Harris Supports Ending the Filibuster for Abortion Legislation
“I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe, and get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom…”
VP Kamala Harris told Wisconsin Public Radio that she wants the Senate to eliminate the filibuster so they can pass abortion legislation.
(But whoa she did an interview!!)
Harris voiced support for ending the 60-vote threshold needed to advance most legislation in the Senate, commonly known as the filibuster, during an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio that aired Tuesday.
“I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe, and get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom and for the ability of every person and every woman to make decisions about their own body and not have their government tell them what to do,” Harris said.
🚨KAMALA: "I think we should eliminate the filibuster."
This is what a real threat to democracy looks like pic.twitter.com/djy820ILvd
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 24, 2024
These people never learn.
Remember the Democrats celebrating the end of the filibuster for judge confirmation?
Yeah, that came back to bite them in the butt.
Harris hasn’t kept her abortion obsession a secret. It’s the one topic she talks about all the time.
Also, Harris is consistent regarding the filibuster:
In 2022 as vice president, Harris said she supported ending the filibuster to protect reproductive and voting rights. As a candidate for president in 2019 when she was a U.S. senator, she also said she would support ending the filibuster to pass environmental legislation known as the Green New Deal.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
they dont care if it comes back to haunt them
b/c they are vampires
so there is no such things as “haunting them”
Nothing says “MUH CONSTITUTION!” like ending the filibuster in order to legalize killing the innocent.
Ending the filibuster would be completely consistent with the constitution, regardless of how evil the reason for doing so.
There is nothing in the constitution supporting the filibuster, which did not even exist when the constitution was adopted, and nobody expected would ever exist.
Remember what “filibuster” means: an act of piracy. When filibusters first started they were universally seen as illegitimate; one or a few senators would hijack the entire senate and frustrate the majority’s ability to do their job.
It was only after several generations of this practice that it came to be seen as one of the legitimate tools in a senator’s arsenal, and rather than amend the rules to prevent it altogether it was instead limited so that a supermajority could end it and get on with their business.
So ending it completely would merely restore the senate to how it was originally intended to function. It is impossible to argue that the senate has no right to do that; what one can argue is that the senate has adapted to the filibuster, it now fulfills a useful function that was not originally anticipated, and removing it now would be a bad idea.
What she be talking about? Outlawing abortion expands reproductive freedom.
Just as the freedom of speech includes the right to remain silent, and the free exercise of religion includes the right to be an atheist, any purported “freedom of reproduction” would include the right not to reproduce.
As indeed it does; the courts have recognized having children and raising them as a right protected by the tenth amendment.
But the right to be silent doesn’t include the right to unsay things you have already said and now regret; the right not to exercise religion doesn’t let you retroactively change the misguided worship of your youth. And the right not to reproduce doesn’t include the right to erase the children you’ve already produced. Not even Harris believes a parent should be allowed to kill a whiny three-year-old, or a rebellious teenager. But she thinks it does include a right to kill a not-yet-child, which she defines as a baby that is still in the womb.
Roe was a SCOTUS decision, not legislation. The whole point of the Roe decision (errant as it was) was that there is no legislation possible concerning abortion because it was written into the Constitution (LOL). Anyone who believed that Roe was a correct decision has to understand that it is not possible to legislate anything that the Constitution already addresses, since the Constitution is the Supreme Law and cannot be amended by legislation.
In addition, in the overturning of Roe, the SCOTUS has determined that abortion is not addressed in the Constitution, which means that it was not given to the federal government, which means that it is a state issue, which means that there cannot be federal law about it.
This is all pretty elementary stuff.
cannot be amended by mere legislation
Minor fix, since an amendment is also legislation, but more.
If only we could eliminate all those agencies and all that spending that’s not in the Constitution, too, we might get somewhere with restoring the Republic.
Yes, but to what extent has Trump or the Republican Party communicated that. I bet that 90% of people – apparently including Harris – think the Federal Government could pass a law (not Constitutional Amendment) that would set a new Federal abortion standard.
Trump keeps saying that over and over and over but the press refuses to accept it and a chunk of Republicans are trying to push for federal legislation over abortion (which is not allowed). The Republicans who want federal control of abortion need to make a Constitutional amendment to do so, not pass federal legislation. But it is still better left to the states, where it belongs.
“abortion is not addressed in the Constitution, which means that it was not given to the federal government”
Interstate commerce, general welfare, phone and a pen, shut UP.
Yeah … that’s how they try to do it, though all of that is secondary, anyway, since it doesn’t have to cited in the legislation, itself.
