SCOTUS may yet intervene on Slaughter rule
Stanford Constitutional law professor Michael McConnell,whose argument that the Slaughter Rule is unconstitutional we cited to the other day, explains that the Constitution forbids the Slaughter rule technique and argues that while the Supreme Court normally avoids interfering with Congressional Rules, this is far different.
This goes back to that bombshell parliamentarian ruling insisting that Obama has to sign something before the Senate can start on reconciliation. The whole point of the Slaughter strategy originally, as I understood it, was to make it impossible for Obama to sign the Senate bill into law until Reid passed a fix matching the House's. Instead of voting separately on Bill A (Reid's Senate bill) and Bill B (a reconciliation fix), the House would integrate them into Bill AB - which Obama couldn't sign until Reid passed B, too. That's how Pelosi was going to assure wavering Dems that the Senate would keep its promise to pass something. If they didn't, O-Care would be dead. In other words, the point was never to split Bill AB back into separate bills after it passed (I think) but, on the contrary, to keep it intact. The parliamentarian destroyed that possibility, and yet, bizarrely, despite the potentially catastrophic constitutional flaw, they're ... still going to use the Slaughter strategy. The idea, I guess, is that there's some political benefit to letting House Dems claim that they technically never voted for Bill A, Reid's bill, only the new and improved Bill AB. But if reconciliation collapses in the Senate, all they'll be left with is Bill A and a killer GOP talking point that the new health-care law of the land was, by the Democrats' own admission, never technically voted into law. Super.
As for the separation of powers argument that the court shouldn't and won't second-guess Congress on its own procedures, I know there's some semi-precedent for it but ... really? So if Reid and Pelosi hold a joint presser tomorrow summarily declaring that the Senate bill and the fix shall now be considered duly passed, John Roberts and the gang would nod at that? Even I'm not that pessimistic.
Clarice Feldman
Ad Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Trump-O-Phobia Drives Some Americans to Questionable Greener Pastures Overseas
- A Businessman and a Brilliant Strategist
- A Remarkable Headline for a Fascinating Story
- Democrats Unmask Themselves
- How Mexico Became China’s Trojan Horse in U.S. Trade
- Covid Redux: The Bird Flu Scare
- A Taste of the Swamp
- Do We Have 677 Unelected Presidents?
- Global Relations beyond the Prime Directive
- The Democrat Party: The Enemy Within?
Blog Posts
- Near-death experiences, reliance on oil, and more cataclysmic failures—it’s all just part and parcel of ‘green’ energy
- So where'd America's obesity epidemic come from? Chef Andrew Gruel has a theory ...
- Trump just fired a huge warning shot over Iran’s bow
- Markets respond: Trumpian peace in Russo-Ukrainian war is in the bag
- The time of the hoax
- New York Times goes bipolar on Trump’s border control success
- Mark Kelly decides to offload his Tesla to protest Elon Musk
- The half-million dollar American
- Three things for the U.S. to understand about the Middle East
- Speaker Mike Johnson reveals why the Autopen scandal is a big deal
- The CDC website really needs to update its COVID protocols
- Hands in your back pocket
- Birthright citizenship: The facts
- ‘She’s my little Musk coupe’
- The Biden White House mixed it up with not one but two autopens