Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) single-handedly raised the stakes of the 2024 elections on Tuesday, revealing he’d consider carving out rare exceptions to allow votes on protecting voting and abortion rights.
Schumer’s plan would move the Senate closer to getting rid of the filibuster, a longtime rule that requires 60 votes instead of a simple 50 vote majority to advance legislation.
Then fucking do it, and stop talking about doing it until you do it
He can’t, as this is an ideological split between the parties and would need to go through the house as well, where it would fail. Bringing this up now helps inform voters of an issue that could be resolved if Democrats turn out and take control of the house while retaining control of the Senate and executive branch.
It’s more about getting the republicans on record with a vote on a clean bill. Hard to campaign when you voted no on voting rights.
Especially if it forces GOPers to vote against rape, viability and incest exceptions. Getting those fucks on record about that would be awesome.
.
Showing the Dems will actually do something would motivate the apathetic people. It isn’t about swaying existing voters, it is about increasing the number of people who vote by giving them something to vote for.
.
It is about putting the GOP on the record to motivate the voters by taking some kind of action.
Try to keep up.
.
If if if if if if.
I don’t buy for a second that he will ditch the filibuster if the Dems have control. They could get rid of it right now and they would be no worse off than when the Republicans have the house, senate, and oval office and choose to ditch it to pass their project 2025 bullshit like they neutered it to stack the courts.
Ditching the filibuster, passing the legislation, and then blaming the house for not following through should dominate the election discussion.
You don’t have to get rid of the filibuster. You only have to get rid of the procedural filibuster. Make 'em stand and talk.
Maybe keeping people in office till they’re 80 and 90+ would be less appealing if they had to stay in session for a real physical filibuster?
Strom Thurmond was already 53 when he did his 24-hour filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. I’m convinced he still could’ve done it at 100 years old when he left office fueled by nothing but hate.
The majority already has the power to “make em stand and talk”. They generally choose not to in order to avoid wasting everyone’s time.
