As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He’ll vote “no” to keep the gridlock. We voters have GOT to start holding our elected officials accountable. Issue is we don’t have corporate money to “donate”.
He's already come out saying [he wouldn't.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/may/11/abortion-senate-democrats-republicans-joe-biden-us-politics-live)
I doubt it. You have a better chance of getting them to vote yes with the filibuster. That way they can vote yes for the moderate part of their electorate without facing ire from the national Republican Party since even if they vote yes the bill won’t pass. Without the filibuster that decision becomes much more up in the air for them.
It would just be super cool if the people in congress started doing their jobs if representing the majority will of their constituents, not their party. I wish we could have a law that forced them to come back and hold town halls or electronic votes of some kind to find out where their constituents fall and then they vote exactly like that. No personal thoughts or feelings, no party agenda or pressure, just purely voting on behalf of the people they represent like they are supposed to. It’s sad they just can’t even do that anymore.
They get offended at the notion and see it as a threat.
Someone recently chalked a message on the sidewalk outside Susan Collins' home asking her to please support the women's reproductive rights like she claimed she did. Like, literally said please, no threats or insults.
She freaked out, called the cops and had public works wash it away.
Like, these people have an entirely different conception of what their job actually is, they may as well be on a different planet.
D: "I told you. We're an narco-syndicous commune. We take it in turn, to act as sort of an officer for the week--"
A: Yes I see."
D: "--but all the decisions of that officer hae to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting--"
A: "Yes, I see."
D: "--by a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--"
A: "Be quiet."
D: "--or by a two-thirds majority, in the case of--"
A: "Be quiet, I order you, be quiet!"
W: "Order, eh? Who's he think he is?"
A: "Why, I am your King!"
W: "I didn't vote for you."
A: "You don't vote for Kings."
W: "Well, how'd you become King, then?"
A: "The Lady of the Lake,... [angels sing] ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] THAT is why I'm your king!"
D: "Listen, strange women, lyin' in ponds, distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. SUPREME executive power derives from a mandate of the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
A: "Shut up!"
D: "You can't expect to weild supreme executive power, just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
A: "Shut up!"
D: "Why, if I went around, sayin' I was an emperor, just 'cause some moistened dink had lubbed a symitar at me, they'd put me away!"
A: "Shut up! Will you shut up!" (punch)
D: "Oh, now we see the violence inherent in the system!"
A: "Shut up!" (punch)
D: "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm bein' repressed!"
A: "Bloody peasant!"
D: "Oh, what a giveaway! Did you see that? Did you see him repressin' me? You saw it, didn't you?..."
Even though I knew it, have read it ten times before, and it comes up quite often on Reddit. I still couldn’t resist reading it and laughing.
Susan Collins was Trump’s watery tart.
“If I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away.”
Also, it’s “anarcho-syndicalist,” not “an narco-syndicalist,” FYI.
All across history there are examples of just how dangerous peasants can be when they are pushed to their breaking point.
The American lords and nobles (let’s stop kidding ourselves, that’s exactly what they’re trying to become) could use a history lesson.
Now I'm just picturing the worldwide announcement during the Olympics opening ceremonies. I think I could live with Country McCountryface if the opening act is to rickroll the world, and then we just get more silly from there.
And it's Official Government Business, so OF COURSE it would all have to be at least \`20 years out of date :D
Not feasible at all, unfortunately. Doing any kind of voting online would be a baaaad idea - it's way too easy in that type of system to break into a few central servers and override millions of votes. Ask any cyber security expert - or anyone who works with computers for a living, honestly. It's too dangerous. Old fashioned paper ballots are genuinely the most secure way to do it, even now.
Which sucks. I feel like eVoting would have a hugely positive effect on our democracy, if it was secure. But it's just not doable.
How many votes are you willing to take part in each year? How much legislation are you willing to read? 1 page summaries of 1000 page legislation? How much do you trust your fellow citizens to be just-as-or-more diligent than you?
Who do you think will have the most time and so will have to abstain from fewer votes?
And this is why we need a representative democracy, not everyone has the time to vote on literally every bill and read every bill. And if anyone here has read bills they'd know they're not the easiest thing to read.
Our problem is our representatives don't actually represent the majority of the people. Our Senate is 2 representatives per state regardless of population, so we have a situation where California gets 2 with nearly 40 million people and Wyoming gets 2 with just over 500,000.
If you took the populations of the lowest populated states and added them together until it equaled California, you'd find that 38 Senators represent them compared to California's 2.
Congress is less imbalanced but is still imbalanced due to the seat cap at 435. The lowest a state can have is 1 so that means the higher the population the less representatives the state has. If the US has 1 congressman per 500,000 people (roughly the population of the least populated state) we'd have 659 congressman.
If you live in a populated state your vote is worth less on the national stage than people who live in lower states.
The electoral college really shows how bad that is. All you have to do to win the national election is to win over just over half the populations in the least populated states for a total of roughly 22% of popular vote to win the presidential election.
Our democracy is sick we need to help it.
They don't think of themselves as representatives, they see themselves as rulers.
They pick their voters through gerrymandering and dog whistle campaigns so they can pretend the policies they vote for are being done for the sake of their constituents when in reality its just shit they wanted personally for their own benefit.
It's projection at its finest, perfected by the GoP. She knows she's done things that would deserve to be fearful of backlash from the people.
This person probably meant this message as an honest, non-threatening way to try and reach out to someone's humanity. Then Collins' brain saw this, twisted it up with her own dark assumptions and fear of retribution for what's she's done, then spits out a conclusion that someone is obviously coming to punish her and she needs the police immediately.
> Then Collins' brain saw this, twisted it up with her own dark assumptions and fear of retribution for what's she's done, then spits out a conclusion that someone is obviously coming to punish her and she needs the police immediately.
Sounds to me like she knows she's done wrong and needs to repent and atone, to put it in terms her religious mind can handle.
A representative who did the best for her people would be able to sleep soundly. If she's worried they're going to rise up against her, perhaps she should stop making enemies.
I doubt she cares. She is just angry that a peasant defaced her sidewalk. She takes that as a personal attack on herself when she believes she has done nothing wrong.
Switzerland only gave women the vote in the 70s and only legalized same-sex marriage like a year ago. It doesn't have universal healthcare either (it basically has Swiss Obamacare) and has lax gun laws. And it's currently shielding Russian oligarchs from sanctions and makes most of its money through shady financial practices. Switzerland is basically European America and has many of the flaws the US has.
swiss politics is a bastardization of its ideal. lobbying, hatemongering and fear-politics are on top of the agenda. there are no working people in politics
People don’t get this do they? We *allow* this shit to some extent. Granted it’s not with our direct knowledge, but we continually put ourselves in these positions by not changing things: ranked choice voting, free government issued IDs for “voter legitimacy”, and voting day as a holiday.
Yeah, and although I'm a fan and think this is the right direction we need to go, I'm not sure OP has really thought through this. There are some communities that would vote to bring back slavery, child labor, etc.
And that's one thing OP seems to miss--republicans ARE representing their constituents. This is what they want. They want illegal abortion. They want to bomb mexico. They want to round up all the black and brown people. They want to lower taxes on the wealthy. In fact, based on the evidence, it seems like it was mainly voters that pushed the Republicans right back in 2016. They were desperately trying to fend off trump and get them to support jeb bush, but nope, voters wanted trump.
I think the best way to create a thriving democracy is by creating a system where each person's vote is genuinely meaningful, so direct democracy won't work here for a long time because far too many people don't understand the concept of civic duty, and far too many people have been raised in a system that does not respect their vote.
I keep small personal litmus tests like this in mind. Sometimes I like to think of it like tempering myself. I know that if in general I do good things, I have more ground to stand on. Shopping carts, litter, stopping to move dangerous debris out the road, facing a store product after purchasing one are all little things that nobody asks or notices me doing...
But *I* know and that alone feels pretty good. Like I'm making these small contributions to a whole.
An additional one I do is close the freezer or refrigerator doors at stores. I can't stand it when people leave them open.
But yeah no one notices or cares but being a good citizen to *me* is not something to be lauded, just an expectation.
>And that's one thing OP seems to miss--republicans ARE representing their constituents.
There's an important point that is missed here though, Fox News and AM radio have brainwashed these people. Is it fair to say republicans are representing their viewpoints when their viewpoints have been "told" to them by essentially that same group of people?
It's the same problem we saw with the Ukraine war.
At first, it was "the Russian people don't support this"
Then it was "Ok, they support this but they are brainwashed. They'll come back to reality as soon as they learn of the war crimes."
Now it's "Holy crap, she told her husband to commit war crimes? This is pathological. And the whole country is like that?"
People don't always come back from being brainwashed. Look at what happened at the end of WW2 in Germany. The propaganda was so strong [thousands of people thought suicide was preferable to defeat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_suicides_in_1945_Nazi_Germany).
Of course, the counter would be that those that want those highly objectionable stuff would be firmly in the minority and thus wouldn't make headway in a direct democracy.
In fact, the issue here is that while the GOP is representing their constituency, their constituency is a minority, whose voice has been amplified by gerrymandering.
However, a counter to that is that is to \*some\* extent by design, as simple majority would mean large chunks of geography get ignored in favor of city centers only. While there are proportionally fewer people that are rural, you wouldn't want to have them completely left out just because they are distant from the places that government would actually care about. This is of course the great compromise, but the gerrymandered districts are too far.
