this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
652 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5309 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 280 points 3 months ago (27 children)

"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.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 143 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.)

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] digredior@lemmynsfw.com 26 points 3 months ago

Holy fucking shit, I wish I shared your generalized optimism

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

I want to believe! ;)

[–] rustydomino@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Whether this winds up being true or not, you’ve made my day just a bit better with your optimism. Thanks my dude.

[–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Was 538 wrong or do people just not understand statistics?

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 56 points 3 months ago (11 children)

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.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 34 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago (16 children)

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.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Roe v Wade looked secure in 2008. It's only in hindsight that we can say "coulda woulda shoulda".

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

I’m not disagreeing with you. Things that important should be codified instead of being left to the whim of the courts.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago (22 children)

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)

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If they have all of those things (again) and still don't give us Medicare for all (again) I'm fucking done.

[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 14 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)

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.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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!”

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)