Originally Posted by cmeow

So according to the Parliamentarian, the republicans in 2005 used Reconciliation to write laws about visas and they were allowed because it was "bipartisan". Then isn't DACA & TPS also "bipartisan" as many polls have shown it to be so? If the polls are not enough, how is "bipartisan" defined? 1 Democrat and 1 Republican need to support it? So the question here is how is "bipartisan" defined, according to her. Is it just some arbitrary conditions she made up? Dems need to know this before another proposal is sent. Otherwise she'll just reject it again and come up with even more reasons that doesn't have to do with the Byrd rule. As someone has pointed out, bipartisanship is not required by the Byrd rule and that's the only rule she has any saying in.

With this ruling, she has set a precedent that not only does it have to abide by the Byrd rule, it also must be "bipartisan" and she has not defined to what degree of "bipartisan" it needs to be because if you have full "bipartisan"ship, that means you have 100-0 vote. So why would you even need Reconciliation in the first place? It makes no sense.

How is someone able to create new rules that they define as they see fit (arbitrary in nature and not clearly defined), have that rule be added to the list of requirements (without anyone else approving it) for bills, and use said rule to reject bills? How are the republicans ok with this? I am really confused.