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

[JEDI]

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

 

[gothuevos]

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

Or SCOTUS guts it before then.

 

[eelw]

Or SCOTUS guts it before then.

Well term almost over. So would have to see next years docket to see what they can squash next.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Given the current state of affairs, there's no reason not to eliminate the filibuster. What do you think republicans will do if they get control of the Senate? Will they respect the filibuster? Why would they?

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

 

[Fenixgoon]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[shortylickens]

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]

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.

 

[soulcougher73]

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]

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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[KB]

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)

 

[eelw]

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]

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]

But would it get nuclear and move to impeachment and removal to just be +1 vote?

That would require a constitutional amendment, so no.

 

[fskimospy]

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]

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]

The Democratic party has proven time and time again that they cannot accomplish anything meaningful at the Federal level.

 

[JEDI]

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"

 

[Captante]

Maybe for longer than you think.

Very likely forever.

 

[Bitek]

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.

 

[Sunburn74]

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.