Biden Now Supports Ending Filibuster To Codify Roe v Wade

[2012Bearcat]

Biden to support ending filibuster to protect abortion access

President Biden announced that he supports Congress ending the filibuster in order to pass legislation creating a national right to abortion and codifying Roe v. Wade.

www.foxnews.com

I do agree that Congress does need to create legislation on abortion but changing the rules to silence any input from those that oppose abortion is not the way to do it. But hey you Democrats do what you think you need to do and end the filibuster, no way it comes back to bite you in the ass,

 

[windriverrange]

Harry Reid says hold my beer Joe.

Unless there is an incredible U-Turn for legitimate attempts to downsize government from a walmart cart riding grossly obese individual to one that fits in a baby seat, we're headed for Balkanization folks. Government agencies (per your other post about the Texas Oil Fields) and POS parasitic whore politicians have far too much power and need to be reigned in substantially.

 

[aix_xpert]

I'm surprised that there's not enough in the middle to codify some kind of common sense European-level abortion standard. Maybe like France's 14 weeks or Germany's 12 week standard. But I think that ship has sailed already.

As for dropping the filibuster, I hope they don't because then the dictatorship will then be upon us. Every left wing cause will be justifed, and then in 2-4 years, every right wing cause will be justified. And the middle will truly be dead.

 

[windriverrange]

White House Promotes Website Advising Children About Hiding Abortions from Parents

The White House responded to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade by promoting a website advising children how to hide their abortions.

www.breitbart.com

Values are so misplaced by these fools........this is not, I repeat not, the governments freakin job. Especially an administration that pretty much sucks at everything they touch. So inappropriate....but hey, keep digging that November hole folks.

 

[2012Bearcat]

I'm surprised that there's not enough in the middle to codify some kind of common sense European-level abortion standard. Maybe like France's 14 weeks or Germany's 12 week standard. But I think that ship has sailed already.

As for dropping the filibuster, I hope they don't because then the dictatorship will then be upon us. Every left wing cause will be justifed, and then in 2-4 years, every right wing cause will be justified. And the middle will truly be dead.

If anything needs to change it's increasing the number of votes needed in the Senate to advance legislation. That alone will solve much of the division in this country and get us back to having true Statesman in the Senate.

 

[my_2cents]

To be precise, Biden isn't calling for a complete end to the filibuster (as he should). He is publicly calling for an exception to the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade into law. Just as he did with voting rights and similar to the exceptions the Senate has in place on other policy issues.

Biden, of course, is right and it is about time he publicly called for this. Schumer needs to move on this immediately and have a vote. All Senators should go on record with the American people as to where they stand on this.

 

[my_2cents]

If anything needs to change it's increasing the number of votes needed in the Senate to advance legislation.

🙄

Minority rule needs to be ended in this country, not expanded.

 

[aix_xpert]

🙄

Minority rule needs to be ended in this country, not expanded.

Extremist rule needs to be ended in this country, not expanded.

 

[my_2cents]

Extremist rule needs to be ended in this country, not expanded.

I agree, hence the reason why I stated minority rule needs to be ended.

 

[davidallen]

Biden to support ending filibuster to protect abortion access

President Biden announced that he supports Congress ending the filibuster in order to pass legislation creating a national right to abortion and codifying Roe v. Wade.

www.foxnews.com

I do agree that Congress does need to create legislation on abortion but changing the rules to silence any input from those that oppose abortion is not the way to do it. But hey you Democrats do what you think you need to do and end the filibuster, no way it comes back to bite you in the ass,

Sounds like maybe we need some kind of "proxy" vote on this. If only we had an election coming up to debate this issue....

 

[davidallen]

I'm surprised that there's not enough in the middle to codify some kind of common sense European-level abortion standard. Maybe like France's 14 weeks or Germany's 12 week standard. But I think that ship has sailed already.

As for dropping the filibuster, I hope they don't because then the dictatorship will then be upon us. Every left wing cause will be justifed, and then in 2-4 years, every right wing cause will be justified. And the middle will truly be dead.

Liking the first part. Not so much the second paragraph.

 

[aix_xpert]

Liking the first part. Not so much the second paragraph.

What don't you like in the 2nd paragraph? Removing the filibuster means the end of compromise and extremist policies will continuously be enacted by the party in charge. And every new legislative session where the controlling party changes will lead to the harsh swinging of the pendulum from left to right or vice versa. I can't fathom how anyone would think that's good for the country.

 

[davidallen]

What don't you like in the 2nd paragraph? Removing the filibuster means the end of compromise and extremist policies will continuously be enacted by the party in charge. And every new legislative session where the controlling party changes will lead to the harsh swinging of the pendulum from left to right or vice versa. I can't fathom how anyone would think that's good for the country.

