HC debate closed, 60-40 vote

[bkg]

Simply change the rules later on by adding a proviso that says, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no bill, amendment, or other motion in the Senate shall require anything other than a simple majority of senators voting "aye" to pass.  The later in time controls the earlier in time, and under the doctrine of implicit repeal, that provision would knock out the earlier that required a super-majority.

I admit that I'm not following. Will have to read a few more times. Linearly doesn't make sense to me.

[BlueStateSaint]

I admit that I'm not following. Will have to read a few more times. Linearly doesn't make sense to me.

Brian, Oceander is onto something.  It took a ruling by the Senate parlimentarian to ge tthis rule inserted into the bill, IIRC.  It's binding only on the current Congress.  If the next Congress wants to change it (2011), they can.  If the Congress after that wants to change it in 2013, they can.

[Patriot Lady]

Just the thought-- the audacity, the insanity....To try to bind a future congress. It does not matter if it can be upheld. What matters is that they have the chutzpah or cajones to do it in the first place. Who the hell do they think they are?
We gotta show them!

[docstew]

Well, if it is a rules change, it needs 67 to make the change, no?  When push comes to shove when repealing it, the question, "Did this rule get the necessary 67 votes" and the answer is no means the rule is dead.

if a rule change in the senate requires 67 votes, and this bill has a rule change in it, wouldn't that raise the bar for passage from 51 to 67?

[Randy]

I have a better idea. Screw changing it, just throw the whole piece of shit out.

[Patriot Lady]

I have a better idea. Screw changing it, just throw the whole piece of shit out.