- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 30,716
- Reaction score
- 22,320
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Have you thought of the future? Doing away with the filibuster for legislation would make any law passed be in the same status of an executive order. Any new president can revoke, repeal, change EO’s to his whim. With no filibuster, when the senate changes hands, a simple majority can repeal any law previously passed. Abortion may be legal today under a Democratic controlled senate, but illegal tomorrow under a GOP controlled senate who simply repealed the democrat’s passed abortion law. Then with a simple majority vote, the GOP can make any and all abortion illegal and repeal any passed law they don’t like.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.
I look at this akin to Ex-senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid’s precedence setting, first use of the nuclear option. Yes, it netted him and the democrats a short-term gain. But in the long run, Reid’s first use of the nuclear option benefited the Republicans to the tune of 3 SCOTUS judges.
With knee jerk reactions, which I would deem doing away with the filibuster today, may in the future, the long come back to haunt all those who believe in abortion rights. That is unless you think the Democrats will control the senate from now until dooms day. It seems Harry Reid thought that to be the case when he first used the nuclear option. That he never thought it would come back to bite him and the Democrats in the butt.
My only advice is to think things through before one acts. Weigh what might happen in the future. Keep in mind a law would have to cover many different abortion views. 19% think abortion should be illegal in all instances, 29% think abortion should be legal only for rape, incest, a mother’s life in danger. 72% think abortion should be banned after the first trimester. Can you come up with a law to make all of them happy? Where will the line be drawn? Think before one acts. You may make more people mad than happy.