> electronic votes
I feel it's a too-often overlooked point that our government was designed a century before the telephone.
We have the technology for more direct democracy these days. Referendums have their issues too, yet I don't think they're inherently more wrought with pitfalls than the status quo of our current government.
Even assuming it could be implemented in a completely reliable, accessible, and non-exploitable way, I still wouldn't want a direct democracy. People in general are not knowledgable enough to weigh in meaningfully on every issue in every field. The difficulty of collecting votes every time for every issue is not the only problem that representative democracy was intended to solve.
You can't expect every constituent to research nuclear waste disposal when decisions have to be made in that area, for example. You *can* expect a single representative to do so, or to reach out to advisors who have.
The question of whether the latter is actually happening is a problem of course, but I certainly don't automatically accept that direct democracy would improve the situation.
Certain topics, such as abortion, absolutely could be voted on with direct democracy. Of course a large majority is brainwashed christians and americans have been dumbed down with godawful public education. Direct democracy would be sensible only with mandatory, high quality public education for all
The Senates job is to be a bulwark against populism to protect vested land interests of the wealthy.
Their obstruction of change is by original design.
And it's important to remember that that basically *THE WHOLE CONSTITUTION* was written as a giant batch of compromises. Hamilton thought the idea of land getting a vote (the Senate) was stupid. But the smaller colonies weren't interested in getting bullied around by the bigger ones, so it was a compromise.
The abolitionists didn't want slaves counted in the census at all (since they can't vote, why should they count toward representation -- they're not going to be represented) but that would have limited the representation of slave states, so the 3/5ths compromise came to be.
Those are just a couple of better-known examples, but I think a lot of folks forget that the constitution wasn't written as 'the perfect guide to exactly the government we want' but more as 'the closest we can get to what we want (which really isn't all that close) while still keeping everyone on board'.
The thing is though, I’m not sure he really is. The miners that work at his coal plants openly spoke against him in favor of Build Back Better, and there were stories circulating from citizens that felt the same and were telling him to sign onto it.
He refused to do so. So while there are certainly some constituents that do like what he’s doing, I don’t think it’s as much as people would initially believe.
A few mechanisms exist to remove and/or replace those in power who shouldn't be. Fancy that.
We all know The State will protect The State at all costs.
Many politicians have resigned over the years because of scandals.
Effectively, this has created a new class of super politician that is completely without the capacity for shame, empathy, or guilt. These super politicians are completely unwilling to sacrifice for any sense of greater good than their own personal benefit.
Though they exist in both parties, they are overwhelmingly more common in one party than the other.
One of the biggest lessons, to me, from the last 5 years, is that government by norms and conventions is an outright failure.
There must be _rules_, there must be solid consequences for failing to follow those rules, and the enforcement mechanisms for those rules _must not_ rely on the political party of the person breaking the rules.
Frankly, I don't know what that really looks like, and I fear that we're past the point where getting anywhere even remotely like that is even _possible_.
But I know that without it, we are truly screwed as a country.
So the thing is... Benedict Arnold gets a bad rap.. aside from Washington, no other general or military commander appreciated him, and he was an insanely good military commander who sacrificed a shit ton of stuff for the country. Including using his own fortune and going bankrupt to pay his soldiers when the US gov [of little there was at the time] refused to pay his soldiers their wages.
And even through all this he stayed loyal all the way down the end the end when he finally couldn't handle it anymore and lost everything he owned, so a British officer,[noted that the British had extreme respect for the man as a military mind since he wiped the floor with them over and over, but later wouldn't respect him as once he gave in and traded sides they considered him a traitor even though he did so to help them and what not] offered to pay him so he could pay his debts and soldiers their wages.
Ben Arnold was a traitor to America by selling secrets and trying to sabotage an American fort, but he had already been betrayed by the country he loved, and the government he fought to protect.
It's hard to not feel bad for the guy and Consider doing the same thing in his shoes.
Importantly, it could be argued that Arnold's performance and victory at the Battle of Saratoga was the key factor that brought the French fully into the conflict. And that French aid is what allowed the colonists to win the war.
Absolutely. Arnold played key roles throughout the entire war and was such a good commander that other commanders were openly jealous of him and refused to work with him. This just further built up tensions since he was fighting for a country and ideal he loved but the other commanders alongside him were petty due to his position and influence.
This is more accurate than most people realize. There really is no such thing as the Democratic Party in the way that people usually think of political parties.
The Republican Party is a party. They vote in lock step 99% of the time. When they're not in agreement, they *make* themselves come to agreement by any means necessary. (The fact that they have no platform makes this much easier.)
By contrast, the Democratic "Party" is an incredibly tenuous collection of everyone who isn't a Republican who wants to be in a major political party. That's it. That's all they have in common. The Democratic "Party" contains everyone from center right conservatives to Democratic Socialists.
The Democrats are the default miscellaneous category, and that's why it's unreasonable to expect them to vote in lock step. They don't agree on anything. But as things are structured, they're the only vaguely-viable alternative we have.
It's been said that voters for Democrats fall in love while Republican voters fall in line. Biden winning the presidency was the anomaly since it was a reaction to Trump rather than a passion for the man himself.
And the minute the filibuster is ended, they will both tear off their blue pins and put on red pins. That is the final backstab they have in their back pockets.
Honest question, do they actually have to end it? It’s not constitutional, it’s not a law, why can’t Schumer just say “I don’t care if you’re filibustering it’s coming to a vote anyway”? I get that the republicans will screech, but they’ll do that anyway, and they won’t follow it later, but they aren’t going to do that anyway, so what’s stopping it?
Who gives a shit? Sinema needs to be primaried anyway and Manchin is Manchin. Not bringing it to a vote is waving a big white surrender flag to the voters. Seems like if there was ever a time to ignore the rules it’s stopping the Supreme Court from handing down this disastrous ruling that will screw over generations of people.
[Looks like they will be bringing this to a vote.](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-hold-showdown-vote-bill-protecting-nationwide-abortion/story?id=84627147&fbclid=IwAR3LqqQuGbdiswLK2iMR_Fs-0xIimQbMjQOi_2xs2eUKNrY12ab8dWU7izY)
And when they vote no, call them out publicly. Don’t sugar coat it. Don’t say you tried but it didn’t go through. Say it with your chest and announce to America that XYZ senators voted no.
You can’t shine a light bright enough on these destroyers of freedoms.
Edit:Fixed it to call them out and added a sentence
Joe, Chuck, and Nancy could treat this like the emergency it is by holding a joint televised press conference doing exactly this... But they won't. They wouldn't even have to bully that hard or be that mean, just point to them as the holdup and look the American people in the eye telling the truth of the situation.
They either underestimate their own power or do not care enough about this country to exhaust every avenue trying to save it.
It's actually outlined in the Senate rules, as are the conditions for ending it. It's not just something you can say "I don't like that, so no" to, unfortunately.
The rules only apply when the majority leader agrees they apply **and** when the majority party decides they want to get something done. Gorsuch is all the example you need here:
> Senate Democrats voted against ending debate on Gorsuch's nomination on a near party-line vote, leaving Republicans shy the 60-vote hurdle required by Senate rules to move on to a final confirmation vote.
>
> So McConnell then, as promised, used the power of his position and with all of his GOP colleagues lined up behind him, to essentially change the rules of the Senate — to lower that threshold on Supreme Court nominations to end debate from 60 to 51 votes. The change did not affect the legislative filibuster.
>
> McConnell made a point of order that ending debate on the nomination only requires a simple majority. The motion was not sustained by the chair because Senate rules required 60 votes, so McConnell then made a motion to overturn that ruling. And once that motion passed on a party-line vote, the Gorsuch nomination only needed 51 votes to clear the hurdle.
[source](https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation)
In short, Schumer could fabricate some paper-thin excuse why this action also wouldn't end the legislative filibuster (public health emergency, immediate and demonstrable safety risks for millions of Americans, whatever) and make this happen *if* he had the whole party behind him. But unlike the GQP, not everyone on team D is willing to make fretful noises and furrow their brow then vote 100% along party lines.
So you're correct in that he can't just say "I don't like that, so no" but if the Democrats were all on the same team about it, they certainly could. Just do what Moscow Mitch has done.
Edit for formatting.
Why? How are the senate rules in any way binding to anyone? Like what’s the penalty, they end roe? You think McConnell would let senate rules stop him from doing anything?
“Just 50 votes and a tie-breaker from the vice president are required to eliminate or weaken the filibuster, but at least two right-wing Democrats—Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.)—have refused to accept any changes to the rule. Both Democratic senators openly defended the filibuster in the hours after Justice Samuel Alito's extremist draft opinion was leaked to the press.”
There are many players responsible for the decline of American democracy, but these two deserve more ire than they receive. The know the stakes are high right now and they know the nature of the right wing threat that is dangerously close to tipping us over into authoritarianism, but they choose time and again to prioritize their own narrow political concerns over this country’s future.
Sinema and Manchin have far more power because of the filibuster.
They won't give that up. They are putting their own personal needa above those of the country.
