Mitch McConnell: GOP Only Needs 51 Votes to Overturn Mandate

[MindMover]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated today that Republicans believe they will only need 51 votes to overturn the centerpiece of the 2010 health care law.

In an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," the Kentucky Republican repeatedly referred to the mandate that individuals buy health insurance as a tax, citing the recent Supreme Court decision.

If Republicans take the majority in the Senate in the 2012 elections, McConnell said, he would use budget reconciliation to overturn the law — a move that would not be subject to the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.

"Reconciliation is available because the Supreme Court has now declared it a tax," McConnell said. "They have unearthed the massive deception that was practiced by the president and the Democrats to constantly deny that it was a tax. ... And as a tax, it is eligible for reconciliation."

http://www.rollcall.com/news/-215873-1.html

===================================================

If there ever was a most vile and evil man in politics, this man personifies that title....

[DCBob]

1. Not sure about that.. SCOTUS declared it a tax but the law itself does not.

I think they would have to change the language of the law to treat it as a tax. Not sure.

[Rosanna Lopez]

13. Did SCOTUS really say it was a Tax?

But is it correct to say that the SCOTUS declared it a tax? From what I can tell, Justice Roberts was the only one who upheld it as being valid as a tax. The other 4 Justices in the majority upheld it under the Commerce Clause.

And did Roberts actually use the words "this is a tax", or did he say it could be valid as a tax?

[Igel]

16. Here's my understanding.

5-4 split, 4 "liberal" judges + Roberts vs. the other 4.

The 5-judge majority said the mandate over all could be upheld under the taxing authority of Congress: A penalty for not engaging in some activity. This one way that Obama's lawyers argued for it, whatever their boss said on the political circuit his lawyers, as officers of the court, said otherwise. Boss can lie to the public; the officers of the court had better not be caught lying to the court.

The 4-judge minority said "no" to this idea.

It's authorized under Congress' taxation authority, 5-4.


The 4 liberal judges said it could be upheld under the commerce clause. That's not a majority.

Robert's said it could not be upheld under the commerce clause. However, the 4-judge minority said it couldn't be upheld under the commerce clause. That makes a 5-judge majority.

It's not authorized under the commerce clause, 5-4.

[Kablooie]

17. Well then, when the Republicans try to kill it with reconciliation...

and there is a controversy over whether it's a tax or not,
all they have to do is kick it up to the Supreme Court to decide.

... sigh ...

[TlalocW]

2. Yeah, well good luck with that

Cuz you're going to need a 2/3 vote to overturn the president's veto.

TlalocW

[unblock]

9. obviously it only matters if republicans hit the trifecta

and control the house, senate, and white house.

odds are rather against it i'd say, but it's still possible.

[Mr. Sparkle]

3. What about if the Demorcats filibustered ?

I think Mitch is about 9 votes short.

[DCBob]

5. If its a tax then they can use "budget reconciliation" which only requires simple majority.

Rules of the Senate.

[Mr. Sparkle]

10. What about if it is a penalty / fine. Can that be as easily removed as well?

for what its worth, i doubt he will be able to remove it as it would require them to hold both houses and the presidency.

[DCBob]

11. I think only if its a tax can they use the budget reconcilation route.

yes, I agree its probably a moot point since they arent going to get control of both chambers and the WH.

[littlewolf]

12. if it is a fine penalty

the GOP will say it is unconstitutional .....

[unblock]

6. reconciliation is a way to bypass the 60-vote cloture requirement.

[unblock]

4. but the tax doesn't fund the insurance industry, so he can't repeal the regulations

i'm not clear on the reconciliation process, but assuming he's right, i'd tend to agree that what matters is what it IS, regardless of the terminology used in the law.

but he can only legitimately use reconciliation to repeal the tax/penalty.
he can't use it to repeal all the restrictions on the health insurance industry because the tax goes to the treasury and doesn't fund the health insurance industry or the restrictions.

at least, that would be my interpretation. i'm quite confident that republicans will completely ignore any such logic and use any excuse to repeal the whole thing.

[BeyondGeography]

7. Keep feeding the fringe

Moron.

[unblock]

8. naturally, when republicans were on the other side of the coin,...:

from 2010, when they were trying to stop aca from getting passed in the first place:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/03/hidden-cloture-in-reconciliation/

As it turns out, Senate Democrats may not be able to force healthcare legislation through the chamber on a simple majority vote.
Republicans say they have found a loophole in the budget reconciliation process that could allow them to offer an indefinite number of amendments.
Though it has never been done, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says he’s prepared to test the Senate’s stamina to block the Democrats from using the process to expedite changes to the healthcare bill.
Experts on Senate procedural rules, from both parties, note that such a filibuster is possible. While reconciliation rules limit debate to 20 hours, senators lack similiarconstraints on amendments and could conceivably continue offering them until 60 members agree to cut the process off.

[Arkana]

14. No, they also need the Presidency.

And they can't use reconciliation to overturn the whole thing. Mitch is lying and he knows it.

[coalition_unwilling]

15. How many votes are required to expel McChinless from the Senate? - n/t

[littlewolf]

18. 51% if someone is running against him... nt

[coalition_unwilling]

20. Yeah, but I was actually hoping the Senate itself might do the honors. (One

can always hope.)

[sofa king]

19. Okay, why in the hell are Ins. companies letting them do this?

I know it's an election-year ruse. I know that if America condemns itself to ruin and returns 51 Republican Senators, they will seek to undo everything the President has done, but they're not actually going to harm their financial backers.

Now that the insurance companies have a license to rip off every single goddamned American with their elaborate shell games, to extract profit from every citizen, and perhaps even the power to kill them off once they become unprofitable, all with government backing, why in the hell are they even letting Republicans kick this idea around?

This is exactly what they want. They have already bought and paid for the Republican Party, and they have what they want.

Certainly they must recall the last election, in which a mob of ignorant yahoos crashed into the House and passed a hundred terrible ideas simply because they campaigned on them. If they run on this, they're stupid enough to go after it if they get in.

So why is the insurance industry allowing this issue to even be discussed? What am I missing?

[quaker bill]

21. Only if they have the whitehouse too

Otherwise it takes 67 votes in the Senate. There are not enough seats available for them to get to 67.

[backscatter712]

22. As long as Obama's president, they can't override his veto.

[backscatter712]

23. Mitch McConnell is an evil, subhuman reptile.

Humanizing him is a mistake.