You are standing in a house with no roof arguing you will get wet if you go outside.
Do you think the Senate would be exactly the same if McConnell decides what gets brought to the floor rather than Schumer? Does Ketanji Brown Jackson even get a hearing if McConnell is in charge?
What are they going to do? Ban abortions?
It’s not about compromising with conservatives. The question is whether progressives are willing to compromise with liberals and moderates.
Do you think that they are done with their agenda?
Well, yes. A federal abortion ban is absolutely a possibility if the GOP were somehow to get 60 seats in the Senate over the next few cycles and Trump wins in 2024. Hell, they might even change filibuster rules to do it if they only have a small majority in the Senate (along with POTUS and the House).
It’s like some folks think that overturning Roe banned abortions everywhere… it didn’t.
Heh, might.
You are aware that the American Rescue Act had to be passed through reconciliation with just 50 votes because no Republicans supported it. It would have been a bill that McConnell wouldn’t even brought to the floor and the results would be devastating in the middle of a pandemic. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was deadlocked 11-11 in the Judiciary Committee. Schumer brought her nomination to the floor and it passed. McConnell would likely not have and pointed to the Judiciary Committee vote and told Biden to get someone more moderate. Having the power to decide what gets brought to the floor is a great deal more than having the power to filibuster.
Exactly right. It’s about bringing in candidates that are mainstream in states like MO (where I live) so you can win elections.
The last time the Democrats won a Senate seat in MO was when Todd Akin rambled on about “legitimate rape” in the context of an abortion question in 2012. That seat proved very important in passing Obamacare, amongst many other things. Making anti-choice extremists own their extremism is a winning strategy.
I would propose two laws:
-
No one shall be prosecuted by a state or subject to suit in a state for pursuing medical services outside of that state.
-
Every state receiving Medicare funding shall allow abortion services in cases of rape and incest and to protect the life of the mother.
Is that everything I would want to see? Not even close. But hammer the GOP on those two. And use that to win majorities to confirm justices that will work to reinstate a medical right to privacy. Then you can work to push those margins back further over time (either at the state level or the federal level).
One of the requests that Congresswoman AOC and Sen Warren and other progressives have made to President Biden is to expand the Supreme Court. That may be fine in NYC or Massachusetts, but in Georgia, Sen Warnock, who is fairly progressive, has been very very very careful not to say anything about packing the Supreme Court. He knows it’d kill him. His opponents have tried to smear him with it in the previous election. So he completely deflects the question. Perhaps he personally believes it’d be for the best, but realizes that saying it would cost him dearly. And he’s up for election this year in a toss up race (though the latest polling is very good for him).
This is one of the areas where compromise may be necessary - let’s get done what we can and let’s not make pack the court a rallying cry among national Democrats.
What compromise are the centrists offering? It appears that current the offer is: sit down and shut up, like it always is.
The centrists are offering to not overturn Roe, Obergefell, Lawrence, Loving, and Brown. The conservatives are overturning them. Which side are progressives on in this divide?
I’m not a fan of Manchin but basically the deal at this point is that he votes for liberal judges and for the most part doesn’t vote for liberal legislation. If anyone other than him could allow us to get a better alternative out of that WV senate seat I’d be all for it, but I don’t see it.
I will say that Arizona can absolutely do better than Sinema, although realistically that would involve primarying her in a couple of years, unless there’s any type of pressure that still hasn’t been used that leadership has available to them.
If you are convinced that if you lean on those two their votes belong to McConnel then what have you got to lose? If they won’t fall in line on your core principles, they how are they on your side?
Gridlock is what the other guys want (and gotten in the case of Roe). Don’t let them win without a fight.
They are much better at the long game.
…phew. That’s a relief. The progressives have demonstrated they are completely willing to compromise with the liberals and the moderates. They will fall in line with the plan, whenever the plan is announced. I’m glad that is sorted then.
But the plan is to pack the court, yes? If you don’t pack the courts then the decisions like today’s EPA one will keep coming down. For the next 20 years, at least.
So is the plan to pack the courts but keep it secret, or not to pack the courts at all? And if it’s the latter, then what do you think the eventual outcome will be?
Did you mean to reply to me? If you did, it was entirely nonsensical and didn’t have anything to do with anything that I have said.
Well, yeah, as their game is that they want things to fail and fall apart, and being obstructionist is the way to do it. It gets people like you to start fighting against the people who should be your allies, while completely ignoring the people who actually want to harm you.
But, anyway, someone used the example of the religious freedoms act. This was passed in response to losing in SCOTUS, and created a new law that responded to that loss. So, let’s say that in 1973, SCOTUS rules against Roe, and abortion can be illegal. Congress decides to pass a law federalizing the right to an abortion, as it seems you want.
Now, when congress changes parties, it reverses that legislation, making abortion restrictions legal again. Are you going to throw the same fit about that as you are throwing right now? Are you going to demand that it be a constitutional amendment?
Politics is the art of getting done what can be done, and anyone who demands more than can be done does more damage to the party that more closely aligns with their interest than the opposition ever could. Your actions and behaviors are putting the nail in the coffin of ever legalizing reproductive rights again.
The plan is to get more than 52 Senators and then you can discuss expanding the Court. It’s still not a very popular position (even if the numbers have increased since Dobbs) so there may still be Democratic Senators who refuse to back it.
I will tell you though if the Democrats run on packing the court, they’ll get 48 Senate seats at best and lose the House even greater than they are expected to lose it.
If I were to bet… the Court will not be expanded unless the Democrats can get to 60 in the Senate (like for more than a month).
…so the plan is to pack the court but to keep it secret?
Or is there just no plan at all?
If that’s Schumer’s plan he’s sure not going to tell me (though Schumer has recently said it’s on the table if the Democrats expand their control of the chamber - though by which it seems he needs more than 50 for any balkers at current). The issue is you simply don’t have the votes now. If you want to make that change, you need to get the votes. But if you announce you are definitely going to do it, you won’t get those votes.
He did vote for the ACA at least (and is against getting rid of it) and the American Rescue Plan. He stated his main opposition to the Build Back Better bill was that it would cause inflation - so he may be ok with some of the stuff in it, but the time was wrong (and he is probably pointing to inflation numbers now and saying see, what did I tell you).