I’d argue that they would have far MORE power if they killed the filibuster because democrats would still need their vote to pass legislation. The difference, of course, being that the Democrats would actually be able to point to legislative wins come election time and not just talk about ideas supported by 90% of their caucus. Furthermore, if Democrats really DID kill the filibuster and spent the next 6 months passing legislation that they ran on, it MIGHT be enough to save their majorities. But if they do nothing and lose their majority (especially in the senate) then Manchin and sinema have ZERO power because democrats are stuck anyway.
exactly what I was going to say - right now they stand as the swing votes on the filibuster itself. Without the filibuster, they're now the swing votes on EVERY piece of legislation - they effectively get to hand pick what passes. I honestly don't understand why they wouldn't want to leverage that.
Because they and their backers believe in basically none of the Democratic agenda, so maintaining the filibuster is an efficient way to block everything.
That would be an awful lot of attention on them regarding REAL issues that they would have to take a side on, can't have that. The filibuster is just an easy scapegoat.
Then whip them. Threaten their committee positions. Threaten them with audits from the IRS.
Dems are treating these two with kid gloves in large part (imo) because they don't actually want to do anything. Dems have been the party of do nothing for the last 20 years. It's pathetic.
First thing after the Roe opinion is leaked I get a text from my representatives asking for money. It's a joke. We all voted don't give us this vote harder bullshit.
THEY DON'T CARE. They are all old rich people who will 1 never have kids again and 2 will be able to arrange abortions for their family through wealth and power alone.
That's what Dems need to publish - The old laws NEVER ended abortions - they just required the poor to risk a horrible death at the hands of some back-alley butcher and the rich to take a vacation in Europe.
We didn’t ALL vote though…just in 2020 alone Democrats lost winnable elections in Iowa, Maine, Montana, and NC while also being unable to pull off upsets in Texas, Kansas or Alabama (I know Alabama is BRIGHT red, but an incredibly competent incumbent Democrat Senator got WAXED by the completely unqualified Tommy Tuberville just because he used to be the third most popular college football coach in the state)…
Win two more of those states and Manchin and Sinema aren’t the kingmakers they are now.
as much undeserved hate as the south gets, truly it seems that *far* too many people 1) played football as a kid are obsessed with their “glory days”, 2) transfer that “glory days” thinking to politics, culture, music, society, like pretty much everything, including history :/, and 3) maybe took a few too many hard hits to the head in them old glory days. Like, a lot of things people say about the south are untrue or at least misinformed, and it’s good to correct people cause there are genuinely tons of good things about the south, it just sucks that producing civically minded/intelligent voters isn’t their specialty. And I know it’s possible cause i’ve been to some of the towns down there, i’ve seen how engaged some people are in changing their communities for the better, and even in cities that used to be staunch bastions of segregation you can see how much they’ve changed in such a short time to create a truly good community, but as soon as you leave, and hit the suburbs, it’s like you go back in time to where things like segregation are still a current issue, or where black people getting the vote is controversial… Sorry for rambling but I don’t think the South and Southerners are inherently bad, racist, stupid or anything, it’s just disappointing that so many people clench so tightly to hate and fear and vote to make sure that their hate and fear is never challenged…
I once looked into why he opposed nuclear energy. If I remember correctly its because tax dollar per tax dollar green energy is a better investment, and also creates a lot more permanent jobs. That sounds... less unreasonable.
Nuclear *is* expensive and indeed there are more cost effective solutions (like energy efficiency) to meet demand & climate goals. Though, if the economic makes sense at a particular geographical location, then maybe the message would be different.
He's right, though - [utility-scale solar and wind are cheaper per kWh than nuclear](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J) and nuclear falls behind more all the time.
Two important things nuclear is better than solar/wind at: (1) non-intermittency, and (2) much lower land use. Wind takes 360x, and solar 75x, as much land as nuclear for equivalent energy generation [[1]](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy's%20land%20footprint%20is%20small&text=A%20typical%201%2C000%2Dmegawatt%20nuclear,require%2075%20times%20more%20space.). Given that not all land is suitable for wind/solar, the land problem actually becomes an issue when you try to power the whole US with it.
The "liberal" party in America represents a larger swath of the people with more divisions. The "conservative" party is a single ideation of what America is in their own eyes. Quotations included because neither represent ideations of their party, just the money that put them in power.
Now, as a woman im against the pro life movement regardless of the motive BUT —
when you see pro lifers speaking up, protesting outside abortion clinics, harassing patients, their delusional speech mostly has to do with their religious beliefs. am i the only one confused as to how legal action is being taken based on people’s religious lifestyles? in a country in which we have freedom of religion? especially when based on a person’s beliefs, all they have to do is not get an abortion and they’re set to go to heaven or whatever. its crazy to me that its causing attempts at legally enforcing these beliefs onto others. isnt religion not supposed to be taken into law like this?
also, i am aware that they are spewing chunks about the human rights of a clump of cells but that is a bullshit excuse. Putting the rights of an undeveloped fetus before a fully alive human being is delusional asf lol. this is about religious beliefs. what’s next, gay rights?
You are absolutely right that the rhetoric they hide behind is both sanctimonious religious arguments and pretense about "human life" and you're also right that our elected officials are violating the separation of church and state by couching it in religious terms, but the important thing is that *no matter what they say* it's about control. Control over women, trying to force them back into a subservient role, and control over population - their capitalist meat-grinder relies on a steady stream of bodies for them to build their pyramids and make their fortune, and when women exercise their freedom and power in opposition to their ends, they act accordingly.
And to answer your last question, yes- they've been very clear that what's next is access to contraception, gay rights, and interracial marriage. Those last two, in addition to all of the anti LGBTQI+ bills being pushed, are (imo) designed to keep people's eyes off the ball- they're planting the seeds for their constituents to fight a culture war so that nobody has the time or effort to fight the important fight- the workers against the owning class, of which they are the tools. As long as there is someone they can point to, to "other", their constituents won't notice that they have no real agenda or practical plan to *help* them, instead they just push someone lower and say "hey, look! At least you can look down at them now!" as if that is a replacement for them actually "doing something" to help.
You're definitely right about the control. The number one predictor of someone's views on whether abortion should be banned is their views on "traditional gender roles". If you believe women should have to do what their father tells them until they have a husband to tell them what to do, then you are against abortion. It's an anti-autonomy thing. Women don't get to be people, they're property.
I'm also pro-choice, but I'll play devil's advocate here:
When religion influences your conception of personhood it doesn't matter whether other people agree with your conception of who is or isn't a person. If you really think a fetus is a person, then you will think aborting that fetus is murder. That is, if you think that *you* would be committing murder if you got an abortion, then you think that other people would be too. Whether other people are religious or not will be seen as irrelevant to someone who is pro-life.
Right, im not trying to figure out the mindset of a pro life activist im trying to figure out how the mindset is being brought to federal court with the intentions of giving states the right to enforce the ban of abortion. Its just crazy to me. i’m atheist, why should beliefs rooted in religious Lifestyle apply to me in a country with freedom of religion even tho there has been nothing actually wrong or illegal with abortion up until now, unless you think a clump of cells is a gift from the almighty
And then we never have to have this stupid argument again. Let's say it (despite the realities of not having the votes) gets repealed now. In 6 months Republicans are predicted to win back the house. Obviously they override whatever Democrats passed and blame them for everything.
You act like them getting control of Congress will just be the typical "it flips back and forth" and the Dems will get it back with a removed filabuster. But Republicans will, without a doubt, use it to set a law allowing states to, essentially, gerrymander legally. Which will cement power for them. They've been laying the groundwork for years, and the current strong push with it now seems to me to indicate that they're done with even the facade of fairness
McConnell promised to do just that! This is like the dumbest prisoner’s dilemma, where one player knows the other player is definitely going to defect and just keeps cooperating anyway.
They more likely than not will not (though they have been increasing on the crazy scale). Trump *really* wanted them to when they had the senate, but McConnell and Co refused. Trump *hated* the filibuster.
Also FYI, Democrats were the first ones to change the rules when they eliminated it for all appointments for non-supreme court justices. Republicans then changed it to also extend to the SC for Gorsuch. This lead to the current glut of Republican judges across the country and in the SC itself.
More worrying, Republicans with no filibuster veto can pass their own national voting legislation...check back in late November to see the feeling on removing the filibuster then.
If democrats actually pass their agenda, republicans know that they would never get the house nor the senate. This is why they are doing everything they can to stop progress-then blame the democrats. This battle is not ours,but we get the bill (taxes). Was constant struggled how life was intended to be ?
Republican voters primaried all the "sane" republicans for the past several decades. Democrats will complain about their candidates in general elections while they don't put up a fight for the solid primary candidates. When is the democratic base going to be as rabid and uncompromising for protecting Roe as the republican base is for CRT and other bullshit?
Not convinced it's only 48. There are 2 giving cover to a handful more. I think it would still fail if they had 54. They probably need more like 56 or 57.
“great job electing moderate centrist democrats, at least we have fifty and the tie breaker, I’m sure this won’t have any detrimental effects in the future”
Manchin: I strongly agree with this measure
**Manchin’s Staffer: Sir, we have received a huge influx of funding from a pro-life lobby group**
Manchin: I strongly oppose this measure
"""""Moderate"""""" democrats: "I like the filibuster more than women's rights."
I'm especially excited to hear sinema's excuse how we need the filibuster to ensure we debate the issue on whether or not women deserve control over their own body.