If your happy with the status quo/back room politics then yeah, keep what we've got. I'd rather see shit get done and politicians rewarded or punished at the polls.

 

[aix_xpert]

If your happy with the status quo/back room politics then yeah, keep what we've got. I'd rather see shit get done and politicians rewarded or punished at the polls.

I guess we differ there. I'd rather nothing get done, than a wild swing every couple years of extremist policies being enacted, then countermanded, then re-enacted.

 

[CowboyJD]

What don't you like in the 2nd paragraph? Removing the filibuster means the end of compromise and extremist policies will continuously be enacted by the party in charge. And every new legislative session where the controlling party changes will lead to the harsh swinging of the pendulum from left to right or vice versa. I can't fathom how anyone would think that's good for the country.

If your happy with the status quo/back room politics then yeah, keep what we've got. I'd rather see shit get done and politicians rewarded or punished at the polls.

What if you are of the opinion that, for the most part, Congressional gridlock is good for America?

I'm kind of with @aix_xpert on this one.....two House of Representatives, majority vote legislative bodies will see wild swings in legislation that won't be resolved by the ballot box.

 

[davidallen]

I guess we differ there. I'd rather nothing get done, than a wild swing every couple years of extremist policies being enacted, then countermanded, then re-enacted.

I suspect the electorate would mediate the wild swings. Gridlock is not our friend in this modern world. Just the economic consequences are sufficient to warrant concern IMO.

 

[CowboyJD]

I suspect the electorate would mediate the wild swings. Gridlock is not our friend in this modern world. Just the economic consequences are sufficient to warrant concern IMO.

I suspect the electorate would exacerbate the wild swings.

 

[davidallen]

What if you are of the opinion that, for the most part, Congressional gridlock is good for America?

I'm kind of with @aix_xpert on this one.....two House of Representatives, majority vote legislative bodies will see wild swings in legislation that won't be resolved by the ballot box.

I get your point. Gridlock can be useful. It also puts the US at a disadvantage globally in areas of economic concern. At least on security issues we still have an effective appeal to country first.

 

[davidallen]

I suspect the electorate would exacerbate the wild swings.

I'm game to give it a try!

 

[CowboyJD]

I'm game to give it a try!

And I'm not.

And neither one of us really has much, if any, control over whether it happens or not.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

To be precise, Biden isn't calling for a complete end to the filibuster (as he should). He is publicly calling for an exception to the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade into law. Just as he did with voting rights and similar to the exceptions the Senate has in place on other policy issues.

Biden, of course, is right and it is about time he publicly called for this. Schumer needs to move on this immediately and have a vote. All Senators should go on record with the American people as to where they stand on this.

Yep. Gotta kill those babies, eh?

 

[my_2cents]

I suspect the electorate would mediate the wild swings.

This is the sticking point though with those who embrace gridlock and minority rule. What they won't say or admit is that they don't trust the American electorate to vote the way they want them to vote. Therefore, "protections" against the majority vote by the electorate must remain in Congress so as to maintain minority rule.

It is similar to the logic used to defend the electoral college. No, we can't allow the American people to directly elect their President because goodness, what happens if they keep electing someone I don't like! We can't trust the American people alone to elect their President, we need a "protection."🙄

Since 1992, the Republican nominee for President has only won more votes from the American people once. Once in eight presidential elections! Yet, look at the makeup of the Supreme Court, among other things. It is nothing but minority rule. And it is shameful.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

I agree, hence the reason why I stated minority rule needs to be ended.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade implements majority rule in the individual states, you twit.

 

[my_2cents]

I suspect the electorate would exacerbate the wild swings.

I stand corrected @davidallen on what some can admit. It does appear that at least @CowboyJD can admit he doesn't trust the American electorate.

 

[my_2cents]

The overturning of Roe v. Wade implements majority rule in the individual states, you twit.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of minority rule. As will be their future attempts to overturn rulings on marriage, private sexual acts, and contraceptions (as Thomas signaled)

Congress should act immediately to check the Supreme Court on this and protect the rights and will of the people.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

We have a republic specifically because the founders did not want the tyranny of a majority. When Democracy reigns the inevitable conclusion will be that the majority of people will give themselves money, thus destroying the freedom they want to preserve. We struggle enough with that under our republic, I can imagine what that would be like under a straight Democracy.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

The overturning of Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of minority rule. As will be their future attempts to overturn rulings on marriage, private sexual acts, and contraceptions (as Thomas signaled)

Congress should act immediately to check the Supreme Court on this and protect the rights and will of the people.

Seriously? How does placing a decision in the hands of state legislatures constitute minority rule? You twit.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Anyone who thinks this is only a one-time exception is an idiot. If it is done here then it's effectively ended the Senate filibuster.

