- Joined
- Jun 14, 2019
- Messages
- 1,333
- Reaction score
- 732
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
When Sinema and Manchin want to give Republicans their way while pretending they wished it were otherwise, they hide behind a supposed reverence for the filibuster. That may soon be all that stands in the way of a federal law that would restore abortion rights nationally, if the high court does, indeed, overturn Roe. Sinema and Manchin have made it clear they won't vote to repeal the filibuster, but how about just trimming it?
This has already happened repeatedly. For example, the way Republicans jammed these extremist conservatives onto the high court in the first place was that the filibuster has been made inapplicable to Supreme Court confirmations. There's also the reconciliation process, that says that so long as the parliamentarian affirms certain things about House and Senate bills, a reconciled package can be passed in the Senate with a simple majority vote. This would just extend that concept.
The idea would be to make it so if the parliamentarian affirms that the law in question only reimposes a federal rule that was struck down when a federal court reversed an earlier case, then a simple majority is enough in the Senate. That would do very little to erode the filibuster, since it's a scenario that might only come up once per generation. It would also apply, for instance, if the high court's theocrats were to reverse the earlier ruling requiring equal access to marriage for gay couples. If they struck that down, tossing things back to the states, a simple majority in the Senate would be all they needed to pass a bill that would restore those rights nationally.
I think it would be a lot harder for Sinema and Manchin (and Collins and any other supposedly pro-choice Republicans) to cower behind a feigned reverence for procedure, if instead of blowing up the filibuster, we were just reworking it very slightly.
This has already happened repeatedly. For example, the way Republicans jammed these extremist conservatives onto the high court in the first place was that the filibuster has been made inapplicable to Supreme Court confirmations. There's also the reconciliation process, that says that so long as the parliamentarian affirms certain things about House and Senate bills, a reconciled package can be passed in the Senate with a simple majority vote. This would just extend that concept.
The idea would be to make it so if the parliamentarian affirms that the law in question only reimposes a federal rule that was struck down when a federal court reversed an earlier case, then a simple majority is enough in the Senate. That would do very little to erode the filibuster, since it's a scenario that might only come up once per generation. It would also apply, for instance, if the high court's theocrats were to reverse the earlier ruling requiring equal access to marriage for gay couples. If they struck that down, tossing things back to the states, a simple majority in the Senate would be all they needed to pass a bill that would restore those rights nationally.
I think it would be a lot harder for Sinema and Manchin (and Collins and any other supposedly pro-choice Republicans) to cower behind a feigned reverence for procedure, if instead of blowing up the filibuster, we were just reworking it very slightly.
