General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Question for those callling the shutdown an act of sedition [View all]onenote
(42,585 posts)That is exactly how it works. You are correct that when the two houses pass different versions of the same bill, one way to reconcile those differences and end up with a law is for the two Houses to appoint conferees to work out their differences. Indeed, that is what the House ultimately requested at the last minute, but the Senate rebuffed them, saying no thanks to the request that the competing versions of the bill be taken to conference. (The Democratic position in refusing to take the competing measures to conference was completely defensible since it was the House that has refused to appoint conferees on any budget proposals and/or appropriations bills that the two Houses have passed during FY 2013.) Of course, and completely consistent with my statement, the only way a bill that is taken to conference becomes law is when the conference agreed upon version is approved without change by each house.
Conference, of course, is not the only way to reconcile differences in bills and get to a "law." The Senate could have accepted the House passed CR in its entirety. Or the House could have accepted the Senate passed CR in its entirety. There were several stages of back and forth where that was possible, but the two bodies stalemated over the House's insistence that the CR have something in it about the ACA and the Senate's equal insistence that it not have anything in it about the ACA. Had the bill been taken to conference the conference would have failed because neither side was going to budge. Thus, there was not, and at least to this point has not ever been a moment in which both the House and the Senate have agreed to the language of a CR in its entirety.
And of course your are correct that the ACA provisions have nothing to do with fundnig the government. And that is relevant to the issue of which side is being unreasonable. It is irrelevant to the issue of whether one side has acted unlawfully or is the one that has "forced" the shutdown. As is always the case when stalemate has been reached, both sides have "forced" that outcome simply by virtue that they both insist on their last position. That doesn't mean that they have both acted reasonably. In this case the repubs are clearly acting unreasonably.