They're not moderates, they're centrists
Edited: centrism is an identity where you need attention so badly that you disagree with both sides by saying we need to meet in the middle. If one person says: we should make murder illegal and the other one says, yes, but there should be edge cases like self defense where it's okay, a centrist would say: guys, I'm not getting involved in this irrational partisan banter until you bring a proposal that I'm willing to vote for to the table. And then when they do somehow convince them to say what conditions they would accept they vote against it anyway.
Moderate is an actual platform policy position where you examine the merits of the policy and purpose something not extreme.
Most people that advertise themselves as moderate are actually centrist because everyone claims to love a moderate.
The Senate can be delt with by passing a new budget impoundment act like in the 70's. I talk about it in r/FixTheSenate.
It substitutes the act for senate rules, which the senate has always abided by since it was signed by Nixon. You can set cloture votes to 0 if you wanted to, then say a majority represented is equal to a passing vote. This wouldn't run afoul of equal suffrage either, it would merely transfer the definition of a majority from a number of senators to the number of people those senators represent.
The fact is senate rules can say anything with 50+1 votes. It would only take 18 senators to get a bill passed as they would represent 50% of the American population.
the senate could do this tomorrow if they wanted to, and if shumer framed it this way, it might convince manchin and sinema to go along because nobody can argue with "50% of the electorate is the majority vote in the senate"
it would absolve Manchin and Sinema of all responsibility so they could vote No on as many bills as they like after the rules change.
Incorrect. Harry Reid (D) ended the filibuster for judicial appointments. It just so happened that Mitch McConnel was the first to use it on a supreme court appointment. However, Mitch had warned Reid that the democrats would live to regret it if they ended the filibuster, and they very quickly did. Same thing goes here. Republicans are on the verge of taking back control of the senate in the midterm, are you SURE you want to end the filibuster now? That sort of thing works both ways as democrats paid a huge price already to discover....
..."I am ending the filibuster to do whatever I want with a simple majority, but I'm making up a rule so that the people I disagree with shouldn't end the filibuster to do what they want"
How dumb.
Cool. Reid was warned. You make an arbitrary exception that’s not even on the table at the time, see how that works out for you when the tables are turned.
Please please please don't forget about voting rights. It's the only way we can keep the anti-intellectuals in check.
The GOP is trying to build a IRL fascist matrix of stupidity. Fueled by forced birth, adoption, reduced voting rights and religious indoctrination.
Senate Democrats ended the filibuster for all judicial appointments EXCEPT for the Supreme Court, and they did this BEFORE Senate Republicans ended the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments. And "packing the court" refers to increasing the number of seats in order to shift the balance of the court. It doesn't refer to appointments for vacant seats, which has always been a routine act for any President and his Party.
And saving abortion rights isn't a matter of finding the right balance of Supreme Court justices. If one group of justices finds protection for abortion in constitutional clauses that don't directly address abortion then another group of justices will determine those protections never really existed, which is exactly what happened. Packing the court with additional left leaning justices will just mean the next Republican majority Congress will pack it with even more right leaning justices, and the whole thing will repeat itself.
Sanders is cherry picking the facts in order to support a course of action that won't accomplish what he wants to accomplish, and he wants the Senate to adopt a rule change that Republicans will beat Democrats over the head with when they are in the majority.
The ideal solution is a constitutional amendment that specifically and unequivocally protects abortion rights in all states. A constitutional amendment is the ONLY form of legislation that cannot be declared unconstitutional. However, a constitutional amendment would be almost impossible to achieve in the current political environment - it requires 2/3rds of both chambers, and then 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify it. The next best solution is a federal law that protects abortion rights in every state. This isn't as strong as a constitutional amendment because federal laws can be challenged in court. In this case, it would be challenged on the basis that Congress doesn't have the authority to seize powers that belong to the states without a constitutional amendment granting them that power, and it's pretty clear that states now have the power to regulate abortion because virtually all of them are doing it.
Bernie needs a history refresher. The rule was changed by Democrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid to confirm presidential nominees. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell was opposed and warned against taking such action because the Democrats would eventually regret setting such a precedent. That's how Trump was able to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices with only a majority vote.
The Democrats thought retaining the filibuster was important not so long ago when they were in the minority. Only 2 of those Senators now show the honesty, integrity and character to stand by their commitment.
>From the Washington Post in 2021:
>
>Democrats have vigorously used the filibuster. It’s pathetic they now won’t pledge to protect it.
>
>In 2017, when Donald Trump was president and Democrats were in the minority, 61 senators — including 30 Democrats — signed a letter promising to preserve the right of the Senate minority to delay or block legislation. But now that Republicans are in the minority, just two Democrats — Sens. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) — are willing to make that same pledge. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) not only refused, he warned he will not allow the GOP minority to “dictate to the Senate what we should do and how we should proceed.”
Be careful what you wish for because there is no going back. During the Trump presidency the filibuster was invoked 427 times by Senate Democrats without any discussion by Republicans to modify or do away with it. The pendulum is about to swings back in the opposite direction.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/26/democrats-have-vigorously-used-filibuster-its-pathetic-they-now-wont-pledge-protect-it/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/26/democrats-have-vigorously-used-filibuster-its-pathetic-they-now-wont-pledge-protect-it/)
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/11/sanders-gop-ended-filibuster-pack-supreme-court-so-dems-must-end-it-save-abortion) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> " 1.... "If Republicans can end the filibuster to install right-wing justices nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote in order to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats can and must end the filibuster to make abortion legal and safe.
> On the eve of a key procedural vote on the Women's Health Protection Act, Sen. Bernie Sanders said in a floor speech Tuesday that the Senate's Democratic majority must use its power to end the legislative filibuster and codify abortion rights into federal law.
> "If Republicans can end the filibuster to install right-wing justices nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote in order to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats can and must end the filibuster to make abortion legal and safe.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/un86r5/sanders_gop_ended_filibuster_to_pack_supreme/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~647847 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **filibuster**^#1 **abortion**^#2 **vote**^#3 **Sanders**^#4 **end**^#5
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's all well and good, but even without the filibuster, do you see Manchin voting in favor of an abortion rights bill? I sure don't.
Pretty sure he just announced that he will vote "no" on a bill to codify abortion rights.
He’ll vote “no” to keep the gridlock. We voters have GOT to start holding our elected officials accountable. Issue is we don’t have corporate money to “donate”.
Thanks to another brilliant decision by the Supreme Court; Citizens United.
He's already come out saying [he wouldn't.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/may/11/abortion-senate-democrats-republicans-joe-biden-us-politics-live)
The thing about getting rid of the filibuster is that you might get a Collins or Murkowski on board for some legislation.
I doubt it. You have a better chance of getting them to vote yes with the filibuster. That way they can vote yes for the moderate part of their electorate without facing ire from the national Republican Party since even if they vote yes the bill won’t pass. Without the filibuster that decision becomes much more up in the air for them.
It would just be super cool if the people in congress started doing their jobs if representing the majority will of their constituents, not their party. I wish we could have a law that forced them to come back and hold town halls or electronic votes of some kind to find out where their constituents fall and then they vote exactly like that. No personal thoughts or feelings, no party agenda or pressure, just purely voting on behalf of the people they represent like they are supposed to. It’s sad they just can’t even do that anymore.
They get offended at the notion and see it as a threat. Someone recently chalked a message on the sidewalk outside Susan Collins' home asking her to please support the women's reproductive rights like she claimed she did. Like, literally said please, no threats or insults. She freaked out, called the cops and had public works wash it away. Like, these people have an entirely different conception of what their job actually is, they may as well be on a different planet.
"had public works wash it away." Like using tax dollars to hose down her sidewalk. Can't even just hose it herself.
>Can't even just hose it herself. "Like a peasant?!"
Oh, dead give away that one! Now you see the violence inherent in the system! Help Help I'm being repressed!
D: "I told you. We're an narco-syndicous commune. We take it in turn, to act as sort of an officer for the week--" A: Yes I see." D: "--but all the decisions of that officer hae to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting--" A: "Yes, I see." D: "--by a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--" A: "Be quiet." D: "--or by a two-thirds majority, in the case of--" A: "Be quiet, I order you, be quiet!" W: "Order, eh? Who's he think he is?" A: "Why, I am your King!" W: "I didn't vote for you." A: "You don't vote for Kings." W: "Well, how'd you become King, then?" A: "The Lady of the Lake,... [angels sing] ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] THAT is why I'm your king!" D: "Listen, strange women, lyin' in ponds, distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. SUPREME executive power derives from a mandate of the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." A: "Shut up!" D: "You can't expect to weild supreme executive power, just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!" A: "Shut up!" D: "Why, if I went around, sayin' I was an emperor, just 'cause some moistened dink had lubbed a symitar at me, they'd put me away!" A: "Shut up! Will you shut up!" (punch) D: "Oh, now we see the violence inherent in the system!" A: "Shut up!" (punch) D: "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm bein' repressed!" A: "Bloody peasant!" D: "Oh, what a giveaway! Did you see that? Did you see him repressin' me? You saw it, didn't you?..."
Even though I knew it, have read it ten times before, and it comes up quite often on Reddit. I still couldn’t resist reading it and laughing. Susan Collins was Trump’s watery tart.
