Procedural Playground

I've been reading over several conservative opinions about how the reconciliation process is going to be made all the more difficult because of parliamentary procedure.

On cue, Ed Morrissey points out that the procedural nature of the Senate could be reforms undoing.

Call this the Blind Faith conundrum in the Democratic strategy to pass ObamaCare. In order to get the House to sign off on the Senate version of the bill, they have to trust that the Senate will actually pass a parallel series of fixes through reconciliation. Some House Democrats don’t trust the Senate to act or Obama to push the issue once he has a bill he can sign into law, which has led the House to plan a hostage strategy — passing the bill but holding it until the Senate completes the reconciliation process. However, parliamentarians in both chambers of Congress have to decide whether the Senate can actually amend a law that hasn’t been signed yet through that budget process, and the signs don’t look good.

So let me get this straight, there could be healthcare legislation SIGNED INTO LAW before this? Would this just be the Senate version or would the it already be blended with the House version? I'm almost certain that I'm looking at this wrong, but if Obama signs this, this means that healthcare reform has passed, and all that will have to be done is amend the Senate's horrendous language that was put in. Again, I'm sure I have this wrong.

But Digby points out something that I had not thought of before, and it's a tactic that some will be taken aback by. Republicans would likely vote WITH Democrats against putting specific and more harsh abortion language into the Senate bill - namely the Stupak amendment. However, I'm in agreement with her that this is not shocking.

So what happens now? I'm assuming that they will use the "point of order" option that the Catholic Bishops are pushing and then the entire Democratic establishment will expend a great deal of pressure on pro-choice Democrats to vote for Stupak. If they can get the women to slit their own throats it would be especially delicious.

I keep hearing that the Republicans will pay a price for not voting for the amendment (or allowing it to proceed.) But that totally misapprehends how the right wing thinks. They don't care if their representatives vote hypocritically, especially the social conservatives who care far more about defeating the godless liberals on health care than they do about the Stupak amendment. There will be no price. They will be cheered.

Let's get back to Morrissey's "if" laden perspective on this. One would think that if Obama HAS to sign this into law before any amendments could be made to it, wouldln't that be more of an incentive for Republicans to stop being obstructionists? Then again, they could potentially start the repeal process, as it would already be law. It's all a bit confusing, I know.

Here's a final thought: Considering the arcane and overtly complex nature of the Senate and their procedural policies, it makes one wonder how ANYTHING is signed into law.