There once was a woman who cut an inch or two off the ends of a ham every time she baked a ham. Her young daughter was curious about this and about wasting those bits of ham. Eventually, the young girl asked her mother why she cut off the ends of the ham before putting the ham in the oven. The mother looked surprised at the question a…
There once was a woman who cut an inch or two off the ends of a ham every time she baked a ham. Her young daughter was curious about this and about wasting those bits of ham. Eventually, the young girl asked her mother why she cut off the ends of the ham before putting the ham in the oven. The mother looked surprised at the question and said that that's the way she learned to bake ham from her mother. So the next time she saw her grandmother the young girl asked why she cut the ends off the ham before baking. Slowly, the grandmother began to smile. She said, "Oh, yes. I always did that. You see, we lived in a small house and had a very small stove. I had to do that, otherwise the ham wouldn't fit in the oven."
The filibuster reminds me of that family's "tradition" of cutting off the ends of the ham -- it is a tradition that has long out lived any purpose it may have had in the past. Today it only serves to continue to enable the tyranny of the minority over the majority. It long past time for Senators Manchin and Sinema to wake wake up to the realities of politics today and help end the filibuster
I'm cynical enough to believe that Manchin and Sinema enjoy their power trip and time in the spotlight. If logic applied to either of them, it would have worked by now. Let's hope our "better angels" can knock some sense into them.
I hope at some point they realize that Saving Democracy is more important than Saving the Filibuster. I'm usually an optimist but feel pessimistic on this. However, President Biden is a master at legislative influence and that gives me some hope. We could use LBJ right now.
Yes, Cathy. LBJ would break an arm or two. Biden is doing the usual, and not showing his hand. I would like to be a fly on the wall when he lays those cards down.
My only moment of pause and reflection about the ditching the filibuster would be the very real possibility of Republicans managing to wheedle their way back into gaining a simple majority in the Senate, and then what THEY would do if there was a filibuster-proof Senate. There would be no stopping them. It is a sort of "careful what you wish for" moment to look at a possible down side. (Slimeball McConnell has even hinted at such.) If I was confident Democrats could hold on to, or even increase, their majority in the Senate I'd be really gung-ho to ditch the thing. Should the unthinkable happen and Democrats once again become the minority party in the Senate (and the House), we would need every tool in the toolbox to stop them pushing through their agendas. Just a thought...
Me too. So they should do whatever they can while they still have power. I also fully realize that nothing will sway Manchin. How is he not a republican? He walks like one, talks like one.
He's trying to have it both ways, but he's kind of a quasi "blue-dog" Democrat from the past, á la former WV Sen. Robert Byrd. The way the political landscapes have shifted around him means, for all intents and purposes, he's essentially what one might call a moderate Republican. Definitely DINO. However, my instincts tell me he also does it to curry favour with conservative donors in WV. At some point he may very well have to "put up or shut up" if he's going to continue to call himself a Democrat.
Abolishing the filibuster is the only way to have any future for the Democratic Party, and Democracy in this country. With the filibuster Republicans can and will prevent any federal legislation for fair elections. They will allow the states to codify voter restrictions leading to Republican victories starting in 2022 and going forward. At that point Democrats won't be able to do anything to stop them. And the moment the Republicans feel thwarted by the need for 60 votes in the Senate they will eliminate the filibuster. So hanging onto it now with the hope that in the future the filibuster will give a Democratic Senate minority input and some control over legislation is naive. Republicans have shown their true colors. The only option at this point is get rid of it and have about 18 months with Democratic control to guarantee fair elections. Which even then will be difficult due to gerrymandering and dark money.
Please, I'm NOT saying "hang on to it", and no, I don't think it's "naive" to be mindful of the risk. Like you, I believe the 400-some-odd days of Democratic rule in a filibuster-less Senate could be groundbreaking and lead to, among other things, guaranteeing equal voting rights across the board. THAT right there IS worth the risk. I'm just being "devil's advocate" and spelling out the risk of scrapping it and what the down side might conceivably be. That's all. I'm all for doing away with it. However, that thought does make me a little uneasy about the future. Besides, if we f**k up and lose the Senate majority, the Republicans may do the job and abolish the filibuster for us. Then, look out.
