Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
|
Apparently too fast-paced for you. That "one more specifically about Conrad" is
the exact link I gave you in the post you were just quoting.
I think we may be talking about the same thing, but I'm not sure. I'm trying to be as clear as I can here ... try making a good-faith effort to understand even if my word choice doesn't meet lawyerly standards, just for once, eh?
Here's the process I was referring to:
House passes current Senate bill in its entirety, no changes. Senate subsequently passes a new (2nd) bill via reconciliation to amend the 1st bill, and appease House Dems who object to the 1st. House then passes 2nd bill.
That's
what I called the "pass it in the House first, then amend it with reconciliation" or "we'll fix it later" approach. Perhaps using the word "later" is misleading because it implies a lot of time.
Either way, I don't think that option is going to fly. It will look so nakedly partisan, I don't think nervous Dems are going to go along with it. I guarantee you the American public won't. It's tantamount to outright cheating.
Can you honestly flip the R's and the D's and not say you'd feel the same way in reverse?