Can Senate Dems remove the filibuster for a bill making abortion legal for all of USA?

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
28,339
1,889
126
Or would that open a can of worms in the future?
ie: When Repubs control all 3 chambers (Pres/Senate/House), they could simply revoke that law
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
31,393
5,116
126
Given the current state of affairs, there's no reason not to eliminate the filibuster.
The funny part is people think that's even an option.
Wake me when Democrats actually have 51 votes in the Senate.

Point is, given the current state of affairs, it cannot be done. Maybe next year... but that'd be one hell of a stretch given the economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Leeea

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,775
6,653
136
The funny part is people think that's even an option.
Wake me when Democrats actually have 51 votes in the Senate.

Point is, given the current state of affairs, it cannot be done. Maybe next year... but that'd be one hell of a stretch given the economy.
Oh I agree, from a practical standpoint it can't (or won't) be done.

But let's say that Dems crush the midterms and have 51 reliable votes....they should absolutely kill the filibuster and get shit done.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
15,174
12,486
136
Oh I agree, from a practical standpoint it can't (or won't) be done.

But let's say that Dems crush the midterms and have 51 reliable votes....they should absolutely kill the filibuster and get shit done.
I believe the Democrats have a chance of picking up a couple Senate seats. I just don't see them holding the house right now. So it's going to be 2 years of gridlock. I mean November's a long time away so you never know but the house is going to be a lot harder to keep then picking up those seats in the Senate that's for sure.

I mean mansion and cinema should have some fucking balls and just at least remove the filibuster for an abortion law.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
15,701
10,925
146
Or would that open a can of worms in the future?
ie: When Repubs control all 3 chambers (Pres/Senate/House), they could simply revoke that law
That’s a good point. If they do this and then if the GOP get control of the senate Mitch Mconnell would have all the legitimacy needed to…. 😂

Sorry couldn’t complete that sentence with a straight face.

The fact is for tax cuts and judges, the things the GOP care about, there is already no filibuster. The filibuster only stops things the democrats , (ie most of the nation) wants.

Mitch Mconnell would never let the filibuster stop a single action he wanted to take. Dems should (but won’t be allowed to) trash it.
 

gothuevos

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2010
1,219
944
136
Well term almost over. So would have to see next years docket to see what they can squash next.
True, but all Dems do these days is take Ls so it wouldn't surprise me if they found another way to fail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indus

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,076
15,891
126
They COULD, but they won't.
Those people would rather keep their jobs than do their jobs.
Thats why we never had an abortion amendment in 50 years.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,251
4,512
136
They COULD, but they won't.
Those people would rather keep their jobs than do their jobs.
Thats why we never had an abortion amendment in 50 years.
This.

And if they were going to gut the filabuster, it should have been for something else other than a culture war thermonuclear landmine.

Gop could easily turn around and ban it nationwide when they regain control.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,202
3,321
136
Or would that open a can of worms in the future?
ie: When Repubs control all 3 chambers (Pres/Senate/House), they could simply revoke that law
Beau had a good video kind of about this. He is talking about expanding the court, but it falls in line with the Filibusters and why the Dems should do it.
 

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
6,885
2,053
136
This.

And if they were going to gut the filabuster, it should have been for something else other than a culture war thermonuclear landmine.

Gop could easily turn around and ban it nationwide when they regain control.
True but once the people can see what the Dems can do without Repugican obstruction, Rs will never get federal power again. Oh wait, we’re talking about Americans. Dumb as a rock and will vote R again.
 

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,304
318
126
They wont remove it, as there is too much money and votes in fighting for something, but not accomplishing it. If they completed what the people want, then voters would lose interest.

I don't think they should. If Republicans get in power without the filibuster, expect abortions, gay marriage and black voting rights to be outlawed nationwide.

