JimofPennsylvan
Platinum Member
- Jun 6, 2007
- 872
- 516
This week there was a humongous firestorm in the Presidential race when Democrat Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris said she would do away with the filibuster rule on the abortion issue that is to pass legislation reinstating the Roe v. Wade case law thereby giving women across the country the right to abortion. This announcement by Kamala triggered Independent Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to correctly proclaim a five alarm fire that this change would result in wide swings in Federal law as the majority party in Washington when they hold the majority in the House, Senate and the Office of the Presidency could put their agenda into law which in the current environment means the extreme wing of the respective party's agenda. If people are acting honest and wise they will acknowledge that this will highly likely mean that eventually a large number of Republican states will secede from the country of America and start their own country because Republican majorities in these Red states detest beyond words far left ideology and they are zealots for states' rights and they hold a lot of ill will toward the current Federal government and it would not be a big step for these Americans to begin pushing for secession.
To fill in the pieces here, the filibuster rule says that in the Senate chamber to stop a debate and the debate period must be stopped before a bill can come up for a passage vote "sixty" Senators must vote to end a filibuster for it to end; a filibuster is an indefinite debate on a bill although practically Senators don't actually indefinitely debate a bill the legislative state of the bill is that it is in an indefinite debate state. What Senator Manchin said about VP Harris's pronouncement is that when she does this act she will be "destroying the Holy Grail of [America's] Democracy". Let me put it in more stark terms when Kamala does this she will be removing absolutely necessary support columns that hold up America's Democracy! The Presidential Harris/Walz ticket's Democrat allies would say that a President Harris would only overturn the Filibuster rule on the abortion issue she would keep it for all other legislative issues so no one has to worry about America swinging from far left laws to far right laws as the political majority changes in Washington. This is as naive and false as any proposition that could be uttered could be, to get to the heart of the matter Republicans are not going to allow this one subject carve out pursuant to the Republicans views you throw out the filibuster on one type of legislation you throw it out on all types of legislation and they will pass right wing legislation accordingly when they have the reins of power in Washington. The Republicans will behave just like on the filibuster rule on Judicial nominations; the Democrats wanted a carve out for only Supreme court nominees and the Republican said no way and made the same standard for all judicial nominees.
This revelation by Vice-President Harris hurts her campaign as well as current Democrat senate candidates campaign because Pro-life American voters have just been made wholly fired up to make sure they vote Republican in all these races to block a Federal law reinstating the Roe law. But I don't think all is lost this presents Kamala Harris an opportunity to rethink this whole issue of the filibuster and come out with a policy position that is optimally prudent. The current filibuster rule that is this rule requiring the high number of sixty Senators to vote to stop a debate for a bill to be able to come up for a passage vote has for twenty-five plus years stopped legislation involving comprehensive immigration reform and an assault weapon ban and a good pharmaceutical pricing system which is vital if we are to remedy America's overly expensive health care system, all these important pieces of legislation the vast majority of American's want and many other pieces of important legislation that likewise the majority of Americans want but cannot be obtained because of the sixty vote threshold. Optimal wisdom calls for lowering the filibuster vote threshold to fifty-five votes that way the majority Party will still likely need a few votes from Senators from the other Party to end a filibuster which means legislation will be moderate. Kamala should keep in mind if she comes out with a fifty-five Senator vote standard to end a filibuster she could probably sign a lot of good legislation that would make a big difference for good in America during her tenure because the Senate has some moderate Republican Senators that a President Harris could readily negotiate good legislation with, that is, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska; Susan Collins from Maine and there is a fifty-fifty shot Larry Hogan from Maryland considering he won the Governors race twice in Maryland a Democrat state. Depending on the subject of the legislation a smart President Harris could negotiate one or two more Republican Senate votes and with a new fifty-five vote filibuster rule could be productive in the passing legislation department. Naysayers could say if you drop the sixty vote threshold to a fifty-five vote threshold Republicans won't respect the change they will treat it like the nuclear option was triggered and the filibuster rule was blown up; I really really really don't think so because there is a lot of decent Republican Senators that know what it means to discard the filibuster rule that it will subject America to a time where our laws swing like a pendulum between opposite extremes from the political left to the political right and vice-versa and America will eventually split apart because of it with Red states eventually seceding and creating their own country which will never be as strong as the current United States of America, these good Republican Senators won't want this!
