Speaker Boehner Invokes Majority-of-the-Majority Rule on Immigration Reform

[windjammer]

So an immigration bill will never pass

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So an immigration bill will never pass

We could have passed one in 2008. Of course it wasn't like this one in many ways.

[Likely Voter]

They could pass a really small bill that only deals with the borders or something, goes to conference and it becomes the Senate bill and then it automatically goes back to both houses without the need of a Republican majority. Boehner is technically right and the still get their immigration bill.    

I think this is what will happen but I'm not sure about the parliamentary rules. If I understand the rules correctly then wouldn't the Senate have to ammend the House Bill (as opposed to passing their own complete bill) in order to go to committee? I didn't think conference committees could fuse two different bills (a Senate Bill and a House Bill).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats won the House popular vote, so the House Republicans aren't a true majority.

And just because something has a majority the party that won a majority of the seats thanks to gerrymandering doesn't mean it's going to pass. That farm bill failing was good news. What's hilarious is that Republicans were trying to blame Democrats for not having very many vote for their sh**tty bill. It's Nancy Pelosi's fault that they can't get a bill passed? What losers.

[Cory]

The best outcome I see for the Democrats is that the Senate passes the immigration reform and then the House Republicans vote it down. The attack ads will write themselves and we will crush the GOP in 2016.

I can't wait.

[rob in cal]

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering when was the last time, a pro-amnesty, pro doubling of legal immigration standpoint was a big political winner in a GOP leaning state, or congressional district. (I ask this in terms of the future political impact shorterm if the house stops the current immigration reform plans).

[pbrower2a]

So an immigration bill will never pass

If the Democrats win the House in 2014 and hold the Senate they get to enact a flurry of laws as in 2009. No symbolic stuff.

[politicallefty]

So an immigration bill will never pass

If the Democrats win the House in 2014 and hold the Senate they get to enact a flurry of laws as in 2009. No symbolic stuff.

Even if the former were to fortunately happen, the latter will only happen if the filibuster is first eliminated for executive nominations. When that happens, a precedent will have been made that allows for total elimination of the filibuster. (I'm sure Republicans will do it no matter what the first chance they get with all levers of government.)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering when was the last time, a pro-amnesty, pro doubling of legal immigration standpoint was a big political winner in a GOP leaning state, or congressional district. (I ask this in terms of the future political impact shorterm if the house stops the current immigration reform plans).

In NC, both in 2008 and 2012, both the candidates running for Governor attempted to defind themselves as being "tough on illegals". In 2008, McCrory ran an add promising to crack down on "crime, gangs and illegal aliens". Its standard practive for a metropoltian moderate to appeal to rural conservatives (Sound familiar?), because it dovetails nicely with old "Tough on Crime" voters in the suburbs. In the last week of the campaign, Perdue ran a radio add making a similar promise, a move that I think helped her boost her numbers in rural areas amongst the McCain/Perdue ticket splitters and thus played a role in her narrow victory, when combined with Obama's higher then expected minority and youth support. In the 2012 debate, I recall McCrory speaking favorably of Arizona's law, whilst the Democrat was anything but outright dismissive about it. Also in 2012, McIntyre successfully defined Rouzer as being pro-amnesty because of his work in Washington on comprehensive bills back in the day.

There will be no downside to voting no if you represent North Carolina. If they all hadn't been wiped out in redistricting many of the Democrats, save for Miller, would have voted no. Most certainly Shuler would have. We'll have to see on McIntyre this time.

[Supersonic]

Democrats won the House popular vote, so the House Republicans aren't a true majority.

Well... they are, as they hold the most seats...

The popular vote doesn't matter.

[pbrower2a]

Democrats won the House popular vote, so the House Republicans aren't a true majority.

Well... they are, as they hold the most seats...

The popular vote doesn't matter.

So those who can game the results can distort or falsify reasonable results of one-man/one-vote elections at will?

The Commies of Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria in the late 1940s would concur with you. 

The popular vote matters lest there be no democracy. Don't give me the "republic and not a democracy" bullhist. I'd rather swear fealty to Queen Elizabeth II than to a party apparatchik like Karl Rogue. 

[DrScholl]

Democrats won the House popular vote, so the House Republicans aren't a true majority.

Well... they are, as they hold the most seats...

The popular vote doesn't matter.

Only because of massive gerrymandering in blue states. That doesn't really constitute an overwhelming mandate as much as it does creative line drawing.

[Supersonic]

Democrats won the House popular vote, so the House Republicans aren't a true majority.

Well... they are, as they hold the most seats...

The popular vote doesn't matter.

So those who can game the results can distort or falsify reasonable results of one-man/one-vote elections at will?

The Commies of Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria in the late 1940s would concur with you. 

The popular vote matters lest there be no democracy. Don't give me the "republic and not a democracy" bullhist. I'd rather swear fealty to Queen Elizabeth II than to a party apparatchik like Karl Rogue. 

Democrats won the House popular vote, so the House Republicans aren't a true majority.

Well... they are, as they hold the most seats...

The popular vote doesn't matter.

Only because of massive gerrymandering in blue states. That doesn't really constitute an overwhelming mandate as much as it does creative line drawing.

Both sides do gerrymandering, it's just the way it is. Even if the mandate is questionable, the Republicans still control the House and that's, that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This isn't the first time that party who retained majority lost the popular vote. It was far more common before OMOV to be sure, but it also happened in 1996 before the pro-GOP gerrymanders of 2011 and 2001. Only two factors were at play and that was the inforcement of the VRA by the Bush Justice Dept, and the age old trend of increasing concentrations of Democratic votes in the cities. The only fix for the later is to expand the size of the house. If you had indepedent redistricting and the Wyoming or Cube Root rules, then the house would be more representative.

[TJ in Oregon]

Also, bear in mind that the popular house vote is not over the same candidates. There are people out there who voted for a candidate of the opposite party that they want to control the House. I am one of them.

[memphis]

Also, bear in mind that the popular house vote is not over the same candidates. There are people out there who voted for a candidate of the opposite party that they want to control the House. I am one of them.

Supreme foolishness.

[Link]

Democrats won the House popular vote, so the House Republicans aren't a true majority.

Well... they are, as they hold the most seats...

The popular vote doesn't matter.

I see why you are firmly in the Romney camp.  God forbid the average man get's his voice heard.

[rob in cal]

    Of course we could also go to proportional representation to avoid having the popular vote winner not get the most seats.  But PR would open up a whole pandora's box of unexpected political consequences that both parties would rather not see.