I think its going to be a very interesting time with some states allowing abortion and some not. It going to be an amazing experiment like when marijuana was legalized. Will states with less access to abortion have increased crime/lower GDP? Will states allowing abortion have lower infant mortality (as planned parenthood does more than abortions)? Will we see an increase in black voters (black comprise 74% of abortions), thus more democrat voters in GOP territories? (oh are the GOP going to be mad when they see this)
 
Last edited:

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
6,885
2,053
136
It shows the sad state of American politics where the argument against eliminating the filibuster is that if a party wins all elected branches of government they would get to enact the agenda they ran on.
But would it get nuclear and move to impeachment and removal to just be +1 vote?
 

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,304
318
126
It shows the sad state of American politics where the argument against eliminating the filibuster is that if a party wins all elected branches of government they would get to enact the agenda they ran on.
Many may disagree with me, but I believe that the agenda the government takes, should benefit the most people. Rarely does one party's' agenda meet that criteria.
I never want to see one party control everything, not even the DEMs. I wish there were more parties and they would work together to accomplish legislation that maximizes happiness for the most amount of people, but the two party system is the truly sad state.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,954
33,539
136
Many may disagree with me, but I believe that the agenda the government takes, should benefit the most people. Rarely does one parties agenda meet that criteria.
I never want to see one party control everything, not even the DEMs. I wish there were more parties and they would work together to accomplish legislation that maximizes happiness for the most amount of people, but the two party system is the truly sad state.
I disagree! The problem with our system is when you win you can't enact your agenda. Really the better situation is that one party should ALWAYS control everything, this is a primary failure of presidential systems and has caused state failure in almost everywhere it's been tried except the US.

In all other democracies when you win an election you implement your agenda. If the voters don't like it they vote someone else in. In America when you win an election you basically sit around twiddling your thumbs because our system doesn't let you do what you ran on. This is bad for democracy and bad for the country.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
8,681
2,594
136
They should. But they won't, because they can't (Manchin & Sinema).

But the argument that they shouldn't because "it's a slippery slope and the R's will just use it do X when they take back power" is complete and utter bullshit. Rs already do whatever the fuck they want, rules be damned. They want judges and tax cuts, which can already be done without 60+ votes.

All this "we go high" shit is accomplishing is not enacting the agenda you were elected to implement and guaranteeing you don't get another chance. Maybe for longer than you think.
 

pete6032

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2010
6,475
2,093
136
The Democratic party has proven time and time again that they cannot accomplish anything meaningful at the Federal level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
28,339
1,889
126
I think its going to be a very interesting time with some states allowing abortion and some not. It going to be an amazing experiment like when marijuana was legalized. Will states with less access to abortion have increased crime/lower GDP? Will states allowing abortion have lower infant mortality (as planned parenthood does more than abortions)? Will we see an increase in black voters (black comprise 74% of abortions), thus more democrat voters in GOP territories? (oh are the GOP going to be mad when they see this)
unfortunately, it'll take ~15yrs for the outcome of this social experiment to show fruit.
and who's to say the Repubs wont just export/dump the poor to Dem states in 10yrs?

"we'll pay for a bus ticket for you and your baby (that we forced you to have) either to NY or California"
 
Last edited:

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,251
4,512
136
True but once the people can see what the Dems can do without Repugican obstruction, Rs will never get federal power again. Oh wait, we’re talking about Americans. Dumb as a rock and will vote R again.
IDK, I think we have a situation where the dog finally caught the car, and now Rs are going to have to deal with all the consequences of their extreme positions.

Rape babies, incest babies, imprisoned women and doctors, women dying from complications, thousands of unwanted children (make orphanages great again?)

....

Maybe the public needs to understand the implications of what they are proposing and the desire for change back needs to be organic and not just from a slim party line vote, or a judicial ruling. That won't be durable and will just leave Ds playing defense.
 
Last edited:

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,740
2,165
136
IDK, I think we have a situation where the dog finally caught the car, and now Rs are going to have to deal with all the consequences of their extreme positions.

Rape babies, incest babies, imprisoned women and doctors, women dying from complications, thousands of unwanted children (make orphanages great again?)

....

Maybe the public needs to understand the implications of what they are proposing and the desire for change back needs to be organic and not just from a slim party line vote, or a judicial ruling. That won't be durable and will just leave Ds playing defense.
Agreed. Be careful what you wish for because you may get it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY