• usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I don’t follow what you are saying when that’s what would have to happen to do this?

    In 2022, she’s also said she supports removing the filibuster to get voting rights acts and other things through as well

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Republicans got rid of the fulibuster for only judicial nominations so they could stack the courts after years of using the filibuster to deny Dem nominations. It isn’t an all or nothing thing.

      The wording of getting rid of the filibuster for abortion was previously floated as a one time exception and then keeping around for everything else. This sounded like the same thing, just ending it for the one topic, not ending it in general.

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yes, however, doing it for one type of legislation is opening the same flood gates as any legislation. Given that she’s historically called the filibusted archaic and not something she wants in the way of voting rights as well. I don’t see her wanting it removed narrowly

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        This would be the typical Dem strategy - extremely targeted so as not to accidentally open the floodgates for additional impactful legislation to get passed. Just barely enough to campaign on for the next election cycle.

        But hey, I’ll take a smidgeon of hope for something more.

        • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s also the most likely way of getting a bill passed without requiring a Senate super majority. The Grand obstructionist party doesn’t want to lose their one move when they don’t have presidential veto for general so it’s probably going to take a super majority to break up the 30+ year long gridlock since the last amendment was passed, but if you target specific usages and committee procedures you can try to turn the conservative representatives who were personally affected by the law.