2017 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 05:59 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 03:19 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Defunding Planned Parenthood may require 60 - you can't say that as you have no direct knowledge on that fact. The Senate Parliamentarian - who I suspect knows a hell of a lot more about Senate rules that Attackcoug - advised that in fact, defunding Planned Parenthood violates the Byrd rule so it will require 60 votes now.
Yes, repealing may only require 51 but I wonder if a straight repeal without anything to replace it would be political suicide for some of the Republican senators in danger of not being re-elected. In fact, it's very possible they don't get 51 votes anyway - even if McCain is able to vote.
You seem quite uptight that the baby killing factory may lose funding. Why is that?
Republicans just need to defund it in the relevant budget. Then dare the Democrats to shut down health and human services over forwarding money to Planned Parenthood, one of their big campaign donors.
The dems would still do it. PP is a campaign funding machine for them. The dipshits at PP dropped nearly a million on pajama boy in GA-06.
(07-22-2017 05:59 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 03:19 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Defunding Planned Parenthood may require 60 - you can't say that as you have no direct knowledge on that fact. The Senate Parliamentarian - who I suspect knows a hell of a lot more about Senate rules that Attackcoug - advised that in fact, defunding Planned Parenthood violates the Byrd rule so it will require 60 votes now.
Yes, repealing may only require 51 but I wonder if a straight repeal without anything to replace it would be political suicide for some of the Republican senators in danger of not being re-elected. In fact, it's very possible they don't get 51 votes anyway - even if McCain is able to vote.
You seem quite uptight that the baby killing factory may lose funding. Why is that?
I'm just happy the Democrats are out-maneuvering the Republicans for a change in the procedural game.
(07-22-2017 07:52 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 05:59 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 03:19 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Defunding Planned Parenthood may require 60 - you can't say that as you have no direct knowledge on that fact. The Senate Parliamentarian - who I suspect knows a hell of a lot more about Senate rules that Attackcoug - advised that in fact, defunding Planned Parenthood violates the Byrd rule so it will require 60 votes now.
Yes, repealing may only require 51 but I wonder if a straight repeal without anything to replace it would be political suicide for some of the Republican senators in danger of not being re-elected. In fact, it's very possible they don't get 51 votes anyway - even if McCain is able to vote.
You seem quite uptight that the baby killing factory may lose funding. Why is that?
Republicans just need to defund it in the relevant budget. Then dare the Democrats to shut down health and human services over forwarding money to Planned Parenthood, one of their big campaign donors.
The dems would still do it. PP is a campaign funding machine for them. The dipshits at PP dropped nearly a million on pajama boy in GA-06.
And the Democrats and Planned Parenthood would get exposed for what they are-getting paid for killing and then using public money to continue the cycle.
(07-22-2017 08:18 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 05:59 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 03:19 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Defunding Planned Parenthood may require 60 - you can't say that as you have no direct knowledge on that fact. The Senate Parliamentarian - who I suspect knows a hell of a lot more about Senate rules that Attackcoug - advised that in fact, defunding Planned Parenthood violates the Byrd rule so it will require 60 votes now.
Yes, repealing may only require 51 but I wonder if a straight repeal without anything to replace it would be political suicide for some of the Republican senators in danger of not being re-elected. In fact, it's very possible they don't get 51 votes anyway - even if McCain is able to vote.
You seem quite uptight that the baby killing factory may lose funding. Why is that?
I'm just happy the Democrats are out-maneuvering the Republicans for a change in the procedural game.
How'd that Gorsuch maneuvering work out for the libturds?
(07-22-2017 08:34 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 07:52 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 05:59 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 03:19 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Defunding Planned Parenthood may require 60 - you can't say that as you have no direct knowledge on that fact. The Senate Parliamentarian - who I suspect knows a hell of a lot more about Senate rules that Attackcoug - advised that in fact, defunding Planned Parenthood violates the Byrd rule so it will require 60 votes now.
Yes, repealing may only require 51 but I wonder if a straight repeal without anything to replace it would be political suicide for some of the Republican senators in danger of not being re-elected. In fact, it's very possible they don't get 51 votes anyway - even if McCain is able to vote.
You seem quite uptight that the baby killing factory may lose funding. Why is that?
Republicans just need to defund it in the relevant budget. Then dare the Democrats to shut down health and human services over forwarding money to Planned Parenthood, one of their big campaign donors.
The dems would still do it. PP is a campaign funding machine for them. The dipshits at PP dropped nearly a million on pajama boy in GA-06.
And the Democrats and Planned Parenthood would get exposed for what they are-getting paid for killing and then using public money to continue the cycle.
In several states where far out of the way communities far away from big civilization, they only have one health care clinics and those are Planned Parenthood. There are no doctors or hospitals close by. The whole community get their basic health care needs from that place from breast cancer screening and so forth. Defunding Planned Parenthood clinics would hurt communities in Alaska, Maine and several other states. That is why some of these Republican Senators are bulking at defunding the funds. They are looking out for the best interests of their people for their health care needs. Those Planned Parenthood in those communities do hire doctors and nurses to help cover all those things that have nothing to do with abortions.
Nuke the filibuster and there will be single payer healthcare within the next decade.
(07-23-2017 09:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]Nuke the filibuster and there will be single payer healthcare within the next decade.
Which is all the reason we need not to do it.
(07-23-2017 06:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 08:34 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 07:52 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-22-2017 05:59 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]You seem quite uptight that the baby killing factory may lose funding. Why is that?
Republicans just need to defund it in the relevant budget. Then dare the Democrats to shut down health and human services over forwarding money to Planned Parenthood, one of their big campaign donors.
The dems would still do it. PP is a campaign funding machine for them. The dipshits at PP dropped nearly a million on pajama boy in GA-06.
And the Democrats and Planned Parenthood would get exposed for what they are-getting paid for killing and then using public money to continue the cycle.
In several states where far out of the way communities far away from big civilization, they only have one health care clinics and those are Planned Parenthood. There are no doctors or hospitals close by.
bull****.
Quote:The whole community get their basic health care needs from that place from breast cancer screening and so forth.
bull****
Quote:Defunding Planned Parenthood clinics would hurt communities in Alaska, Maine and several other states.
bull****
Quote: That is why some of these Republican Senators are bulking at defunding the funds. They are looking out for the best interests of their people for their health care needs. Those Planned Parenthood in those communities do hire doctors and nurses to help cover all those things that have nothing to do with abortions.
bull****
You take away the money from PP, and there's plenty to fund a clinic where they dont murder babies for those few areas that dont have one.
PP isnt about womens health. They dropped a million on the GA-06 race. If you gave a damned about womens health, you would be infuriated that they used all of that money for a political race instead of services. For a million dollars, they could have single handidly funded a couple of semesters of Sandra Fluke's Georgetown birth control requirements.