It would be nice, though, if Congress had to cite the exact Constitutional language that they claim supports any bill they introduce in the House or Senate. I know that some Republicans have tried to propose such a bill in the recent past and it never even got out of committee … I don’t know if it even got into committee …
But the argument against them is simple, in this case, since they claim that Roe was a correct decision. So their own claim is that the Constitution addresses abortion outside of legislation, as a “basic right”. Therefore, they cannot introduce any legislation about it, by their own arguments! Even their argument, now, that they’ll “introduce Roe as legislation” … no SCOTUS decision can be “legislated”, short of an amendment. I mean, anyone who says that they’ll legislate a SCOTUS decision should be immediately thrown out of law school or have their JD rescinded.
Well, the last is seriously not true, A lot of SCOTUS decisions against the government concern some regulation failing because the legislature hasn’t given the executive any authority to control it (a lot of the EPA losses); or the legislation to authorize something was deficient in some way (Gun Free School Zones I). The usual response is for the legislature to promptly pass a new bill to authorize the regulatory power, or re-pass the deficient legislation with the missing Ts crossed. Even if SCOTUS says something can[t be done because it’s flat-out unconstitutional, the legislature will often just try to achieve it in a different way (like Joe did with tuition forgiveness).
It is true. Congress and the Executive can respond to SCOTUS decisions but neither Congress nor the Executive can replicate a SCOTUS decision. Their powers in this respect are all mutually exclusive.
There is no legislative counterpart to any SCOTUS decision. There is only an amendment process for that. Now, Congress or the Executive can ignore a SCOTUS decision, claiming (often legitimately) that SCOTUS is incorrect in its interpretation or is out of bounds in its legislating from the bench, but those are whole different issues that are addressing corruption and criminality in the individual exercise of political power and are more appropriately handled in the system via impeachment and conviction of said justices, replacing them with those who are willing to be bound by Constitutional limits.
But, in no case can a legitimate SCOTUS decision be replicated in federal legislation. IF that were to be true than that would make Congress and/or the Executive (via signing/veto) a duplicate of the SCOTUS, making a mockery of the idea of the separation of powers.
Are you writing replicated where you mean to write repudiated? Because otherwise, you’re not making sense. Congress has little incentive to reinforce a SCOTUS decision that went their way (an attitude that reared back to bite the Democrats after Dobbs).
In the particular case of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, SCOTUS ruled in US v Lopez (1995):
Congress’ response? They added the phrase “that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce” as a qualifier to the word “firearm” in two places, and re-passed the otherwise exact same law a year later. Careful reading will detect that this editing MAY have addressed the court’s second objection, but in no way remedied the first (which is a basic, common-sense, originalist constitutional objection).
Nevertheless, the amended law has stood for nearly three decades despite having been DECLARED patently unconstitutional.
And that’s how Congress plays that game.
No, he isn’t. As I understand Primordial’s position, he starts with the simple and obvious proposition that the legislature cannot interpret the constitution (or any law), because that is exclusively the judiciary’s role. Congress can only make laws, but it can’t say what they mean.
Therefore Congress can’t replicate a valid court decision. A court can say “the constitution requires laws, both state and federal, to make reasonable accommodation for the free exercise of religion”. Congress can’t say that. If the court later changes its mind and says the constitution doesn’t require that, Congress can’t step in and say yes it does.
What Congress can do is legislate to impose the same restrictions that the former court decision did. But it can only do so if it falls within its enumerated powers. If the requirement formerly thought to be constitutional is outside Congress’s power to legislate, then it can’t replicate the former decision.
Now what Primordial seems to be arguing is that since the Democrats declare and believe that Roe was correct and that Dobbs is incorrect, therefore legislating to achieve the same effect as Roe would be usurping the judiciary’s role.
I think that argument is too clever by half. No matter what the Democrats think the constitution “really” means, the power to interpret it is given only to the judiciary, so right now the constitution officially doesn’t mean what they would like it to. So they are free to legislate the same effect that the former decision had, provided that they stick to Congress’s enumerated powers. The interstate commerce clause, at least as currently interpreted, would give them sufficient power to do so.
By the way, it’s the “Good and Welfare Clause” … according to the democrat former-chair of the house judiciary committee!
In Rhode Island, it’s the “All Well and Goodfare Clause.”
(My RI moles tell me that “Yearbook” Whitehouse is worried about losing his seat this November. 🤞)
I thought he called it the Good And Plenty clause! Or was that merely Rush Limbaugh’s parody?
That is not true. There is nothing in Dobbs that would preclude federal legislation enshrining the standards that were formerly imposed by the erroneous Roe.
Under current commerce clause jurisprudence, since a national market exists for abortion, Congress clearly has the authority to impose a national scheme of regulation on the entire abortion industry that would preempt all state laws on the subject.