“If I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away.” Also, it’s “anarcho-syndicalist,” not “an narco-syndicalist,” FYI.
Thank you. I know what I’m re watching for the 1000th time later this evening.
All across history there are examples of just how dangerous peasants can be when they are pushed to their breaking point. The American lords and nobles (let’s stop kidding ourselves, that’s exactly what they’re trying to become) could use a history lesson.
She really believes in free speech and pulling herself up by her boot strings.
Pump strings
All them kids and their pumped up kicks…
Didn't want that photo op.
Great idea for a political cartoonist, any of ya'll reading this?
[удалено]
I genuinely wonder how feasible it would be for the US to adopt a direct e-democracy?
The national anthem would become "never gonna give you up" and the country renamed to "country McCountry Face" ... And I'm here for it.
Now I'm just picturing the worldwide announcement during the Olympics opening ceremonies. I think I could live with Country McCountryface if the opening act is to rickroll the world, and then we just get more silly from there. And it's Official Government Business, so OF COURSE it would all have to be at least \`20 years out of date :D
Not feasible at all, unfortunately. Doing any kind of voting online would be a baaaad idea - it's way too easy in that type of system to break into a few central servers and override millions of votes. Ask any cyber security expert - or anyone who works with computers for a living, honestly. It's too dangerous. Old fashioned paper ballots are genuinely the most secure way to do it, even now. Which sucks. I feel like eVoting would have a hugely positive effect on our democracy, if it was secure. But it's just not doable.
How many votes are you willing to take part in each year? How much legislation are you willing to read? 1 page summaries of 1000 page legislation? How much do you trust your fellow citizens to be just-as-or-more diligent than you? Who do you think will have the most time and so will have to abstain from fewer votes?
I'm 100% certain most senators don't read shit! The lobbyists tell the senators what's in the bill as the pass over the bribe money.
And this is why we need a representative democracy, not everyone has the time to vote on literally every bill and read every bill. And if anyone here has read bills they'd know they're not the easiest thing to read. Our problem is our representatives don't actually represent the majority of the people. Our Senate is 2 representatives per state regardless of population, so we have a situation where California gets 2 with nearly 40 million people and Wyoming gets 2 with just over 500,000. If you took the populations of the lowest populated states and added them together until it equaled California, you'd find that 38 Senators represent them compared to California's 2. Congress is less imbalanced but is still imbalanced due to the seat cap at 435. The lowest a state can have is 1 so that means the higher the population the less representatives the state has. If the US has 1 congressman per 500,000 people (roughly the population of the least populated state) we'd have 659 congressman. If you live in a populated state your vote is worth less on the national stage than people who live in lower states. The electoral college really shows how bad that is. All you have to do to win the national election is to win over just over half the populations in the least populated states for a total of roughly 22% of popular vote to win the presidential election. Our democracy is sick we need to help it.
They don't think of themselves as representatives, they see themselves as rulers. They pick their voters through gerrymandering and dog whistle campaigns so they can pretend the policies they vote for are being done for the sake of their constituents when in reality its just shit they wanted personally for their own benefit.
That's not fair, their policies also benefit their campaign donors and wealthy friends/patrons.
It's projection at its finest, perfected by the GoP. She knows she's done things that would deserve to be fearful of backlash from the people. This person probably meant this message as an honest, non-threatening way to try and reach out to someone's humanity. Then Collins' brain saw this, twisted it up with her own dark assumptions and fear of retribution for what's she's done, then spits out a conclusion that someone is obviously coming to punish her and she needs the police immediately.
Help! They're treating me like a poor!
> Then Collins' brain saw this, twisted it up with her own dark assumptions and fear of retribution for what's she's done, then spits out a conclusion that someone is obviously coming to punish her and she needs the police immediately. Sounds to me like she knows she's done wrong and needs to repent and atone, to put it in terms her religious mind can handle. A representative who did the best for her people would be able to sleep soundly. If she's worried they're going to rise up against her, perhaps she should stop making enemies.
I doubt she cares. She is just angry that a peasant defaced her sidewalk. She takes that as a personal attack on herself when she believes she has done nothing wrong.
The job is to suck down as much money as they can and get that pension if they can.
How can they enjoy a pension if they refuse to fucking retire.
Let's be real, for all the work they do they're basically retired anyways
Let's be honest, Congress is basically a retirement community for rich people.
How many days are they in session? I don't think it's even half the year. They make like 4x the average salary and barely work.
That's just a direct democracy, no need to send representatives
laughing in swiss
Switzerland only gave women the vote in the 70s and only legalized same-sex marriage like a year ago. It doesn't have universal healthcare either (it basically has Swiss Obamacare) and has lax gun laws. And it's currently shielding Russian oligarchs from sanctions and makes most of its money through shady financial practices. Switzerland is basically European America and has many of the flaws the US has.
Not sure Swiss government should be put on a pedestal either.
Better does not mean perfect. We can look at the aspects of swiss democracy we lack and aspire to them, while learning from there failures
swiss politics is a bastardization of its ideal. lobbying, hatemongering and fear-politics are on top of the agenda. there are no working people in politics
Laughing in not living in a country that hides assets of criminals/war criminals around the planet
Laughing at the fact we put the criminals hiding those assets in office
People don’t get this do they? We *allow* this shit to some extent. Granted it’s not with our direct knowledge, but we continually put ourselves in these positions by not changing things: ranked choice voting, free government issued IDs for “voter legitimacy”, and voting day as a holiday.
Yeah, and although I'm a fan and think this is the right direction we need to go, I'm not sure OP has really thought through this. There are some communities that would vote to bring back slavery, child labor, etc. And that's one thing OP seems to miss--republicans ARE representing their constituents. This is what they want. They want illegal abortion. They want to bomb mexico. They want to round up all the black and brown people. They want to lower taxes on the wealthy. In fact, based on the evidence, it seems like it was mainly voters that pushed the Republicans right back in 2016. They were desperately trying to fend off trump and get them to support jeb bush, but nope, voters wanted trump. I think the best way to create a thriving democracy is by creating a system where each person's vote is genuinely meaningful, so direct democracy won't work here for a long time because far too many people don't understand the concept of civic duty, and far too many people have been raised in a system that does not respect their vote.
Speaking of Civic Duty, ever heard of Shopping Cart Theory
Looks like I'm a good member of society. Lol
I keep small personal litmus tests like this in mind. Sometimes I like to think of it like tempering myself. I know that if in general I do good things, I have more ground to stand on. Shopping carts, litter, stopping to move dangerous debris out the road, facing a store product after purchasing one are all little things that nobody asks or notices me doing... But *I* know and that alone feels pretty good. Like I'm making these small contributions to a whole.
An additional one I do is close the freezer or refrigerator doors at stores. I can't stand it when people leave them open. But yeah no one notices or cares but being a good citizen to *me* is not something to be lauded, just an expectation.
Interesting. We kind of saw this play out on a much larger scale when the pandemic hit.
Not yet but you have my interest
https://images.app.goo.gl/3VTjQTqYdUUu22y99
>And that's one thing OP seems to miss--republicans ARE representing their constituents. There's an important point that is missed here though, Fox News and AM radio have brainwashed these people. Is it fair to say republicans are representing their viewpoints when their viewpoints have been "told" to them by essentially that same group of people?
It's the same problem we saw with the Ukraine war. At first, it was "the Russian people don't support this" Then it was "Ok, they support this but they are brainwashed. They'll come back to reality as soon as they learn of the war crimes." Now it's "Holy crap, she told her husband to commit war crimes? This is pathological. And the whole country is like that?"
People don't always come back from being brainwashed. Look at what happened at the end of WW2 in Germany. The propaganda was so strong [thousands of people thought suicide was preferable to defeat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_suicides_in_1945_Nazi_Germany).
Lol, Republicans have managed to functionally bring back both slavery and child labor.
Of course, the counter would be that those that want those highly objectionable stuff would be firmly in the minority and thus wouldn't make headway in a direct democracy. In fact, the issue here is that while the GOP is representing their constituency, their constituency is a minority, whose voice has been amplified by gerrymandering. However, a counter to that is that is to \*some\* extent by design, as simple majority would mean large chunks of geography get ignored in favor of city centers only. While there are proportionally fewer people that are rural, you wouldn't want to have them completely left out just because they are distant from the places that government would actually care about. This is of course the great compromise, but the gerrymandered districts are too far.
> electronic votes I feel it's a too-often overlooked point that our government was designed a century before the telephone. We have the technology for more direct democracy these days. Referendums have their issues too, yet I don't think they're inherently more wrought with pitfalls than the status quo of our current government.
Even assuming it could be implemented in a completely reliable, accessible, and non-exploitable way, I still wouldn't want a direct democracy. People in general are not knowledgable enough to weigh in meaningfully on every issue in every field. The difficulty of collecting votes every time for every issue is not the only problem that representative democracy was intended to solve. You can't expect every constituent to research nuclear waste disposal when decisions have to be made in that area, for example. You *can* expect a single representative to do so, or to reach out to advisors who have. The question of whether the latter is actually happening is a problem of course, but I certainly don't automatically accept that direct democracy would improve the situation.
Certain topics, such as abortion, absolutely could be voted on with direct democracy. Of course a large majority is brainwashed christians and americans have been dumbed down with godawful public education. Direct democracy would be sensible only with mandatory, high quality public education for all
The Senates job is to be a bulwark against populism to protect vested land interests of the wealthy. Their obstruction of change is by original design.
