Republican hypocrisy on "deem and pass" exposed: Sessions admits it's legitimate

[ProSense]

Pete Sessions Agrees That ‘Deem And Pass’ Is Legitimate

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) is now the second Republican to reluctantly admit that “deem and pass” is a legitimate procedure that Republicans have used is the passed. Asked if he had ever voted for reconciliation or “deem and pass” since joining Congress in 1997, Sessions said that he had, but stressed that it was only in instances where the bills passed the House and Senate:

<...>

[Tippy]

1. K&R

[Jennicut]

2. Public Citizen had some issues with the way Repubs passed bills and in 2005 took it to the Supreme

Court. They lost. There is nothing wrong with using their tactics against them and for this bill to pass.

Per Politico's Josh Gerstein (yes, even Politico!):

Here's my take: even if the technique is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter.

"How can it not matter?" you cry. "Our sacred Constitution is being trampled."

Well, the Supreme Court has said it doesn't matter, in the sense that courts are precluded from exploring the mechanics of whether a bill was actually passed. Under the "enrolled bill rule," once the House Speaker, the President of the Senate and the President of the United States sign a bill indicating it was passed, it's a done deal.

"The respect due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to accept as having passed Congress all bills authenticated in the manner stated, leaving the courts to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the act so authenticated is in conformity with the Constitution," the Supreme Court held in Marshall Field v. Clark.

The ruling is a bit old; it dates to 1892. But lower courts have found it to be reaffirmed by the Supreme Court as recently as 1993.

The last big showdown on this issue was just a few years ago, over passage of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (in 2006). The version passed by the House was changed by a clerk after the House adopted a version which differed from the Senate-passed language on Medicare reimbursement. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Senate President Pro Tem Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and President George W. Bush all signed the measure, despite the discrepancy.

A flurry of lawsuits were filed over the irregularity. All of them failed. A panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled, 3-0, that the "enrolled bill rule" applied "squarely" and ruled out any judicial exploration of whether the law was properly passed. The Supreme Court rebuffed at least two requests to take up the issue.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0310/Is_deem__pass_unconstitutional_It_doesnt_matter.html

In my opinion, it is not even unconstitutional and the SC ruled many times this type of thing is not. The Repubs have no legit argument.