Republicans can force a vote on the reconciliation measure for the repeal of the obamacareTAX (it's a macro now). Because the Supreme Court has ruled that obamacareTax is a TAX, it can be repealed by simple majorities in the House and Senate, with no option for filibuster. It's actually the same tactic the Dems used to pass it, although they didn't want to admit it was a tax. Now they have no choice.
Cosmic justice alert: ObamaCare repeal to be mediated using process of reconciliation
POSTED AT 11:36 AM ON JUNE 30, 2012 BY HOWARD PORTNOY
Now that ObamaCare has been declared constitutional (after a fashion), the GOP has announced it will use the process of reconciliation in its efforts to repeal the law. This seems only fitting and appropriate.
Reconciliation, which became part of the political junkie vernacular in 2009, is a parliamentary procedure designed to fast track passage of a bill by eliminating the possibility of a filibuster. Unlike in 2009, when a Democratic supermajority lacked the votes needed to pass the bill through normal channels and abused reconciliation, Republicans plan to use the process as it was intended—on budgetary matters.
Mike Franc, Vice President of Government Studies for the Heritage Foundation, explains the details of reconciliation’s applicability in an article at the Heritage’s blog The Foundary:
Now that the individual mandate has acquired the official constitutional status of a ‘tax’, there is no longer any doubt that the Congress, and more specifically the Senate, can repeal it pursuant to the simple majority vote threshold available under the Budget Act’s reconciliation process. Some Senate insiders were concerned that the reconciliation process would leave too much of Obamacare intact, including the individual mandate. But today’s decision, while alarming in so many other ways, dispels with that concern.
The mandate is now a revenue provision. Therefore, it is germane and not subject to a Senate parliamentary point of order to strike it from a repeal bill. The Senate’s filibuster process that would require a supermajority of 60 Senate votes to approve repeal is now irrelevant.
In other words, the resolution requires a simple majority of 51 votes to pass.
The idea of using reconciliation, aka the “nuclear option,” as a mechanism to repeal ObamaCare is nothing new. The recommendation was made in a GOP debate in October of 2011 by Rick Santorum and seconded by none other than Mitt Romney. Now that the funding for the law has been deemed a tax by no less a constitutional authority than the Supreme Court, the applicability of the process is unimpeachable.
It goes without saying that if the measure passes both houses of Congress and reaches the president’s desk, he will veto it. At least the irony of the process will not be lost.
Dem politico scumbags from red states will be forced to either vote for repeal or go on record supporting the obamacareTAX again, just before the election. If repeal of the o-TAX passes Congress (it will overwhelmingly pass in the House, and might pass in the Senate, if several red state Dem cowards defect), Obama will have to veto the o-TAX cut. He will have to endorse America's largest middle class tax increase in history. Just before the election. A wildly unpopular tax increase.
Here's an interesting scenario:
In January, President Romney's first act will be to sign the repeal of obamacareTax. He can sign the tax repeal in a tiny room, in front of the handful of Democrats who are left in elected office after November.
President Romney and the Republican House and Senate will then begin enacting an agenda of limited government and respect for Constitutional constraints on federal power, backed by a very recent landmark Supreme Court ruling with the four liberal Justices in the majority that sets a strong precedent for judicial respect for legislation. Protection for innocent life, rejection of government discrimination based on race, prudent immigration enforcement, protection of the right to public/school prayer and religious expression, and respect for academic freedom in science education-- all wildly popular initiatives-- will likely be high on the legislative agenda.
Lower courts will be bound to uphold the new federal laws based on the Supreme Court's recent landmark ruling rejecting judicial fiat and respecting legislative results.
A deep game.