According to her prepared remarks, she will say that “the filibuster was used as a tool to block progress on racial justice.” …
Very true. Her fellow Democrats of that day, used the filibuster to block civil rights legislation.
but leave out: BY DEMOCRATS!.........................
...that’s a BIG if there princess gray beaver....
Then she won’t object if we end the 60-vote rule now?
And all of the Dem minions are out there now, registering everyone they can, legal or not. Does anyone think we will win ANY elections from here on out? When the left has ballots by the thousands, waiting in another room, to count if needed? If they aren’t held accountable for their cheating, you can kiss our freedoms good bye.
Today, the purpose of the 60-vote rule is to give the party with a narrow majority an excuse NOT to pass legislation that their voters want but their donors oppose.
Mitch McConnell kept the 60-vote rule in place during the debate over funding border security measures last year because this enabled him to avoid a scenario where he'd have to publicly admit that he didn't even have 50 votes to support it.
I’m actually cool with that.
Force every one of the bastards to take a yea-or-nay vote on everything. Then let the chips fall where they may.
Warren speaking “racial justice” is hilarious.
Does she still think she has a shot at the WH? Even funnier.
Hey Mitch McComical. Please read this article.
Ya put the Dems back in power and watch the US disappear right before your eyes
This was coming anyway.
I’ve supported getting rid of the filibuster for decades. The founders envisioned a legislative branch able to quickly act and to quickly reverse course. That’s why almost everything required only a majority vote.
Fake injun squaw grabs another meaningless headline — it will be fun if pdjt can find a good solid constitutional court nominee from Taxachusetts
Of course they’re going to do it. We knew it was going to happen, because that’s what they do. Then squeal about it when Republicans play by the new rules with them.
The Senate, the House, the judiciary, the Presidency, it’s the same everywhere.
What the left has in store for America when President Trump is gone will be horrific. Our side does not seem to be worried.
I have never understood why McConnell didn’t get more criticism for sticking by the filibuster rule. He singlehandedly stopped the GOP Congress from implementing its agenda after Trump was elected. Singlehandedly, yet with little criticism, or even with praise due to his approval of Trump’s judicial appointments (even though he allowed those to be slow-walked through even up to today.)
I’ve also argued that doing away with the filibuster rule would actually cause an increase bipartisan legislation. Why? Because it would only take one or two Democrat senators to cross over and help pass legislation if a couple of GOP senators (Murkowski, Collins, Flake in his day, etc.) defected. They’d probably even be allowed to attach their names to a bill in recognition of their support.
But right now, if Manchin wants to cross over and support a GOP bill, it doesn’t matter because McConnell needs six to ten Manchins to get past the filibuster rule. So none dare cross the aisle at all. And once a bill popular with a senator’s constituency was deemed as bound to pass, other red state Democrats would cross over as well, and a slim 51-49 majority might even become 55-45, giving it a true bi-partisan flavor.
I’ve also stated every time I bring this up that the Democrats will do it as soon as they control both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. Now Warren makes the case for me. But now it’s too late. The House will never send the Senate a bill worth passing until the GOP regains control once again. Hopefully, that’s coming soon, but I’m not optimistic.
Change the rules from day to day-—the Liberal way!!
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Forget the filibuster.
The Constitution is actually what blocks federal government involvement in most racial justice issues, corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification career lawmakers making unconstitutional federal civil rights laws to get themselves reelected by low-information voters. Affirmative action comes to mind.
More specifically, the only race-related protection that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect deals only with voting rights issues, evidenced by the 15th Amendment (15A).
15th Amendment:
"Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”
Note that 15A expressly give Congress the express power to resolve race issues, but only in the context of voting rights problems.
Otherwise …
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So any race issues outside the scope of voting rights are 10th Amendment-protected state power issues imo, not the business of the feds.
In fact, the constitutional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the Founding States had left the care of the people to the states, not the feds.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
Corrections, insights welcome.