Warren: Democrats ‘will suspend the filibuster’ to codify Roe v. Wade
Warren: Democrats ‘will suspend the filibuster’ to codify Roe v. Wade
Progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday that there are currently enough votes in the Senate to suspend the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade and abortion rights if Democrats win control of the House and keep the Senate and White House.
“We will suspend the filibuster. We have the votes for that on Roe v. Wade,” Warren said on ABC’s “The View.”
She said if Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2025, “the first vote Democrats will take in the Senate, the first substantive vote, will be to make Roe v. Wade law of the land again in America.”
You're viewing a single thread.
"if Democrats win control of the House and keep the Senate and White House."
You should have done that years ago when you had the opportunity and everyone was telling you, begging you, to do it.
Now it's too late.
It's not too late but they're not getting credit until they actually fucking do it and they deserve credit for just saying they want to do it without doing it.
(Edit: And to be clear the credit they're going to get would be credit for doing the bare minimum, long after they promised to do it, long after they had multiple opportunities to do it.)
Even if they agree to get rid of the filibuster on this one issue, it won't do any good with the House under Republican control.
With the receeding of GOP support on this issue alone, there is no fucking way way they are keeping the Senate or House. Every dipshit political analyst out there who has not been paying attention for the last 1.5 years needs a swift kick in the head over their awful projection maps (looking at you, Nate). They've consistently been wrong, and calling all these flips in support "SURPRISES!".
It's not surprising that women and reasonable people are making this their single issue to vote on, and against normal party lines. It will carry to November, and until this bullshit is ended. Watch.
Holy fucking shit, I wish I shared your generalized optimism
I want to believe! ;)
Whether this winds up being true or not, you’ve made my day just a bit better with your optimism. Thanks my dude.
Was 538 wrong or do people just not understand statistics?
538 is wrong most of the time. Nate Silver has gone back to claiming none of his work is designed to predict outcomes, he's "just running stats" now 🙄
Whatever you think of him, know his models didn't get a thing right with regard to elections after the Roe v Wade issue came back to light. The cycle goes like this: his data is wrong, he tells everyone it's correct, then he writes some bullshit explaining how everyone else is stupid for reading his own published data wrong, but it was actually right in the end.
Just take everything with a handful of salt unless there's an obvious change affecting the numbers.
I'm not sure that's correct. 538 was always a polling aggregator, but people treated it like 60% chance means "for sure." I think what we're now seeing is we don't actually have much good polling data due to extremism, and therefore sites like 538 aren't as valuable.
I distinctly remember Silver refused to make a prediction on who would win in 2016 because he insisted that Trump's 33% odds according to 538 meant there was a very real chance of a Trump victory. But everyone came out an blamed Silver for calling it wrong.
I don't actually like the guy, I think his analysis and political savvy is pretty weak and he comes off as incredibly arrogant. But he literally just runs a weighted data aggregator. So if the data is bad, his results will be bad too.
His models use aggregated data to create what he has shifted from calling "predictions", to now being called "data" (as in, "the data says..."), or more recently just flat out calling them "odds". Keep in mind he does not open source his analytics at all.
So taking that into mind, he's just rebranding subtly, sure. His company got bought by Disney, and I'm sure they put the hammer down on the language because they are now an easy target to get sued. Fair enough. My issue is that prior to all of this, he was plainly making predictions, and used those words to say as much. He even talked at length about it, and why he started changing his own words to describe his work.
So he called them predictions the few times his data aligned with real-world outcomes, but on the downslope of his popularity in doing so, is backing away from that attitude.
Lay people will still read exactly what he's doing as making predictions.
subscribe
They've only had a filibuster-proof majority once since 1980. They used it to pass the ACA (which should have included codifying Roe v Wade, among other things). It's not too late if we can elect enough willing Congress members.
This is a story about suspending the filibuster. Which they should have done in Obama's term instead of letting Lieberman dictate terms for the insurance industry.
I'm aware of that. They need 51 votes to do it. They talked about suspending the filibuster in 2020 but Manchin and Sinema shut that down.
You don't need a filibuster proof majority to suspend the filibuster, so there's no relevance to how rarely they've had that.
Talking about the Democratic party's history with the filibuster isn't related to a current Democratic Senator's comments on the filibuster?
No? Why would it be. You don't need a filibuster proof margin to eliminate the filibuster. If your point had been "a filibuster proof majority is so incredibly rare it makes governing essentially impossible" that would be relevant, but just pointing out we only had one once so that's why Roe wasn't codified is not.
