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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pinto

(106,886 posts)
Tue Oct 15, 2013, 03:29 PM Oct 2013

House looks "likely" to default, shut down Cruz extremism.

Saw (R) Rep. Nunes, a reality based Republican in many ways, make some comments on CNN. Apparently a bill will be presented for a vote this evening in the House that looks to meet Senate plans.

(aside) I think the Senate's call out of the House by kicking the ball back in their court - "show us something doable" - is a good one.

We'll see.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
House looks "likely" to default, shut down Cruz extremism. (Original Post) pinto Oct 2013 OP
A bill will be PRESENTED… regnaD kciN Oct 2013 #1
This should be stickied somewhere MSMITH33156 Oct 2013 #2

regnaD kciN

(26,044 posts)
1. A bill will be PRESENTED…
Tue Oct 15, 2013, 03:34 PM
Oct 2013

…but will it have the votes? Or, more importantly, will Eric Cantor allow it to come to a vote?

MSMITH33156

(879 posts)
2. This should be stickied somewhere
Tue Oct 15, 2013, 03:51 PM
Oct 2013

because it is the most misunderstood thing on DU.

The Cantor rule ONLY applies to a situation where the House and Senate have passed competing bills, AND the House has requested a conference to reconcile differences, AND the Senate has refused.

In that specific instance, in the past, any member of the House could have called for a vote on the Senate version of the bill. That was changed so that now only Cantor can call for a vote.

But that only applies to that instance. In any other case, the old rules still apply. The Republicans only changed that rule so they could call for a conference and push the "not negotiating" line without the Dems then being able to call for a vote on the Senate bill, which then would have passed. Had the rule not been changed, the Republicans just wouldn't have requested a conference, so it wouldn't have substantively changed anything.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»House looks "likely&...