See the decision striking down the federal law against Female Genital Mutilation, on the grounds that no interstate market exists for it. Had such a market existed, the law banning the practice entirely would have been upheld.
so why is this whole Janet Jackson,,,”Kamala is not black” ( and then repeated this when the pr crew tried to do damage control) running through its media cycle?
b/c on one hand they want to make trump ( of course) look racist for his statement at the debate and now JJ has made it difficult to do so with her statement
JJackson is an Icon in the community and what she IS TRYING TO SAY ( though at any moment the pr machine could change )
is that Kamamala hasnt HAD THE “BLACK EXPERIENCE” that is a must in the still ,,we are victims foreveh ,, in this sordid game that is played by the leftists
Filibuster THAT !!!Kamamala
The answer to every question asked of Kamala is “l was born a middle class black person. Middle class children are middle class children.”
Kamala, unburden us with your past.
But just for abortion.
Even though she’s been President of the Senate for almost 4 years, she still doesn’t seem to understand how it operates!
The obsession among Progressive women (and the beta men who hope to score with them) with killing unborn babies is incredible. But if you claim they worship Molech they will try to vilify you. It’s insane, aside from the evil.
Okay to kill the innocent – who feel pain at approximately 12 weeks
Okay to kill the innocent – with out providing any pain killing drugs
But cant execute those guilty the most henious crimes because the remote possibility that the might feel an iota of pain. (ginsburg’s dissent in baze)
if women are to have the sole right/power to end the life of the unborn
then the male must also be afforded the right to decline/separate themselves for a decision they are allowed no say in and therefor
B/C OF DUE PROCESS
have no obligations ..monetary or otherwise to participate based on the females (sole) power of having the ONLY say in the decision of life or not for the embryo/fetus/half birth still birth after birth..child
I think a giant mistake this ‘conservative’ Court made was not reversing Roe on 10A grounds. Congress has authority to regulate abortion because the Constitution is silent on abortion.
that should be: ‘Congress has NO authority to regulate abortion….’
But it does have that authority, because a national market exists in abortions. Women routinely travel between states to purchase abortions. Therefore Congress has the authority to impose a national regulatory scheme on the entire industry, just as it does for bankruptcy, etc. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass’n
Congress can regulate bankruptcy law because Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to enact “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies”. I would otherwise argue that Congress has no authority to regulate them.
And it can regulate interstate commerce, e.g. by imposing a national scheme of regulation on a national market that exists, and (if it chooses) preempt the entire field, thus preventing states from imposing stricter regulations.
Gade is not about bankruptcy.
This woman’s bloodlust for the murder of others is demonic. Any one else who aggressively, egregiously advocates for the murder of another person would be in prison, but because these people Harris wants to murder are unborn it’s ‘reproductive health.’
It’s certainly not ‘health’ for the unborn. This woman should be in prison.
Nope. The first amendment absolutely protects all “mere advocacy”, no matter what is being advocated.
Why would the Left come up with the egregious phrase “reproductive health” or “bodily autonomy” when we all know it means abortion, and when we all know abortion means the deliberate death of an unborn human?
Because women must not be made uncomfortable. Call any rational language extremist, in order to fog reality and preserve the dehumanization not just the unborn, disposable child, but also women.
Yup.
Women have the right to stop pregnancy by not having sex. If there is a rape then they can file charges and testify against the rapist. Women shouldn’t be able to murder their baby because pregnancy and birth are inconvenient.
They can also get themselves cleaned out as soon as the police are done with them, before knowing whether they have conceived. That would not be murder and there is no state where it would be illegal.
Even if a state were to enact a strict ban on abortion from conception, to charge you the state would have to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a baby ever existed, and that would be impossible.
59 year old woman, who doesn’t any kids of her own, supports having women murder their unborn children.
Sounds about right for a modern day feminist.
I wonder if she realizes this would apply to making it illegal as well as “protecting” it.
This is how Democrats govern.
“This is our goal today, so we must change the rules to make it possible.”
Then tomorrow, when they have a different goal, they change them back.
Eurasia, Eastasia, Eurasia, Eastasia. It’s a feature, not a bug.
Once the filibuster is gone, it’s gone. There is no possible way to reinstate it.
The filibuster favors the minority over the majority. But only the majority can change the rules. No majority is ever going to deliberately make a rule that hands power to the minority.
The filibuster only ever came into existence in the first place by accident. Nobody intended to create it; one day someone noticed a loophole in the rules and exploited it. The majority at the time could immediately have closed it, but each senator realized that a day might come when he would find it useful, so there was no majority for closing it, and it’s remained open ever since. But that tolerance for it by majority after majority is predicated on their being assured that it would still be there when they needed it. Once that assurance is gone, they have no further reason to allow the current minority to use it.
Granted I’m old, but I distinctly remember sometime over the past three decades that the Senate declared some issue (ratification of appointments?) not subject to the filibuster… then after some period of time, put things back the way they were. Am I wrong?