Senator Warren's comments, and this post about them, aren't just about the filibuster. It's also about codifying Roe v Wade. And I was replying to someone who said they should have done something about when they could have. The only times they could have are when they either suspended the filibuster or when they had a filibuster-proof majority. And my reply related to the last time the Democratic party could have reasonably done anything about Roe v Wade, which just so happens to have been the last time the only time they had a filibuster-proof majority.
I don't know why you're gatekeeping so hard here. The votes on my comments indicate everyone else thinks I'm making positive contributions to the discussion. So maybe just relax a little and let people converse on the topic.
The votes on my comments indicate...
LOL.
my point with that was simply that you seem to be the only one who thinks I'm offtopic.
We didn't have the votes to get it done in 2020 as the person you responded to pointed out. No, we didn't need a filibuster proof majority, but we needed a voting majority to suspend the filibuster, which we didn't have with Sinema and Manchin. Outside of Obama and the ACA, there hasn't been an opportunity to get anything through both chambers that didn't have Republican support.
So it is a valid excuse for why it's not been codified without a filibuster proof majority.
When we have the seats, we find the no votes.
Roe v Wade looked secure in 2008. It's only in hindsight that we can say "coulda woulda shoulda".
I’m not disagreeing with you. Things that important should be codified instead of being left to the whim of the courts.
If it looked secure back then, why was there talk of codifying it back then?
For sure hindsight is 20/20. I wonder if we should retire that phrase.
All it takes is 51 votes to eliminate the filibuster.
Yea...I wouldn't bring up the ACA anymore. It destroyed US healthcare in a bad way.
It should have been universal healthcare and instead we got the most pro health insurance bill in history.
Denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions is no longer a thing because of the ACA. It wasn't good enough to stop there, but it was good enough that the Republicans still can't repeal it.
They can't deny you coverage if you can afford coverage is the catch
The ACA was rebranded RomneyCare
Which came from the Heritage Foundation
I wonder when Project 2025 will be the "reasonable compromise" that Democrats laud as progress and coast on for 15 years.
2028
Not very long, The Heritage foundation also helped draft NAFTA.
They will always have Republicans introduce a bill that will be universally hated by democrats to get past the initial outcry. A Democrat then takes the reins after a few years and liberals love the idea.
Just for fun, I looked at the last 50 years to see WHEN they could have codified Roe. There were only 4 periods with dem trifectas:
-1977-81 senate majority 6
-1993-95 senate majorty 4
-2009-11 senate majority 9 (10 for a month)
-2021-23 senate majority 1
The senate majority is the number of senators you could loose who didn't want to get rid of the filibuster on this topic OR who were pro life (like Harry Reid, the senate majority leader from 2005 to 2017, though in the senate from 1987-2017)
The problem is the Dems have TWO conservative senators who refused to codify Roe. Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema both refused to suspend the filibuster.
So we did NOT have a filibuster-proof majority 2021-2023.
There were only 4 periods with dem trifectas
So ONLY 4 times when there was absolutely nothing standing in their way except themselves?
That they don't do what they promised on the rare occasions where they DO get the magic majorities they ask to get first isn't exactly a good argument in their favor..
We got the ACA in the last one, and in the most recent one two Democrat senators defected to oppose it so it couldn't go forward.
We got the ACA in the last one
Which they negotiated into a giant giveaway to insurance companies with no price controls or other ways to limit profiteering. WITHOUT any Republicans forcing them to or even voting for the bill.
two Democrat senators defected to oppose it so it couldn't go forward.
Yeah, there's always a rotating villain or two who acts as a roadblock and scapegoat. So very convenient for a party that votes for legislation that their rich owner donors want much more often than legislation that the people at large want.
Especially since the rotating villains are always heavily promoted by party leadership and paid more party funds for their campaigns than most other candidates.
The ACA, while not perfect, literally saved my life. It prohibits lifetime maximums and eliminated the idea of pre-existing conditions.
Without that, I'd be dead.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
This place is full of people who want to turn an aircraft carrier on a dime. They'll never be happy with anything and it explains why their big ideas will never happen.
They turn everyone off and discourage everyone because nothing is ever good enough. It would be one thing to be happy but not satisfied but even that isn't enough.
I know.
