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.”
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.
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.
Removed by mod
They need 50 and the VP.
But they only had at most 48 and the VP because Manchin and Sinema torpedoed the discussion before it could be put to vote.
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?
There wasn’t?
There was. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/obama-promised-to-sign-the-freedom-of-choice-act-o
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.