I believe everyone here is aware of the risks of a Democratic Senate minority with no filibuster. The issue is with a Democratic Senate majority with no filibuster much more can be done to increase the odds that Dems will retain and perhaps increase their majority. The way things stand Dems will be in the minority after January 2023 and sooner rather than later the filibuster will be a thing of the past. Better to get some benefits NOW.
If the republicans get a simple majority in the senate and see a need to do away with the filibuster they will, or they’ll modify it to suit their needs, like they did for the judgeships just a short time ago!!!
Okay, Bruce we'll lose the ability to hold free and fair elections. We'll keep those 'Darkies' down, lose the mid-terms and the 2024 presidential election. What will you then reflection upon? Won't it be obvious?
The most recent Deconstructed podcast with Ryan Grimm provides all the particulars you need to know in trying to understand Joe Manchin's "Wash-Rinse-Repeat" strategy. His guest is a native West Virginian expert on Joe and his entire family.
It’s become a familiar pattern for West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin: first, announce your opposition to a Biden legislative priority. Second, extract some concessions on the theory that this will attract Republican support. Finally, announce that you’ve had a change of heart and can support the bill, which is of course meaningless since the longed for Republican votes never materialize and no floor vote ever happens. Now Manchin appears to be doing the same old dance with Biden’s budget plan. Whatever the merits of this political strategy, it has certainly turned Manchin into the and most talked-about Senator among DC pundits. But who is he really, and what do West Virginians think of him? West Virginia native Stephen Smith, founder of West Virginia Can’t Wait, joins Ryan Grim to discuss his state’s senior senator.
Thanks so much, Christopher. I've been hoping that this is the case, but this will allow me to sleep tonight. Of course, tomorrow could be another story. Any ideas in Kirsten Sinema? I'll watch the podcast in a few.
I've been guilty plenty of times of assuming I knew how some politician "worked", but having been wrong so many times taught me to rely less on my instincts and more on the facts.
We are drowning in good information but it takes some digging (and luck) to find it.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Are you taking me to task for merely "reflecting" on a possible--or theoretical--downside of jettisoning the filibuster and what might mean should Republicans regain control of the Senate? I detest the filibuster and would like nothing more than to see it done away with, but, as with anything, there are risks, ESPECIALLY with razor-thin majorities like the Democrats currently have. In the short-term, yes, Democrats could enact things that are very long overdue, but my concern is down the road even further. Republicans, with a possible Senate majority and then without a filibuster, could then turn around and UNDO everything Democrats have enacted. If I remember correctly, Heather has even alluded to this possible scenario. We could be back to square one. It is simply something to bear in mind. Please do not assume I am pro-filibuster. I'm certainly not. It's the timing I'd question. I'm merely concerned with a possible negative side-effect of ditching the filibuster right now, when the majority in the Senate could go either way. If after elections in '22 we ended up with, say, even a 52-48 split in the Senate, I'd feel much more comfortable ditching the damned thing. If we ditched it now, then lost the Senate majority in '22, we could potentially--POTENTIALLY--be screwed. I'm merely pointing this out.
You're correct - it's a calculated risk. However, if we're thwarted by our own "conservative" senators, and can't pass the voting rights legislation and are unable to undo voter nullification legislation here in Georgia and elsewhere, we're screwed by that! Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
"Damned if we do, and damned if we don't." Exactly. That is another bottom line to what I was saying initially. There could be some magnificent gains in the short term, but long term...there's a risk of them being undone. I think it might be worth taking the risk, but as I said, I'd feel more comfortable taking that risk if we had more of a guarantee of holding on to a Senate majority. It's soooooooo close right now.
Bruce, I understand. Not only is our margin razor-thin, but we have at least two senators who are iffy, at best. It's so frustrating to think that Manchin is holding his breath, still trying to convince 10 Republicans to agree to something that will likely hurt their party's chances in upcoming elections. He has to know the risks to our democracy if he won't at least agree to a carveout. If the midterms don't put us completely out of control, we might be able to build our majorities to a more comfortable level.