They have unrealistic expectations about how the world works and feel like anger, even if justified, should be enough.
the flaws in the ACA only exist cause follow up bills to patch the holes that came up after rollout couldnt be passed due to, you guessed it, republicans.
cause republicans are against anything and everything that benefits the 99.9%
Indeed. Everyone tries to blame Democrats for, when they have the slimmest of majorities, for not doing everything, when there are literally 49 Republican senators out there who are the ones who are truly blocking progress.
I'm glad it saved your life and I am aware that it was an improvement over the former status quo.
That being said, though, it's inadequacies HAVE lead to the deaths of many, perhaps thousands or even hundreds of thousands, from not being able to afford treatment before it's too late.
Dems had a unique opportunity to save as many lives as possible, and they negotiated themselves down to a tiny step in the right direction and then pretended that it's the best anyone could possibly do.
It's been over a decade and a half since they took that tiny step and they're still resting on their laurels and vehemently opposing anyone who suggests that improvements are needed or even possible.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
I'm so fucking tired of that lame argument for complacency.
Incrementalism isn't good. Taking a tiny step in the right direction and then declaring victory as the other party predictably makes it worse than it originally was as both parties gradually turn further and further right isn't good.
It's throwing rare scraps to the starving masses from the banquets they throw for their owner donors, including the health insurance industry leeches that the ACA massively enriches.
Politics is about incremental progress, which is not sexy enough for you guys. If you want the revolution, go start it. Shit or get off the can. All this moral grandstanding is vacuous and meaningless
Politics is about incremental progress
Because that's what the powerful have decided for you, NOT because it's the best way.
If you want the revolution, go start it. Shit or get off the can
"If you don't like my favorite band, make better music yourself" 🙄
All this moral grandstanding is vacuous and meaningless
Yeah, expressing dissent should be for those with the power to change things themselves only. What a great idea! 🙄
Just my opinion, but this is not expressing dissent: This is nihilistic apathy. Expressing dissent typically comes with a call to action or a plan. Being politically active is not the equivalent of starting your own band and the fact that that's what you took from it is very telling. Again, if you've resigned yourself to what has been charted out by the powerful either shit or get off the can. This is just political apathy disguised as voicing dissent for edgy points.
this is not expressing dissent: This is nihilistic apathy.
You clearly don't have any idea what either of those two words mean.
Expressing dissent typically comes with a call to action or a plan
No. It's possible and in fact a good thing to speak up when the people who are supposed to represent you aren't doing their job. Whether or not you have everything they need to do in stead ready for them to reflexively reject.
Being politically active is not the equivalent of starting your own band and the fact that that's what you took from it is very telling
I was using a simplified analogy to illustrate the folly of your "fix it or shut up about it being broken" approach to government, not making a 1:1 comparison.
Again, if you've resigned yourself to what has been charted out by the powerful
As is clear by my dissent, I have NOT meekly resigned myself to the status quo, like you seem to have m
either shit or get off the can
I can make unreasonable demands too: either learn what words mean and get a better catch phrase or shut up.
This is just political apathy disguised as voicing dissent for edgy points.
Nope. That's still not what apathy means. You might mean contrarianism. You'd still be wrong, but at least your false accusation would be logically consistent with the rest of your reductionist pro-establishment rant.
That being said, though, it’s inadequacies HAVE lead to the deaths of many, perhaps thousands or even hundreds of thousands, from not being able to afford treatment before it’s too late.
Yeah, but less people died than they would have if there was no ACA.
Its terrible that people die in the country every day from healthcare issues that are taken care of by every other first world country on the planet.
but god damn, sitting here saying shit like you are screams of nothing but impotent anti-ACA troll flailing.
the ACA needs to have its holes patched, yes, but don't sit here and pretend its not saving a fuckton of lives.
Having a pro-lifer as the majority leader is a big stumbling block. Don't know much about the first two post-roe trifectas, but I do know there was a particular democratic house member that voted to amend the constitution to overturn Roe
Having a pro-lifer as the majority leader is a big stumbling block
Which they put there themselves. Like with most of the barriers they blame their feckless inaction on.
Don't know much about the first two post-roe trifectas, but I do know there was a particular democratic house member that voted to amend the constitution to overturn Roe
And they awarded him by making him a senator, then VP and then president.
If they have all of those things (again) and still don't give us Medicare for all (again) I'm fucking done.
