The possibility of repeal
I had thought that repeal would be almost impossible, given that, even with Romney in the White House, the Republicans would need 60 votes in the Senate to get cloture. But evidently the Republicans are set on using “reconciliation,” which bypasses cloture, and they are set on using it no matter what the procedural hurdles against it may be.
If this is true, then the country can still be saved from Obamacare, if Romney wins the presidency, and if the Republicans win the Senate, and if the Republicans maintain control of the House.
Wesley J. Smith points out at his blog Secondhand Smoke that tax repeal bills can’t be filibustered. So if the Republicans can use that, plus the fact that this has been declared a “tax,” presumably 60 votes wouldn’t be needed. Not that that makes anything any better concerning Roberts’ dreadful decision.Thucydides writes:
It is ironic that Chief Justice Roberts’s incoherent opinion opens the door to repeal of Obamacare through a simple majority in the Senate under “reconciliation.”LA replies:
Here’s another reason why it’s absurd to call it a tax. A tax is levied on an entire class of people, say people with a certain level of income. But the penalty for not buying health insurance is only levied on individuals who don’t buy health insurance.Alexis Zarkov writes:
The issue as to whether a repeal could be passed under a reconciliation procedure remains somewhat uncertain. The legal blogs are arguing this very question right now. If the Republicans should win the presidency and the House in November, along with a simple majority in the Senate, we will experience a major and very bitter procedural fight over the reconciliation question. The Democrats are absolutely obsessed over Obamacare, and they don’t care how much trouble they cause trying to preserve it. I’m not sure that the Republicans have the courage and stamina for such a fight. They might just give up.LA replies:
Yes. The Republicans might end up being motivated by the same concerns that evidently drove Roberts to his lawless decision: they wouldn’t want to be seen as too divisive.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 30, 2012 11:11 AM | Send