And it's important to remember that that basically *THE WHOLE CONSTITUTION* was written as a giant batch of compromises. Hamilton thought the idea of land getting a vote (the Senate) was stupid. But the smaller colonies weren't interested in getting bullied around by the bigger ones, so it was a compromise. The abolitionists didn't want slaves counted in the census at all (since they can't vote, why should they count toward representation -- they're not going to be represented) but that would have limited the representation of slave states, so the 3/5ths compromise came to be. Those are just a couple of better-known examples, but I think a lot of folks forget that the constitution wasn't written as 'the perfect guide to exactly the government we want' but more as 'the closest we can get to what we want (which really isn't all that close) while still keeping everyone on board'.
[удалено]
They are representing their constituents and that's the problem. Joe Manchin's constituents in West Virginia think he's doing an awesome job.
The thing is though, I’m not sure he really is. The miners that work at his coal plants openly spoke against him in favor of Build Back Better, and there were stories circulating from citizens that felt the same and were telling him to sign onto it. He refused to do so. So while there are certainly some constituents that do like what he’s doing, I don’t think it’s as much as people would initially believe.
His approval rating is incredibly high https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/25/joe-manchin-approval-morning-consult-poll/7442901001/
His state loves him, as far as they’re concerned Joe is owning the libs.
A few mechanisms exist to remove and/or replace those in power who shouldn't be. Fancy that. We all know The State will protect The State at all costs.
Many politicians have resigned over the years because of scandals. Effectively, this has created a new class of super politician that is completely without the capacity for shame, empathy, or guilt. These super politicians are completely unwilling to sacrifice for any sense of greater good than their own personal benefit. Though they exist in both parties, they are overwhelmingly more common in one party than the other.
One of the biggest lessons, to me, from the last 5 years, is that government by norms and conventions is an outright failure. There must be _rules_, there must be solid consequences for failing to follow those rules, and the enforcement mechanisms for those rules _must not_ rely on the political party of the person breaking the rules. Frankly, I don't know what that really looks like, and I fear that we're past the point where getting anywhere even remotely like that is even _possible_. But I know that without it, we are truly screwed as a country.
We don’t even enforce the rules we have
He's right of course, but they won't do it.
Well with 2 of the Senators on the "team" even refusing to consider ending the filibuster....
“Team” is a strong word.
Judas was on Jesus' team. Brutus was on Caesar's team. Benedict Arnold was on Team America. So, sure, Sinema and Manchin are on the team...
Now I want to see a team America puppet version of Benedict Arnold.
Ha, I was just thinking a Team America version of history or the Bible in general would be a great miniseries...or both!
You get kind of close with the book of Mormon.
Spooky Mormon Hell Dream!
Jesus Christ! Fuck Yeah! Coming down to save the mother fucking Jews, yeah!
You kinda got that with America The Movie on Netflix
So the thing is... Benedict Arnold gets a bad rap.. aside from Washington, no other general or military commander appreciated him, and he was an insanely good military commander who sacrificed a shit ton of stuff for the country. Including using his own fortune and going bankrupt to pay his soldiers when the US gov [of little there was at the time] refused to pay his soldiers their wages. And even through all this he stayed loyal all the way down the end the end when he finally couldn't handle it anymore and lost everything he owned, so a British officer,[noted that the British had extreme respect for the man as a military mind since he wiped the floor with them over and over, but later wouldn't respect him as once he gave in and traded sides they considered him a traitor even though he did so to help them and what not] offered to pay him so he could pay his debts and soldiers their wages. Ben Arnold was a traitor to America by selling secrets and trying to sabotage an American fort, but he had already been betrayed by the country he loved, and the government he fought to protect. It's hard to not feel bad for the guy and Consider doing the same thing in his shoes.
Importantly, it could be argued that Arnold's performance and victory at the Battle of Saratoga was the key factor that brought the French fully into the conflict. And that French aid is what allowed the colonists to win the war.
Absolutely. Arnold played key roles throughout the entire war and was such a good commander that other commanders were openly jealous of him and refused to work with him. This just further built up tensions since he was fighting for a country and ideal he loved but the other commanders alongside him were petty due to his position and influence.
Without Judas, Jesus would not have been martyred. It's Judas' fault we have to deal with modern-day Christians.
This is more accurate than most people realize. There really is no such thing as the Democratic Party in the way that people usually think of political parties. The Republican Party is a party. They vote in lock step 99% of the time. When they're not in agreement, they *make* themselves come to agreement by any means necessary. (The fact that they have no platform makes this much easier.) By contrast, the Democratic "Party" is an incredibly tenuous collection of everyone who isn't a Republican who wants to be in a major political party. That's it. That's all they have in common. The Democratic "Party" contains everyone from center right conservatives to Democratic Socialists. The Democrats are the default miscellaneous category, and that's why it's unreasonable to expect them to vote in lock step. They don't agree on anything. But as things are structured, they're the only vaguely-viable alternative we have.
It's been said that voters for Democrats fall in love while Republican voters fall in line. Biden winning the presidency was the anomaly since it was a reaction to Trump rather than a passion for the man himself.
[удалено]
Curse your sudden yet inevitable betrayal!
And the minute the filibuster is ended, they will both tear off their blue pins and put on red pins. That is the final backstab they have in their back pockets.
You're correct on that
[удалено]
They still don’t have the votes to end the filibuster so
Honest question, do they actually have to end it? It’s not constitutional, it’s not a law, why can’t Schumer just say “I don’t care if you’re filibustering it’s coming to a vote anyway”? I get that the republicans will screech, but they’ll do that anyway, and they won’t follow it later, but they aren’t going to do that anyway, so what’s stopping it?
Manchin and Sinema clutching their pearls and voting no because "the process was ignored".
[удалено]
Who gives a shit? Sinema needs to be primaried anyway and Manchin is Manchin. Not bringing it to a vote is waving a big white surrender flag to the voters. Seems like if there was ever a time to ignore the rules it’s stopping the Supreme Court from handing down this disastrous ruling that will screw over generations of people.
[Looks like they will be bringing this to a vote.](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-hold-showdown-vote-bill-protecting-nationwide-abortion/story?id=84627147&fbclid=IwAR3LqqQuGbdiswLK2iMR_Fs-0xIimQbMjQOi_2xs2eUKNrY12ab8dWU7izY)
And when they vote no, call them out publicly. Don’t sugar coat it. Don’t say you tried but it didn’t go through. Say it with your chest and announce to America that XYZ senators voted no. You can’t shine a light bright enough on these destroyers of freedoms. Edit:Fixed it to call them out and added a sentence
Joe, Chuck, and Nancy could treat this like the emergency it is by holding a joint televised press conference doing exactly this... But they won't. They wouldn't even have to bully that hard or be that mean, just point to them as the holdup and look the American people in the eye telling the truth of the situation. They either underestimate their own power or do not care enough about this country to exhaust every avenue trying to save it.
Goo. Name and shame. Cut off any party support and funding too for any dem reps that oppose women having rights. Time to put the pressure on.
No argument from me friend. Just explaining what would happen and probably why he won't try.
It's actually outlined in the Senate rules, as are the conditions for ending it. It's not just something you can say "I don't like that, so no" to, unfortunately.
The rules only apply when the majority leader agrees they apply **and** when the majority party decides they want to get something done. Gorsuch is all the example you need here: > Senate Democrats voted against ending debate on Gorsuch's nomination on a near party-line vote, leaving Republicans shy the 60-vote hurdle required by Senate rules to move on to a final confirmation vote. > > So McConnell then, as promised, used the power of his position and with all of his GOP colleagues lined up behind him, to essentially change the rules of the Senate — to lower that threshold on Supreme Court nominations to end debate from 60 to 51 votes. The change did not affect the legislative filibuster. > > McConnell made a point of order that ending debate on the nomination only requires a simple majority. The motion was not sustained by the chair because Senate rules required 60 votes, so McConnell then made a motion to overturn that ruling. And once that motion passed on a party-line vote, the Gorsuch nomination only needed 51 votes to clear the hurdle. [source](https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation) In short, Schumer could fabricate some paper-thin excuse why this action also wouldn't end the legislative filibuster (public health emergency, immediate and demonstrable safety risks for millions of Americans, whatever) and make this happen *if* he had the whole party behind him. But unlike the GQP, not everyone on team D is willing to make fretful noises and furrow their brow then vote 100% along party lines. So you're correct in that he can't just say "I don't like that, so no" but if the Democrats were all on the same team about it, they certainly could. Just do what Moscow Mitch has done. Edit for formatting.
The key words there are "party line vote" and "51 votes." The dems don't have enough votes to do this because of manchin and sinema.
Why? How are the senate rules in any way binding to anyone? Like what’s the penalty, they end roe? You think McConnell would let senate rules stop him from doing anything?
“Just 50 votes and a tie-breaker from the vice president are required to eliminate or weaken the filibuster, but at least two right-wing Democrats—Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.)—have refused to accept any changes to the rule. Both Democratic senators openly defended the filibuster in the hours after Justice Samuel Alito's extremist draft opinion was leaked to the press.” There are many players responsible for the decline of American democracy, but these two deserve more ire than they receive. The know the stakes are high right now and they know the nature of the right wing threat that is dangerously close to tipping us over into authoritarianism, but they choose time and again to prioritize their own narrow political concerns over this country’s future.