I was at the beginning of my voting age when Obama came around with his "Yes we can" campaign. Turns out, no we couldn't. The corruption is too entrenched for any lasting progress to withstand the types of legalized bribery we have now. Biden is more of the same. Everyone knows it and is pissed off on both sides! The right has been hijacked by grifters and fascists. The left is desperately trying to squeeze out a few more good years. Yet the underlying problem of corruption remains steadfast. It would be nice to unify both sides and cut down those that are selling our country out.
The Obama era is when many of these problems started.
You're not allowed to be done, that makes you a Russian bot who wants fascism!
I think Machinema opposed it then. Though if she says she's got 50 now, it requires at least one of them. They should have done this all in Obama's first term though.
You mean in the couple months that the democrats controlled all three branches of government in the past 20 years? During that time we got the ACA. Vote blue across the board in November to have a chance at getting all three branches blue again to actually accomplish something.
How about 2021 to 2022 when we had the majority in the House, a majority in the Senate, and the White House.
Previously, Manchin and Sinema opposed ending the filibuster. Manchin opposed codifying Roe v Wade.
Yes, Just enough DEMOCRATS. Like fucking always.
That doesn't count because it makes centrists look bad.
The USSC would just say that it’s unconstitutional at this point, even if they codify it into law.
Hell, they’d probably declare it unconstitutional even if it was a literal constitutional amendment, simply because it wasn’t one of the original amendments laid out in the bill of rights, thus also laying out the legal precedent for challenging literally any of the constitutional amendments that weren’t in the bill of rights.
When elected into a supermajority with a clear mandate: “well, sorry sweetie, we just have other priorities.”
When facing a landslide defeat this election season: “trust us voters, we will do the right thing this time and totally not let you down!”
When they're in power: Reach across the aisle! Government is about compromise!
When they're at risk of losing power: Vote for us because we're not as bad as the Other Guys!
One thing I know for sure about “bipartisan compromise” - whenever it happens, it means the American people are getting absolutely screwed.
Damn, I thought they'd actually grown a pair for once.
As always, they are actually bound by the rules of our government. Checks and balances. They can't just do something, they need the numbers. They are stating their intent on what they'll do if voters give them the numbers.
Because it's entirely in voters hands now. There is no bipartisanship to be had. We need absolute majorities, even super majorities if we actually want to truly fix things like our blatantly corrupt SCOTUS.
Voting matters.
Strangely...the R's haven't been bound by the rules of government. They cause havoc at will.
It's easier to cause havoc with bad faith appointments, misusing approved funds, etc, than to pass anything by vote.
It's easier to destroy than to build.
It’s easier to destroy than to build.
They can't even destroy their support for israel and their campaign of genocide. I'm tired of the excuses.
So when the Republicans under McConnel took control of the Senate during Obama's term, the procedural rules were already such the tax and budgetary bills (reconciliation) we're not subject to filibuster. Those were basically the only bills McConnel would bring to the floor during his time as Senate Majority Leader. The Democratic caucus can, and has, passed reconciliation bills too so it's not something only the Republicans have been able to do. It's just that they have also wanted to do things that are subject to the filibuster.
It’s just that they have also wanted to do things that are subject to the filibuster.
No they haven't. They just run on those things, never had any intention at all of passing them, and use the filibuster as an excuse for breaking campaign promises, knowing that there are plenty of people who accept their excuses at face value.
Yes, I am aware that our government is built to be disappointing.
Our government was built to be amended if our elected officials could agree on direction. It's our elected officials that are disappointing. And our voters that elect them.
And no, I'm not both sides-ing this. Corporate dems are certainly a problem, but no where near as bad as the entire GOP at this point. And I suspect Dems would be amenable to passing things like ranked choice voting if there was actually a chance at it happening.
It’s our elected officials that are disappointing. And our voters that elect them.
Boy howdy are they disappointing
they are actually bound
Checks and balances
They can't
they need the numbers
stating their intent
if voters give them the numbers
in voters hands
need absolute majorities
Voting matters
So many fucking tired excuses and so much blaming the voters for the people they elected not representing them faithfully 🤦
It is the job of politicians to earn the faith of voters and then repay that faith by representing the will of the people.
It's not the job of voters to reward them for decades of bad deals and for always giving up in advance "because we just don't have the votes" by voting for more conservative Democrats who will just do the same bullshit with the same excuses and victim blaming.
There is no bipartisanship to be had.
