GOP Desire to Overturn Fillibuster

[The Hammer]

"Michael Steele, the former head of the Republican National Committee, slammed the GOP in its current form and suggested that it was prepared to push aside Senate rules and impose a national abortion ban if it retakes Congress in the November midterms."

We all said where this was going, and what would happen. Let's watch the rights of others slip away. How long until fighting back becomes literal?

The GOP would overturn the filibuster to impose a national abortion ban if it wins the midterms, ex-RNC chief suggests

 

[F1fan]

Biden would surely veto any such bill.

If Steele is correct, and the history of the GOP suggests they will suspend the filibuster for their agenda items, like confirming judges which allowed them to place three far right religiously biased justices.

This would be a culture war between congress and the White House, and it will be added futility and absurdity for the two years before the 2024 elections.

How far will the GOP go to win it all? What should democrats do?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Michael Steele, the former head of the Republican National Committee, slammed the GOP in its current form and suggested that it was prepared to push aside Senate rules and impose a national abortion ban if it retakes Congress in the November midterms."

We all said where this was going, and what would happen. Let's watch the rights of others slip away. How long until fighting back becomes literal?

The GOP would overturn the filibuster to impose a national abortion ban if it wins the midterms, ex-RNC chief suggests

Announcing this is probably a blunder. How can this not motivate people supporting abortion rights, who are the majority, to vote against this party? This would likely get otherwise Republican-voting people who want the option of safe, legal abortion reason to vote Democratic instead. How many otherwise Democratic voting people will crossover because of this announcement? I'm guessing next to none.

 

[Quetzal]

Maybe if the Democrats stopped acting like a bunch of sissies and used the political tools at their disposal, we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Announcing this is probably a blunder. How can this not motivate people supporting abortion rights, who are the majority, to vote against this party? This would likely get otherwise Republican-voting people who want the option of safe, legal abortion reason to vote Democratic instead. How many otherwise Democratic voting people will crossover because of this announcement? I'm guessing next to none.

Likely, many will never know of this announcement. I have friends on Facebook posting all sorts of stuff supporting access to abortion who (appear) to still be fans of Trump as if he never said he would appoint Justices to overturn Roe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe if the Democrats stopped acting like a bunch of sissies and used the political tools at their disposal, we wouldn't be in this mess.

What do you propose?

 

[The Hammer]

Announcing this is probably a blunder.

I doubt it.

Releasing the overturn of R v W wasn't a blunder for the court, as it still passed as scheduled.

What makes it a blunder is if it actually motivates people. Which most won't even know it's occuring.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"Michael Steele, the former head of the Republican National Committee, slammed the GOP in its current form and suggested that it was prepared to push aside Senate rules and impose a national abortion ban if it retakes Congress in the November midterms."

We all said where this was going, and what would happen. Let's watch the rights of others slip away. How long until fighting back becomes literal?

The GOP would overturn the filibuster to impose a national abortion ban if it wins the midterms, ex-RNC chief suggests

I never liked the filibuster, but truth be told it's a two way street in that regard if things reverse.

Personally I think RvW should have been left alone. Republicans tried to fix what wasn't broken.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Maybe if the Democrats stopped acting like a bunch of sissies and used the political tools at their disposal, we wouldn't be in this mess.

What do you propose?

^ this

 

[Quetzal]

What do you propose?

Ping @Jayhawker Soule since you asked as well.


The issue Democrats have now is that they cannot rely on their own vote in the senate. Manchin has given them a 'majority' on paper only. The senate might a well be 51-49 on several issues.

As I have reflected on this a bit more, I think my frustration in rooted in the fact that the Senate will be under Republican majority control again very soon. Land doesn't vote, except in the Senate. It is frustrating to see the party trying to act from a position of weakness in regards to legislation. We can't get much on the floor.

TLDR: I have no idea, but I am sick of voting for jerks who can't get anything done.

 

[Left Coast]

Ping @Jayhawker Soule since you asked as well.


The issue Democrats have now is that they cannot rely on their own vote in the senate. Manchin has given them a 'majority' on paper only. The senate might a well be 51-49 on several issues.

As I have reflected on this a bit more, I think my frustration in rooted in the fact that the Senate will be under Republican majority control again very soon. Land doesn't vote, except in the Senate. It is frustrating to see the party trying to act from a position of weakness in regards to legislation. We can't get much on the floor.

TLDR: I have no idea, but I am sick of voting for jerks who can't get anything done.

Shouldn't Dems abolish the filibuster? If the GOP is gonna do it, why shouldn't the other side?

 

[metis]

Shouldn't Dems abolish the filibuster? If the GOP is gonna do it, why shouldn't the other side?

I agree as we obviously have three branches that serve as a check on each other.

Frankly, even though it's also an imperfect system, I prefer the parliamentary form, such as found in Canada and the UK.

 

[Quetzal]

Shouldn't Dems abolish the filibuster? If the GOP is gonna do it, why shouldn't the other side?

I think Manchin has gone on record to say he would vote against it, without his vote the Democrats wouldn't have the majority required.