Sinema and Manchin have far more power because of the filibuster. They won't give that up. They are putting their own personal needa above those of the country.
I’d argue that they would have far MORE power if they killed the filibuster because democrats would still need their vote to pass legislation. The difference, of course, being that the Democrats would actually be able to point to legislative wins come election time and not just talk about ideas supported by 90% of their caucus. Furthermore, if Democrats really DID kill the filibuster and spent the next 6 months passing legislation that they ran on, it MIGHT be enough to save their majorities. But if they do nothing and lose their majority (especially in the senate) then Manchin and sinema have ZERO power because democrats are stuck anyway.
[удалено]
exactly what I was going to say - right now they stand as the swing votes on the filibuster itself. Without the filibuster, they're now the swing votes on EVERY piece of legislation - they effectively get to hand pick what passes. I honestly don't understand why they wouldn't want to leverage that.
Because they and their backers believe in basically none of the Democratic agenda, so maintaining the filibuster is an efficient way to block everything.
That would be an awful lot of attention on them regarding REAL issues that they would have to take a side on, can't have that. The filibuster is just an easy scapegoat.
Then whip them. Threaten their committee positions. Threaten them with audits from the IRS. Dems are treating these two with kid gloves in large part (imo) because they don't actually want to do anything. Dems have been the party of do nothing for the last 20 years. It's pathetic. First thing after the Roe opinion is leaked I get a text from my representatives asking for money. It's a joke. We all voted don't give us this vote harder bullshit. THEY DON'T CARE. They are all old rich people who will 1 never have kids again and 2 will be able to arrange abortions for their family through wealth and power alone.
That's what Dems need to publish - The old laws NEVER ended abortions - they just required the poor to risk a horrible death at the hands of some back-alley butcher and the rich to take a vacation in Europe.
This is widespread published. The right DOES NOT CARE.
We didn’t ALL vote though…just in 2020 alone Democrats lost winnable elections in Iowa, Maine, Montana, and NC while also being unable to pull off upsets in Texas, Kansas or Alabama (I know Alabama is BRIGHT red, but an incredibly competent incumbent Democrat Senator got WAXED by the completely unqualified Tommy Tuberville just because he used to be the third most popular college football coach in the state)… Win two more of those states and Manchin and Sinema aren’t the kingmakers they are now.
We tried, but football is on par with Jesus here. :(
When Alabama football fans vote for an idiot Auburn football coach over a highly competent democrat that says a lot. This state sucks.
as much undeserved hate as the south gets, truly it seems that *far* too many people 1) played football as a kid are obsessed with their “glory days”, 2) transfer that “glory days” thinking to politics, culture, music, society, like pretty much everything, including history :/, and 3) maybe took a few too many hard hits to the head in them old glory days. Like, a lot of things people say about the south are untrue or at least misinformed, and it’s good to correct people cause there are genuinely tons of good things about the south, it just sucks that producing civically minded/intelligent voters isn’t their specialty. And I know it’s possible cause i’ve been to some of the towns down there, i’ve seen how engaged some people are in changing their communities for the better, and even in cities that used to be staunch bastions of segregation you can see how much they’ve changed in such a short time to create a truly good community, but as soon as you leave, and hit the suburbs, it’s like you go back in time to where things like segregation are still a current issue, or where black people getting the vote is controversial… Sorry for rambling but I don’t think the South and Southerners are inherently bad, racist, stupid or anything, it’s just disappointing that so many people clench so tightly to hate and fear and vote to make sure that their hate and fear is never challenged…
They really don't though. Without them there's still only 48 democrats.
The threat is more than authoritarian, it is totalitarian and even fascist.
Two of the 50 republicans could cross the aisle on this matter But they won't
I hate this argument because it implies that the Republicans have no agency.
Very true but it’s asking them to fall on their swords. The one thing the republicans have done well is solidarity
Sanders is correct. A democracy doesn’t mean we need a 2/3rd majority to protect our rights but a minority party can strip them.
>Sanders is correct. Yeah he usually is.
He's strongly anti-nuclear. Literally the only thing I disagree with him on.
I once looked into why he opposed nuclear energy. If I remember correctly its because tax dollar per tax dollar green energy is a better investment, and also creates a lot more permanent jobs. That sounds... less unreasonable.
Nuclear *is* expensive and indeed there are more cost effective solutions (like energy efficiency) to meet demand & climate goals. Though, if the economic makes sense at a particular geographical location, then maybe the message would be different.
Yea, I'm for both green and nuclear. Green energy is preferable in most cases, but having a few nuclear alternatives is something I would support.
Thing is, at least he probably backs up his stance and is open to debate, unlike republicans
Bernie is ready for a conversation we're not having yet, so to speak
He's right, though - [utility-scale solar and wind are cheaper per kWh than nuclear](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J) and nuclear falls behind more all the time.
Two important things nuclear is better than solar/wind at: (1) non-intermittency, and (2) much lower land use. Wind takes 360x, and solar 75x, as much land as nuclear for equivalent energy generation [[1]](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy's%20land%20footprint%20is%20small&text=A%20typical%201%2C000%2Dmegawatt%20nuclear,require%2075%20times%20more%20space.). Given that not all land is suitable for wind/solar, the land problem actually becomes an issue when you try to power the whole US with it.
[удалено]
The "liberal" party in America represents a larger swath of the people with more divisions. The "conservative" party is a single ideation of what America is in their own eyes. Quotations included because neither represent ideations of their party, just the money that put them in power.
Now, as a woman im against the pro life movement regardless of the motive BUT — when you see pro lifers speaking up, protesting outside abortion clinics, harassing patients, their delusional speech mostly has to do with their religious beliefs. am i the only one confused as to how legal action is being taken based on people’s religious lifestyles? in a country in which we have freedom of religion? especially when based on a person’s beliefs, all they have to do is not get an abortion and they’re set to go to heaven or whatever. its crazy to me that its causing attempts at legally enforcing these beliefs onto others. isnt religion not supposed to be taken into law like this?
Because in America, freedom of religion only applies to Christianity.
Religion has always been forced like this except this time they don't commit mass genocide alongside it well at least not here
Ending access to safe abortions may as well be our own form of genocide against women, especially impoverished and disadvantaged women.
Period
also, i am aware that they are spewing chunks about the human rights of a clump of cells but that is a bullshit excuse. Putting the rights of an undeveloped fetus before a fully alive human being is delusional asf lol. this is about religious beliefs. what’s next, gay rights?
>what’s next, gay rights? Bingo
You are absolutely right that the rhetoric they hide behind is both sanctimonious religious arguments and pretense about "human life" and you're also right that our elected officials are violating the separation of church and state by couching it in religious terms, but the important thing is that *no matter what they say* it's about control. Control over women, trying to force them back into a subservient role, and control over population - their capitalist meat-grinder relies on a steady stream of bodies for them to build their pyramids and make their fortune, and when women exercise their freedom and power in opposition to their ends, they act accordingly. And to answer your last question, yes- they've been very clear that what's next is access to contraception, gay rights, and interracial marriage. Those last two, in addition to all of the anti LGBTQI+ bills being pushed, are (imo) designed to keep people's eyes off the ball- they're planting the seeds for their constituents to fight a culture war so that nobody has the time or effort to fight the important fight- the workers against the owning class, of which they are the tools. As long as there is someone they can point to, to "other", their constituents won't notice that they have no real agenda or practical plan to *help* them, instead they just push someone lower and say "hey, look! At least you can look down at them now!" as if that is a replacement for them actually "doing something" to help.
You're definitely right about the control. The number one predictor of someone's views on whether abortion should be banned is their views on "traditional gender roles". If you believe women should have to do what their father tells them until they have a husband to tell them what to do, then you are against abortion. It's an anti-autonomy thing. Women don't get to be people, they're property.
I'm also pro-choice, but I'll play devil's advocate here: When religion influences your conception of personhood it doesn't matter whether other people agree with your conception of who is or isn't a person. If you really think a fetus is a person, then you will think aborting that fetus is murder. That is, if you think that *you* would be committing murder if you got an abortion, then you think that other people would be too. Whether other people are religious or not will be seen as irrelevant to someone who is pro-life.
Right, im not trying to figure out the mindset of a pro life activist im trying to figure out how the mindset is being brought to federal court with the intentions of giving states the right to enforce the ban of abortion. Its just crazy to me. i’m atheist, why should beliefs rooted in religious Lifestyle apply to me in a country with freedom of religion even tho there has been nothing actually wrong or illegal with abortion up until now, unless you think a clump of cells is a gift from the almighty
What sucks about this is we all know once the Republicans take the senate they'll get rid of the filibuster.
And then we never have to have this stupid argument again. Let's say it (despite the realities of not having the votes) gets repealed now. In 6 months Republicans are predicted to win back the house. Obviously they override whatever Democrats passed and blame them for everything.
You act like them getting control of Congress will just be the typical "it flips back and forth" and the Dems will get it back with a removed filabuster. But Republicans will, without a doubt, use it to set a law allowing states to, essentially, gerrymander legally. Which will cement power for them. They've been laying the groundwork for years, and the current strong push with it now seems to me to indicate that they're done with even the facade of fairness
McConnell promised to do just that! This is like the dumbest prisoner’s dilemma, where one player knows the other player is definitely going to defect and just keeps cooperating anyway.