Tell that to the Dem leadership and their pet media who act like compromise for the sake of compromise is the highest political virtue even now that the other party is a literal fascist party 🤬
And that's a whole lot of ignoring reality on your part.
Our government, for better AND for worse, was structured so that a president couldn't go rogue and do whatever they want. For most mundane things, they need a simple majority in both houses. For serious rewriting of fundamental rules (amendments), you need super majorities. And a SCOTUS to safeguard.
This is so that the next Nixon, the next Trump (who might just be Trump) can't single handedly upend this country and bend it to their wills. Like Putin did.
However, the GOP has corrupted all branches, all levels of the courts, including SCOTUS. This is why they get away with all the shit that they do, while the Dems seem impotent. Because they have spent generations undermining our checks and balances while the Dems have mostly played fair, albeit with a fair amount of corporate subservience.
You rage against a machine without understanding the parameters. The Dems are shackled by law. And the key to it all was the GOP owning the SCOTUS, thanks to all you conscientious objectors that let Trump gain power and heavily stack the courts. Because you think both parties are the fucking same.
Why are the Dems shackled by law but not Republicans? I'll save you the time: it was designed that way. Progress is hard, regression is easy.
Why do we, the people, allow this system to exist when it conclusively proves to us year after year that it is not a government that works for us?
Our government, for better AND for worse, was structured so that a president couldn't go rogue and do whatever they want.
No longer, apparently.
However, the GOP has corrupted all branches, all levels of the courts, including SCOTUS.
True. Because the Dems have let them by not fighting back.
This is why they get away with all the shit that they do, while the Dems
seemact impotent.Fixed that for you.
Because they have spent generations undermining our checks and balances while the Dems have
mostly played fairdone fuck-allFixed that one for you as well. Weird that you keep making mistakes that excuse the spineless inaction of the Dems 🤔
albeit with a
fairhuge amount of corporate subservienceFinally being halfway honest about their fault in this. Let's see if it lasts.
The Dems are shackled by law
Nope, didn't even last two sentences. They're shackling themselves and blaming things like rules, procedures and rotating villains that are within their power to change or overcome.
thanks to all you conscientious objectors that let Trump gain power
I was wondering when that particular victim blaming strawman was gonna rear its ugly head..
For the record, I've never not voted or told others not to vote.
And the vast majority of Bernie voters voted for Hillary in the general. Unlike Hillary's PUMA and others, who voted for McCain or not at all in much bigger percentages.
Because you think both parties are the fucking same.
Another strawman.
Just because I realize that the Dems are doing an awful job doesn't mean that I think they're anywhere near as awful as the literal fascists on the other side of the aisle. I don't.
Conversely, though, the other party being a literal fascist party doesn't mean that we should demand less from Dems. On the contrary, this is when we MOST need them to fight tooth and nail and get things done!
a whole lot of ignoring reality on your part
I'm not the one doing that, apparatchik.
You rage against a machine without understanding the parameters
I understand just fine. You, on the other hand, reflexively believe everything the machine spits out, even though much of is demonstrably false.
People like you putting the bar at "just slightly better than Republicans" and demanding that everyone else do the same for decades is how the Dems have gotten away with just putting band aids on the limbs Republicans break and moving right to chase the mythical "undecided voter" even as they decry rising polarization.
Which in turn is how Republicans have gotten away with becoming a fascist party and still remaining competitive in a country that ascended to their current place in the world by fighting fascists in WWII.
Demand better. BE better.
Be better.
This exactly. Abortion is to Democrats what guns are to Republicans. It's the football issue they can constantly hold over the base as a reason why it's desperately important to elect them. But they would never ever actually solve the issue for good, because then they lose their football.
Democrats didn't codify abortion when they had the chance. Republicans made no effort on guns when they had the chance. It wasn't an accident.
They're always needs to be an 'elect us or else' issue because neither party does enough useful stuff to win hearts and minds on their own. Especially when their nominees are totally uncompelling.
The Democrats are hoarding footballs at this point. They have plenty of other issues that they can pivot to. Raising the minimum wage, Medicare for all, RCV, UBI, etc.
OTOH Republicans only have a couple footballs left before they have to resort to red herrings.
Republicans only have a couple footballs left before they have to resort to red herrings.
They already have. Voter ID laws and election integrity I think might be the most obvious, suggesting that there are millions of illegal voters on the books and that reducing poll sites and making it harder to register to vote is somehow going to fix that.