 

[aix_xpert]

The overturning of Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of minority rule. As will be their future attempts to overturn rulings on marriage, private sexual acts, and contraceptions (as Thomas signaled)

Congress should act immediately to check the Supreme Court on this and protect the rights and will of the people.

Congress should look at the ruling and Thomas' signal and do what the ruling says. Pass laws that codify the national expectation of those services. If it wasn't loaded with 1000 pork items and poison pills, I would think it would be easy to codify gay marriage and the sale of contraceptions as a national right. But I think libs (who control Congress currently) would prefer to have those issues to rally their base, rather than actually submitting clean legislation to prevent a future Supreme Court from eliminating past courts attempts to legislate from the bench (as was done with RvW).

 

[aix_xpert]

Anyone who thinks this is only a one-time exception is an idiot. If it is done here then it's effectively ended the Senate filibuster.

Yep. One just had to see it done for the Federal judges (followed by SC nominees) to know this is a factual statement.

 

[davidallen]

And I'm not.

And neither one of us really has much, if any, control over whether it happens or not.

Indeed. What is your take on how the UK system works vis a vis wild swings of control?

 

[davidallen]

Anyone who thinks this is only a one-time exception is an idiot. If it is done here then it's effectively ended the Senate filibuster.

Is that a bad thing? Archaic. Extra Constitutional. Back room politics.

 

[davidallen]

We have a republic specifically because the founders did not want the tyranny of a majority. When Democracy reigns the inevitable conclusion will be that the majority of peiole will give themselves money, thus destroying the freedom they want to preserve. We struggle enough with that under our republic, I can imagine what that would be like under a straight Democracy.

Did the Founders build the filibuster in? Does ending the filibuster rule change the US from a Republic to a Democracy?

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Anyone who thinks this is only a one-time exception is an idiot.

Safe bet that $0.02 falls into that demographic.

 

[my_2cents]

Seriously? How does placing a decision in the hands of state legislatures constitute minority rule? .

I don't believe the ability to infringe upon the rights of the American people should ever be placed into the hands of state legislatures. I understand as a Confederate, you disagree with this.

As for the ruling being an example of minority rule, look at the group who made the ruling and how a number of them got the position they now hold. It wasn't by the majority will of the people.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

I don't believe the ability to infringe upon the rights of the American people should ever be placed into the hands of state legislatures. I understand as a Confederate, you disagree with this.

As for the ruling being an example of minority rule, look at the group who made the ruling and how a number of them got the position they now hold. It wasn't by the majority will of the people.

So you believe in majority rule until you disagree with it. I figured as much, twit.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

I don't believe the ability to infringe upon the rights of the American people should ever be placed into the hands of state legislatures. I understand as a Confederate, you disagree with this.

As for the ruling being an example of minority rule, look at the group who made the ruling and how a number of them got the position they now hold. It wasn't by the majority will of the people.

PS: Have you discussed your sacred right to kill unborn babies with your pastor or bishop? How did that go?

 

[my_2cents]

Congress should look at the ruling and Thomas' signal and do what the ruling says. Pass laws that codify the national expectation of those services. If it wasn't loaded with 1000 pork items and poison pills, I would think it would be easy to codify gay marriage and the sale of contraceptions as a national right.

I fully agree. Along with codifying Roe v. Wade.

But I think libs (who control Congress currently) would prefer to have those issues to rally their base, rather than actually submitting clean legislation

I don't disagree with you on this as it relates to some liberals in Congress, not all though. And I think this approach is wrong and risky for those liberals who think like this. Democratic voters are upset right now and they want to see action from Democrats in Congress. And if they don't start seeing some actions, some of these liberals might start seeing pushback at the polls.

 

[my_2cents]

PS: Have you discussed your sacred right to kill unborn babies with your pastor or bishop? How did that go?

Have you discussed your hate, anger, and name calling with your pastor or bishop? How did that go?

Matthew 5:21-26
1 John 3:15

 

[aix_xpert]

I fully agree. Along with codifying Roe v. Wade.

Honest question. If a bill was submitted that aligned US abortion laws to France's 14 week law, do you think it could pass? Would more Dems or Reps choose to not support such legislation? I honestly don't think it would pass, as I don't think you can find enough "middle". The Dems all seem to want it wide open, and the Reps want it perma-banned, and there are very few who would abandon their base for the middle. So in regards to codifying RvW, I think that ship has sailed.

I do think that this is another area where DeSantis will appeal to the middle. The Florida law he passed is a 15 week law. He can run on the basis of being moderate and much like Europe in his policy decision. Now the Florida legislature may change that and push for a shorter window (or eliminate it all together) but unless that happens, the Florida law will be a net positive for DeSantis nationally on the abortion issue (imo).