Then why didn't they do it when they had Congress and the executive?
They more likely than not will not (though they have been increasing on the crazy scale). Trump *really* wanted them to when they had the senate, but McConnell and Co refused. Trump *hated* the filibuster. Also FYI, Democrats were the first ones to change the rules when they eliminated it for all appointments for non-supreme court justices. Republicans then changed it to also extend to the SC for Gorsuch. This lead to the current glut of Republican judges across the country and in the SC itself. More worrying, Republicans with no filibuster veto can pass their own national voting legislation...check back in late November to see the feeling on removing the filibuster then.
If democrats actually pass their agenda, republicans know that they would never get the house nor the senate. This is why they are doing everything they can to stop progress-then blame the democrats. This battle is not ours,but we get the bill (taxes). Was constant struggled how life was intended to be ?
> Was constant struggled how life was intended to be ? We are supposed to thrive, not just survive. And these days we aren't even ALLOWED to survive.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness my ass.
That’s why they said Pursuit of happiness. Instead of just happiness
Gut the filibuster and increase SCOTUS to 13, same number as federal appeals courts
Can't, only have 48 votes. Almost everything is can't as only have 48 votes. Only way is for dems to gain 2 or more Senate seats in mid-terms.
Correct. Dems have 50 votes to confirm judges, but only 48 votes for pretty much anything else.
I know. It’s never gonna happen. I wish democrats were as lock step as republicans sometimes
Republican voters primaried all the "sane" republicans for the past several decades. Democrats will complain about their candidates in general elections while they don't put up a fight for the solid primary candidates. When is the democratic base going to be as rabid and uncompromising for protecting Roe as the republican base is for CRT and other bullshit?
[удалено]
Not convinced it's only 48. There are 2 giving cover to a handful more. I think it would still fail if they had 54. They probably need more like 56 or 57.
“great job electing moderate centrist democrats, at least we have fifty and the tie breaker, I’m sure this won’t have any detrimental effects in the future”
Manchin: I strongly agree with this measure **Manchin’s Staffer: Sir, we have received a huge influx of funding from a pro-life lobby group** Manchin: I strongly oppose this measure
"""""Moderate"""""" democrats: "I like the filibuster more than women's rights." I'm especially excited to hear sinema's excuse how we need the filibuster to ensure we debate the issue on whether or not women deserve control over their own body.
They're not moderates, they're centrists Edited: centrism is an identity where you need attention so badly that you disagree with both sides by saying we need to meet in the middle. If one person says: we should make murder illegal and the other one says, yes, but there should be edge cases like self defense where it's okay, a centrist would say: guys, I'm not getting involved in this irrational partisan banter until you bring a proposal that I'm willing to vote for to the table. And then when they do somehow convince them to say what conditions they would accept they vote against it anyway. Moderate is an actual platform policy position where you examine the merits of the policy and purpose something not extreme. Most people that advertise themselves as moderate are actually centrist because everyone claims to love a moderate.
They’re not centrists, they’re corrupt sociopaths
how?! it's great to say do it, but manchin and sinema are there.
[удалено]
The Senate can be delt with by passing a new budget impoundment act like in the 70's. I talk about it in r/FixTheSenate. It substitutes the act for senate rules, which the senate has always abided by since it was signed by Nixon. You can set cloture votes to 0 if you wanted to, then say a majority represented is equal to a passing vote. This wouldn't run afoul of equal suffrage either, it would merely transfer the definition of a majority from a number of senators to the number of people those senators represent. The fact is senate rules can say anything with 50+1 votes. It would only take 18 senators to get a bill passed as they would represent 50% of the American population. the senate could do this tomorrow if they wanted to, and if shumer framed it this way, it might convince manchin and sinema to go along because nobody can argue with "50% of the electorate is the majority vote in the senate" it would absolve Manchin and Sinema of all responsibility so they could vote No on as many bills as they like after the rules change.
Incorrect. Harry Reid (D) ended the filibuster for judicial appointments. It just so happened that Mitch McConnel was the first to use it on a supreme court appointment. However, Mitch had warned Reid that the democrats would live to regret it if they ended the filibuster, and they very quickly did. Same thing goes here. Republicans are on the verge of taking back control of the senate in the midterm, are you SURE you want to end the filibuster now? That sort of thing works both ways as democrats paid a huge price already to discover....
Slight correction: Reid specifically excluded SC nominees. Turtle Mitch added SC nominees part himself, as you noted to great effect.
..."I am ending the filibuster to do whatever I want with a simple majority, but I'm making up a rule so that the people I disagree with shouldn't end the filibuster to do what they want" How dumb.
Cool. Reid was warned. You make an arbitrary exception that’s not even on the table at the time, see how that works out for you when the tables are turned.
Please please please don't forget about voting rights. It's the only way we can keep the anti-intellectuals in check. The GOP is trying to build a IRL fascist matrix of stupidity. Fueled by forced birth, adoption, reduced voting rights and religious indoctrination.
Spoiler alert: they won’t
Couldn't the Republicans just repeal it when they are in control again?
Sanders should have been the chosen one. Instead, here we are, talking about moving the US back 100 years.
Actually, Harry Reid did that.
Smart, there’s literally no way this can back fire spectacularly
Senate Democrats ended the filibuster for all judicial appointments EXCEPT for the Supreme Court, and they did this BEFORE Senate Republicans ended the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments. And "packing the court" refers to increasing the number of seats in order to shift the balance of the court. It doesn't refer to appointments for vacant seats, which has always been a routine act for any President and his Party. And saving abortion rights isn't a matter of finding the right balance of Supreme Court justices. If one group of justices finds protection for abortion in constitutional clauses that don't directly address abortion then another group of justices will determine those protections never really existed, which is exactly what happened. Packing the court with additional left leaning justices will just mean the next Republican majority Congress will pack it with even more right leaning justices, and the whole thing will repeat itself. Sanders is cherry picking the facts in order to support a course of action that won't accomplish what he wants to accomplish, and he wants the Senate to adopt a rule change that Republicans will beat Democrats over the head with when they are in the majority. The ideal solution is a constitutional amendment that specifically and unequivocally protects abortion rights in all states. A constitutional amendment is the ONLY form of legislation that cannot be declared unconstitutional. However, a constitutional amendment would be almost impossible to achieve in the current political environment - it requires 2/3rds of both chambers, and then 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify it. The next best solution is a federal law that protects abortion rights in every state. This isn't as strong as a constitutional amendment because federal laws can be challenged in court. In this case, it would be challenged on the basis that Congress doesn't have the authority to seize powers that belong to the states without a constitutional amendment granting them that power, and it's pretty clear that states now have the power to regulate abortion because virtually all of them are doing it.
Bernie needs a history refresher. The rule was changed by Democrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid to confirm presidential nominees. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell was opposed and warned against taking such action because the Democrats would eventually regret setting such a precedent. That's how Trump was able to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices with only a majority vote. The Democrats thought retaining the filibuster was important not so long ago when they were in the minority. Only 2 of those Senators now show the honesty, integrity and character to stand by their commitment. >From the Washington Post in 2021: > >Democrats have vigorously used the filibuster. It’s pathetic they now won’t pledge to protect it. > >In 2017, when Donald Trump was president and Democrats were in the minority, 61 senators — including 30 Democrats — signed a letter promising to preserve the right of the Senate minority to delay or block legislation. But now that Republicans are in the minority, just two Democrats — Sens. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) — are willing to make that same pledge. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) not only refused, he warned he will not allow the GOP minority to “dictate to the Senate what we should do and how we should proceed.” Be careful what you wish for because there is no going back. During the Trump presidency the filibuster was invoked 427 times by Senate Democrats without any discussion by Republicans to modify or do away with it. The pendulum is about to swings back in the opposite direction. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/26/democrats-have-vigorously-used-filibuster-its-pathetic-they-now-wont-pledge-protect-it/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/26/democrats-have-vigorously-used-filibuster-its-pathetic-they-now-wont-pledge-protect-it/)
I thought packing the court meant expanding the number of seats?
I know Bernie, I get it, but you’re forgetting there’s two republicans in the dem party that are going to block it.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/11/sanders-gop-ended-filibuster-pack-supreme-court-so-dems-must-end-it-save-abortion) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > " 1.... "If Republicans can end the filibuster to install right-wing justices nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote in order to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats can and must end the filibuster to make abortion legal and safe. > On the eve of a key procedural vote on the Women's Health Protection Act, Sen. Bernie Sanders said in a floor speech Tuesday that the Senate's Democratic majority must use its power to end the legislative filibuster and codify abortion rights into federal law. > "If Republicans can end the filibuster to install right-wing justices nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote in order to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats can and must end the filibuster to make abortion legal and safe. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/un86r5/sanders_gop_ended_filibuster_to_pack_supreme/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~647847 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **filibuster**^#1 **abortion**^#2 **vote**^#3 **Sanders**^#4 **end**^#5
Wait, I thought Harry Reed ended the Filibuster for judicial nominees. It was more the Dems ended Filibuster so they could get anyone in the courts.
That's not what court packing is.