Days after Vice President Kamala Harris’ fourth campaign visit to Wisconsin, she told WPR’s “Wisconsin Today” that she supports ending the filibuster to restore Roe v. Wade to protect abortion rights nationally.
In its current form, anyway. I don’t really have a problem with it if it’s employed in its original intended method, i.e. the senator in question actually has to keep talking and cannot yield the floor for the entirety of the amount of time he wants to block something. And preferably, we put him in TV in real-time while he’s doing it. Under very bright lights.
The way it works now where anyone can just say, “We declare filibuster” serves no purpose other than to allow whoever is in the minority (but let’s not kid ourselves, usually Republicans) to infinitely block anything forever without consequences, which is prima facie undemocratic.
Is there really any logical reason why one voter should be allowed to block the entire process like that? The whole filibuster concept is the strangest part of US politics to me.
Republicans got rid of the fulibuster for only judicial nominations so they could stack the courts after years of using the filibuster to deny Dem nominations. It isn’t an all or nothing thing.
The wording of getting rid of the filibuster for abortion was previously floated as a one time exception and then keeping around for everything else. This sounded like the same thing, just ending it for the one topic, not ending it in general.
Yes, however, doing it for one type of legislation is opening the same flood gates as any legislation. Given that she’s historically called the filibusted archaic and not something she wants in the way of voting rights as well. I don’t see her wanting it removed narrowly
This would be the typical Dem strategy - extremely targeted so as not to accidentally open the floodgates for additional impactful legislation to get passed. Just barely enough to campaign on for the next election cycle.
But hey, I’ll take a smidgeon of hope for something more.
It’s also the most likely way of getting a bill passed without requiring a Senate super majority. The Grand obstructionist party doesn’t want to lose their one move when they don’t have presidential veto for general so it’s probably going to take a super majority to break up the 30+ year long gridlock since the last amendment was passed, but if you target specific usages and committee procedures you can try to turn the conservative representatives who were personally affected by the law.
How about just abolishing it entirely?
Fuck the filibuster.
In its current form, anyway. I don’t really have a problem with it if it’s employed in its original intended method, i.e. the senator in question actually has to keep talking and cannot yield the floor for the entirety of the amount of time he wants to block something. And preferably, we put him in TV in real-time while he’s doing it. Under very bright lights.
The way it works now where anyone can just say, “We declare filibuster” serves no purpose other than to allow whoever is in the minority (but let’s not kid ourselves, usually Republicans) to infinitely block anything forever without consequences, which is prima facie undemocratic.
We already have two houses and the presidential veto handy to kill legislation. We don’t need another obstruction tool.
Is there really any logical reason why one voter should be allowed to block the entire process like that? The whole filibuster concept is the strangest part of US politics to me.
Functionally, there really isn’t. The only reason it still exists at all is because “tradition.”
I could see how it would be an affordable way to attention to a problematic bill (if it was still done as @dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world stated).
I don’t follow what you are saying when that’s what would have to happen to do this?
In 2022, she’s also said she supports removing the filibuster to get voting rights acts and other things through as well
Republicans got rid of the fulibuster for only judicial nominations so they could stack the courts after years of using the filibuster to deny Dem nominations. It isn’t an all or nothing thing.
The wording of getting rid of the filibuster for abortion was previously floated as a one time exception and then keeping around for everything else. This sounded like the same thing, just ending it for the one topic, not ending it in general.
Yes, however, doing it for one type of legislation is opening the same flood gates as any legislation. Given that she’s historically called the filibusted archaic and not something she wants in the way of voting rights as well. I don’t see her wanting it removed narrowly
This would be the typical Dem strategy - extremely targeted so as not to accidentally open the floodgates for additional impactful legislation to get passed. Just barely enough to campaign on for the next election cycle.
But hey, I’ll take a smidgeon of hope for something more.
It’s also the most likely way of getting a bill passed without requiring a Senate super majority. The Grand obstructionist party doesn’t want to lose their one move when they don’t have presidential veto for general so it’s probably going to take a super majority to break up the 30+ year long gridlock since the last amendment was passed, but if you target specific usages and committee procedures you can try to turn the conservative representatives who were personally affected by the law.