Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShouldn't the "skinny repeal" have required 60 votes anyway?
I mean, it wasn't a budget matter but a social policy one.... thus the budget reconciliation process should not have applied?
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Shouldn't the "skinny repeal" have required 60 votes anyway? (Original Post)
Goodheart
Jul 2017
OP
dawg
(10,777 posts)1. Well, that's a moo point now.
You know, like a cow would make.
Goodheart
(5,760 posts)2. I guess the days of filibustering are over.
dawg
(10,777 posts)3. Republicans can still filibuster.
We just aren't allowed to. Didn't you get the memo?
Johonny
(25,748 posts)4. It would have gone to conference as well
where the house was planning to stick crap the senate wouldn't vote for back in it.
unblock
(56,071 posts)5. the fear was that it would *not* go to conference and the house would pass it as is
precisely to avoid any further disagreement with the senate.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)6. I think the skinny repeal only included items that didn't need 60 votes
That is one reason it was so skinny.
