Harris to end filibuster to support abortion

[Rawley]

How did they get the three highly partisan Judges on the SC if they didn't abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices.

Partisan. LOL

 

[BlindBoo]

The vast majority of women do not want to kill their babies in the womb. Let's shine the light on the true goal of Communists; forced abortion.

The many egregious lies of the party of flip-flopping Donnie, include forced abortion, and legalized infanticide.

Donnie Dangerously was Pro women's Choice before he flipped parties and became Anti women's Choice

 

[ThisIsMe]

The SCOTUS did not rule Congress could not take it up. The only standing against would be to argue it violates States' rights.

So it would have to be framed and passed within a construct that falls within federal regulation power, like commerce.

So, the way to bypass the cotus is to just say everything we want can fall under the commerce clause, and thus becomes a power delegated to the federal government by the cotus?

 

[jc456]

This right here is why I cannot support Kamala Harris. She wants to end the filibuster so the democrats can pass abortion rights with 51 votes. It's only for abortion she says, but any idiot knows that once you abolish the filibuster for a specific reason it ends up being permanent for everything. And once that happens, there will be no more compromise or cooperation in the Senate and bipartisanship goes right down the drain.

Harris backs ditching filibuster to pass nationwide abortion protections, angering Manchin in the process

Vice President Kamala Harris declared Tuesday that she supported changing Senate filibuster rules to allow a simple majority vote to codify the nationwide right for women to obtain an abortion.

www.yahoo.com

The democrats came close to doing just that back in 2021 when they tried to abolish the filibuster but Manchin and Sinema wouldn't go along. One of these days, they're going to get it done and that's when we start down the road to a one-party rule gov't. If you think gridlock is bad, wait until you get one-party rule.

who is the dictator?

 

[jc456]

The many egregious lies of the party of flip-flopping Donnie, include forced abortion, and legalized infanticide.

Donnie Dangerously was Pro women's Choice before he flipped parties and became Anti women's Choice

He's already said on this campaign he's pro choice. Not sure what you are referring to?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, the way to bypass the cotus is to just say everything we want can fall under the commerce clause, and thus becomes a power delegated to the federal government by the cotus?

It doesn't bypass anything. These rules aren't new.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Abortion isn't in the constitution!"

"Neither is the filibuster"

 

[Sparker]

First, the filibuster is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, it's totally based on Senate rules that can be changed without legislation or SCOTUS approval.

What the filibuster does is require compromise to get support from the minority party if the majority does not have 60 votes of their own to do as they please. The House only requires a simple majority to pass anything and everything the majority wants with no influence from the minority party. They might not even be consulted and their considerations ignored, and that is not something to be desired. Remember, what goes around comes around, meaning that if and when the other party gets a majority in the House then it's their turn to ignore the other side.

I understand, majority rule in a democratic form of gov't is desireable, BUT do you really want to totally ignore the other 49% or whatever the minority party's strength is? The tyranny of the majority is a thing to be considered unless you want a one-party gov't that cares nothing about opposing viewpoints. I know that gridlock is a bad thing but IMHO not as bad as one-party rule.

A party majority of 60 senators is rare. The filibuster is constantly abused. A lower number, like 54 votes, would be a reasonable compromise.

 

[task0778]

How did they get the three highly partisan Judges on the SC if they didn't abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices.

That is true, but AFTER Harry Reid and the democrats opened the door by abolishing the filibuster for SES positions and lower court judges. My point is that if the democrats abolish the filibuster for abortion rights under Harris then the door is open for the repubs to do the same thing for whatever issue they want to pursue if/when they gain control of the Senate. Are you sure you want that if they also control the House and a repub is in the WH? Once you start chipping away at the filibuster it eventually will be gone for good and I think that day will be a sorry day indeed for the country as a whole.

 

[task0778]

A party majority of 60 senators is rare. The filibuster is constantly abused. A lower number, like 54 votes, would be a reasonable compromise.

The problem is not with the Senate rules, it's with the senators themselves and the voters that do not hold them accountable for abusing the filibuster or any other kind of abuse.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This move clearly shows how desperate her campaign is, that she has to propose this nonsense to rile up her base.

Is that the same reason Trump was pushing for it while he was POTUS?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

First, the filibuster is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, it's totally based on Senate rules that can be changed without legislation or SCOTUS approval.

What the filibuster does is require compromise to get support from the minority party if the majority does not have 60 votes of their own to do as they please. The House only requires a simple majority to pass anything and everything the majority wants with no influence from the minority party. They might not even be consulted and their considerations ignored, and that is not something to be desired. Remember, what goes around comes around, meaning that if and when the other party gets a majority in the House then it's their turn to ignore the other side.

I understand, majority rule in a democratic form of gov't is desireable, BUT do you really want to totally ignore the other 49% or whatever the minority party's strength is? The tyranny of the majority is a thing to be considered unless you want a one-party gov't that cares nothing about opposing viewpoints. I know that gridlock is a bad thing but IMHO not as bad as one-party rule.

I like the reason for the filibuster, I do not like the way it is currently done. A filibuster should be an active event that stops all other business till it is resolved.

As it stands today, the filibuster is just a built in excuse for the party in power to give their side for not ever getting anything done.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The problem is not with the Senate rules, it's with the senators themselves and the voters that do not hold them accountable for abusing the filibuster or any other kind of abuse.

Accountable? The GOP obstruction is a feature of their party.

 

[Rawley]

Is that the same reason Trump was pushing for it while he was POTUS?

Nope. He wasn't running for President trying to rile up his base.

And he was never a Senator and never explicitly pledged to preserve and support the filibuster.

 

[BlindBoo]

That is true, but AFTER Harry Reid and the democrats opened the door by abolishing the filibuster for SES positions and lower court judges. My point is that if the democrats abolish the filibuster for abortion rights under Harris then the door is open for the repubs to do the same thing for whatever issue they want to pursue if/when they gain control of the Senate. Are you sure you want that if they also control the House and a repub is in the WH? Once you start chipping away at the filibuster it eventually will be gone for good and I think that day will be a sorry day indeed for the country as a whole.

Yes he did. However the Federal Judges McConnell was blocking are part of the DOJ whereas the Supreme court is the third branch of the Federal Government and was not effected by the rule change Sen. Reid initiated. Furthermore, the Republicans also benefited from the no filibuster rule for Federal Judges. Now it is likely that the only way a SC justice gets appointed is if the presidents' party also controls the Senate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nope. He wasn't running for President trying to rile up his base.

Um, he held campaign rallies while he was president.

It was freakish. Maybe you missed it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nope. He wasn't running for President trying to rile up his base

Trump was running for POUTS starting in March of 2017 when he held his first official reelection rally. Trump has been running for president since 2015 non-stop.

 

[Billiejeens]

SCOTUS got it right, it's a state issue

I don't think that is actually what they said.

The overturn sent the issue back to prior RVW because the original ruling did not meet Constitutional Mustard, as even RBG said.

But -

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Um, he held campaign rallies while he was president.

It was freakish. Maybe you missed it.

Not just while he was president but within a month of being sworn in.

 

[jc456]

A party majority of 60 senators is rare. The filibuster is constantly abused. A lower number, like 54 votes, would be a reasonable compromise.

So your solution is not to have bipartisan bills passed? hahahahahahaahhahahaha I see you are all in on dictatorships from the demofks.