« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Washington Post Blog: Pelosi Now Favors The “Very Bad” and “Insane” Slaughter Solution

A few minutes ago, I read a couple posts at Ezra Klein’s blog at the Washington Post, both dated today.  In the first one, he describes the House’s three options:

1) The House would vote on the two bills separately. Upon passage, the Senate bill would be ready for the president’s signature. The amendments, meanwhile, would go to the Senate for approval there. Call this the “Schoolhouse Rock” option.

2) The House would vote once. The vote would be on the amendments. But with that vote, the House would “deem” the Senate bill passed. (Yes, it can do that.) At that point, the main bill would be ready to go to the president for his signature, while the amendments would go to the Senate for consideration there.

3) The House would vote once, just like in option (2). But in this case, the House would deem the Senate bill passed only after the Senate had approved the amendments. Once the Senate approved the amendments, then–and only then–could the main bill go to the president for signature.

Oy. Options two and three are bad, bad, very bad ideas. Indeed, the fact that they’re under consideration suggests the House has let its anger at the Senate drive it temporarily insane.

Option two, of course, is the so-called “Slaughter Solution.”  Later today, Klein blogged again to report that Pelosi is leaning toward the Slaughter Solution:

Pelosi said that she favors the “deem and pass” strategy.  Here’s how that will work: Rather than passing the Senate bill and then passing the fixes, the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House “deems” the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes.

I agree with Klein that Pelosi would be insane to use this very bad strategy.  In any event, it would probably be ruled unconstitutional.  I have yet to hear of any precedent for the House taking a single vote to pass two pieces of legislation, only one of which is approved by the Senate, and the President nevertheless proceeding to sign one of those two bills into law.  I very much doubt such a precedent exists.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • redneck_hippie
  • Menlo

    I don’t understand how it helps to combine the two votes. The only one where I could see an advantage in their favor would be to not allow the senate bill to be enforceable until the reconciliation bill passed the senate.

    If it is just a maneuver for political cover, then it is not going to wash with a single person, including the bill’s supporters and those with less of a formed or strong opinion. Everyone would know that it would be a vote for the senate bill. So I just don’t get it.

    It would be hilarious if a such a move caused a three-judge panel to say the whole thing is unconstitutional for that reason alone to the point of issuing a preliminary injunction. With the record of the judicial system though, I don’t see that as a possibility.

    • AndrewHyman

      It’s just a maneuver for political cover.

      First, it allows a Democratic House member to say to his constituents: “I voted to strip the Cornhusker Kickback out of the bill at the same time I voted for the bill.”

      Second, it allows Pelosi to blame SCOTUS once SCOTUS strikes down this lunacy.

      • Menlo

        I really don’t see the political advantages of voting on two things with one vote versus two things with two votes a few minutes apart. Is that going to “look” better to a single solitary individual in the entire nation, let alone impact his or her vote?

        You obviously think it will get to the Supreme Court, but that leaves some problems. First, who would have standing to take it there and show an actual case existed? Second, are such cases not decided by a panel of three judges in circuit court? Only the lucky one in one billion cases selected by the cert pool will make it to the Supreme Court, and that would take the better part of a decade if there were no preliminary injunction from the circuit court.

        Personally, I don’t think a judge will give it the time of day. Even Alan Frumin has “deemed” the Slaughter maneuver acceptable, at least according to Nancy.

        • AndrewHyman

          I agree with you that it won’t fool anyone. I said in the Diary Post above that it is “insane to use this very bad strategy.” But Pelosi thinks otherwise.

          As for whether the validity of the “Slaughter Solution” would get to SCOTUS or not, I’m sure it would. How fast is another question. Hopefully the thing will go down in flames and we won’t have to worry about it.