For the Harris/Walz ticket prudence now calls for tacking away from a carve out on the filibuster rule for abortion legislation and to a new vote standard for the filibuster rule to fifty-five votes. Interesting to note but I think if Kamala did this and won the Presidency I would bet dollars to donots that she could pass legislation into law that would give women across America the right to have an abortion when their life or serious health problems is at issue or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest; legislation that has teeth in it. Legislation that would clearly protect doctors performing an abortion for ectopic pregnancies where the embryo is implanted outside the women's womb and also when a women is experiencing bleeding or an infection that could readily lead to sepsis, requiring a women to be in a condition of sepsis before a needed abortion is performed is per se immoral. The bottom line that the moving accounts that Kamala recounts on her campaign to advocate for abortion rights would be fully addressed with the legislation that a President Harris could get here!
To fill in the pieces here, the filibuster rule says that in the Senate chamber to stop a debate and the debate period must be stopped before a bill can come up for a passage vote "sixty" Senators must vote to end a filibuster for it to end; a filibuster is an indefinite debate on a bill although practically Senators don't actually indefinitely debate a bill the legislative state of the bill is that it is in an indefinite debate state. What Senator Manchin said about VP Harris's pronouncement is that when she does this act she will be "destroying the Holy Grail of [America's] Democracy". Let me put it in more stark terms when Kamala does this she will be removing absolutely necessary support columns that hold up America's Democracy! The Presidential Harris/Walz ticket's Democrat allies would say that a President Harris would only overturn the Filibuster rule on the abortion issue she would keep it for all other legislative issues so no one has to worry about America swinging from far left laws to far right laws as the political majority changes in Washington. This is as naive and false as any proposition that could be uttered could be, to get to the heart of the matter Republicans are not going to allow this one subject carve out pursuant to the Republicans views you throw out the filibuster on one type of legislation you throw it out on all types of legislation and they will pass right wing legislation accordingly when they have the reins of power in Washington. The Republicans will behave just like on the filibuster rule on Judicial nominations; the Democrats wanted a carve out for only Supreme court nominees and the Republican said no way and made the same standard for all judicial nominees.
This revelation by Vice-President Harris hurts her campaign as well as current Democrat senate candidates campaign because Pro-life American voters have just been made wholly fired up to make sure they vote Republican in all these races to block a Federal law reinstating the Roe law. But I don't think all is lost this presents Kamala Harris an opportunity to rethink this whole issue of the filibuster and come out with a policy position that is optimally prudent. The current filibuster rule that is this rule requiring the high number of sixty Senators to vote to stop a debate for a bill to be able to come up for a passage vote has for twenty-five plus years stopped legislation involving comprehensive immigration reform and an assault weapon ban and a good pharmaceutical pricing system which is vital if we are to remedy America's overly expensive health care system, all these important pieces of legislation the vast majority of American's want and many other pieces of important legislation that likewise the majority of Americans want but cannot be obtained because of the sixty vote threshold. Optimal wisdom calls for lowering the filibuster vote threshold to fifty-five votes that way the majority Party will still likely need a few votes from Senators from the other Party to end a filibuster which means legislation will be moderate. Kamala should keep in mind if she comes out with a fifty-five Senator vote standard to end a filibuster she could probably sign a lot of good legislation that would make a big difference for good in America during her tenure because the Senate has some moderate Republican Senators that a President Harris could readily negotiate good legislation with, that is, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska; Susan Collins from Maine and there is a fifty-fifty shot Larry Hogan from Maryland considering he won the Governors race twice in Maryland a Democrat state. Depending on the subject of the legislation a smart President Harris could negotiate one or two more Republican Senate votes and with a new fifty-five vote filibuster rule could be productive in the passing legislation department. Naysayers could say if you drop the sixty vote threshold to a fifty-five vote threshold Republicans won't respect the change they will treat it like the nuclear option was triggered and the filibuster rule was blown up; I really really really don't think so because there is a lot of decent Republican Senators that know what it means to discard the filibuster rule that it will subject America to a time where our laws swing like a pendulum between opposite extremes from the political left to the political right and vice-versa and America will eventually split apart because of it with Red states eventually seceding and creating their own country which will never be as strong as the current United States of America, these good Republican Senators won't want this!
For the Harris/Walz ticket prudence now calls for tacking away from a carve out on the filibuster rule for abortion legislation and to a new vote standard for the filibuster rule to fifty-five votes. Interesting to note but I think if Kamala did this and won the Presidency I would bet dollars to donots that she could pass legislation into law that would give women across America the right to have an abortion when their life or serious health problems is at issue or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest; legislation that has teeth in it. Legislation that would clearly protect doctors performing an abortion for ectopic pregnancies where the embryo is implanted outside the women's womb and also when a women is experiencing bleeding or an infection that could readily lead to sepsis, requiring a women to be in a condition of sepsis before a needed abortion is performed is per se immoral. The bottom line that the moving accounts that Kamala recounts on her campaign to advocate for abortion rights would be fully addressed with the legislation that a President Harris could get here!
