Posted on 09/25/2024 7:11:17 PM PDT by bitt
Democrats might favor abolishing the filibuster now. But what happens when they lose power?
Senate Democrats made a mistake when they eliminated the filibuster for lower court judges in 2013. They’re making the same mistake again — except this time with a far less certain payoff.
Vice President Kamala Harris said Tuesday that she favors lowering the existing 60-vote threshold to a bare majority to enact legislation to protect abortion rights nationwide. “I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe and get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom,” she told Wisconsin Public Radio.
I would love to see a federal law that gives women nationwide the ability to decide for themselves whether to continue an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy. Harris’s solution is, unfortunately, the wrong way to do it.
Readers, if you disagree and are bristling with indignation at this statement, let me say: This is not an easy call. The filibuster is an infuriating, undemocratic impediment to progress — except, that is, when it is a welcome guardrail against extremism. How partisans feel about the filibuster on any given day tends to have a lot to do with whether their political party holds the Senate majority. Democrats and Republicans who lament the existence of the filibuster are thankful for it when they find themselves in the minority.
But it takes self-restraint, and an ability to see around corners, not to junk the filibuster when your party is in power — especially because partisans are convinced the other side will make that move if given the chance. Yet the ping-pong nature of Senate control means that neither Republicans nor Democrats can be confident that doing away with the filibuster won’t end up
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
p
No, just no. In fact, ‘ell no!
sounds good until you need it. philly-buster is without a doubt a tool to balance the scales. if a party does not have the votes to cram something through, perhaps they should rethink their position. I am glad that it is there in the toolbox when needed. pro and con.
Passing a “law” in congress does not override
the Supreme Court ruling that it is a State issue.
The 'Rats are effectively using abortion to distance many women from Donald Trump. They want abortion mandated by the govt; Trump wants it left up to the voters of the several states - an essential democratic idea. So the 'Rats are convincing women - wrongly - that Trump wants to outlaw abortion and they seem to be succeeding with that misconception.
One of Robert’s Rules is that no rule can be suspended if the negative vote is as large as the minority the rule is intended to protect.
I don’t know if current Senate rules coincide with Robert’s on that point. However Henry Robert was Senate parliamentarian way back when, no?
Prior to 1948, it required a 2/3 vote of the Democrat National Convention to choose a nominee. However it required a 2/3 vote to lower the threshold. The threshold was met and since then a bare majority is required.
Vice President Kamala Harris said Tuesday that she favors lowering the existing 60-vote threshold to a bare majority to enact legislation to protect abortion rights nationwide.
This is nothing more than pandering to the ignorant who do not realize the stated intent is legally impossible. The power to regulate or prohibit abortion lies with the States, and not with the Federal government.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Dobbs, State Health Officer Of The Mississippi Department Of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al., U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 19–1392 (June 24, 2022)
Opinion of the Court by Alito, J.
Slip op. at 78-79.
VIIWe end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Required for the Federal government to exercise authority to regulate or prohibit abortion would be another decision of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion, or an Amendment to the Constitution, overturning Dobbs.
True. When Trump nominated Gorsuch, the rules of the senate required 60 votes for confirmation. McConnell led the GOP to change that number to 51 for SCOTUS confirmation, Gorsuch was confirmed, and Barrett and Kavanaugh followed. If things had happened differently, maybe Roe would still be the law of the land.
Dems are still hopping mad about Roe being overturned. In some states that might make a difference, either for or against Trump.
If she wins, Kamala will want to put as many baby killers as possible on SCOTUS. Thomas and Alito will have to leave the court eventually. Another reason why Trump is imperative.
If she wins, Kamala will want to put as many baby killers as possible on SCOTUS.
The Judicial Branch and all the federal courts were created by the Congress. The Constitution calls for one Supreme Court. Congress could abolish all the other federal courts. Congress can take away the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Congress determines the number of justices. It started with five and has been as high as ten.
If one party packs it, next time the opposition party gains power they can pack it so they have the judicial power. There is no constitutional restraint on the number of justices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.