If we are so concerned with eliminating the filibuster for fear of what the republicans will do seems to me to be even more reason to get rid of it so as to get the voting rights act passed, the sooner the better so as to stand a chance of having a fair election in 2022, where as if we keep fooling around the republicans will have more chance at rigging the elections so we never will get the majority again, so it seems to me we have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by doing away with the filibuster, and the sooner the better!!!
Bruce, I suggest that you reread today's Letter. I cannot assume that you are acquainted with legislative bills passed by the Republican Party controlled state legislatures or the Republican Party's refusal to approve a national Commission to investigate the 1/6 attempted insurrection. There is much more on the record from which to learn that the Republican Party has morphed into the Trump Party and all that implies.
Do you have reason to believe that Joe Manchin will be able to bring 10 Republicans to a voting rights bill, which conforms to his parameters? There haven't been any signs that I am aware of which would encourage such an outcome. We will know shortly. If not Bruce, do you still think you'll be hesitant about changing or abolishing the filibuster?
I believe that todays Letter makes it very clear how imminent the treat to our Democracy is, A perusal of the Brennan Center for Justice for unbiased information about bills passed to suppress voting and possibly subvert election results may be of interest to you. Its link is below. The following excerpt was copied from the Brennan Center For Justice's site:
'As many state legislatures conclude their regular sessions, the full impact of efforts to suppress the vote in 2021 is coming into view.'
'Between January 1 and July 14, 2021, at least 18 states enacted 30 laws that restrict access to the vote.footnote1_o8u7qg41 These laws make mail voting and early voting more difficult, impose harsher voter ID requirements, and make faulty voter purges more likely, among other things. More than 400 bills with provisions that restrict voting access have been introduced in 49 states in the 2021 legislative sessions.'
'The new laws restricting voting access are not created equal. For example, four of these laws are mixed, meaning they also contain pro-voter policies (IN S.B. 398, KY H.B. 574, LA H.B. 167, OK H.B. 2663). Other restrictions are narrower in their scope (e.g., NV S.B. 84, UT H.B. 12). Three states have enacted broad omnibus voter suppression laws this year (GA S.B. 202, FL S.B. 90, IA S.F. 413), while Arkansas, Montana, and Arizona all passed multiple restrictive voting laws (Arkansas and Montana passed four such laws each and Arizona passed three).'
'This wave of restrictions on voting — the most aggressive we have seen in more than a decade of tracking state voting laws — is in large part motivated by false and often racist allegations about voter fraud.'
'Congress has the power to stem the tide. The For the People Act, passed by the House and now awaiting action in the Senate, would mitigate the effect of many state-level restrictions. And the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would protect voters by preventing new discriminatory laws from being implemented.'
There may be more new state voting laws still to come this year. Active regular legislative sessions continue in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And Maine’s special legislative session is ongoing.'
'Texas lawmakers in particular appear poised to enact additional restrictive voting legislation this year. During the 30-day special session that began in Austin on July 8, state lawmakers introduced a slew of restrictive voting proposals, including two omnibus bills (S.B. 1 and H.B. 3) containing numerous anti-voter provisions.'
Fern, I read and comprehended Heather's letter very well, thank you.
"I cannot assume that you are acquainted with legislative bills passed by the Republican Party controlled state legislatures or the Republican Party's refusal to approve a national Commission to investigate the 1/6 attempted insurrection." Oh, I'm VERY well acquainted with bills passed by legislatures both in Texas AND here. I'm living it. Their repercussions keep me awake at night. Please do not infer, because I am playing "devil's advocate" that I don't believe these affronts to democracy are dire. They are. As for T***p, we'll see...I'm starting to wonder if his brand might be losing some lustre with some Republicans. The 420-something days between now and the '22 midterms is an eternity in politics. Anything can happen and just very well might.
"Do you have reason to believe that Joe Manchin will be able to bring 10 Republicans to a voting rights bill, which conforms to his parameters?" No. Joe Manchin is a fool.
"If not Bruce, do you still think you'll be hesitant about changing or abolishing the filibuster?" FFS, Fern, I was just expressing a possible--POSSIBLE--drawback there might be down the road in the future. I'm concerned about the timing, in light of the thinnest of margins we have right now in the Senate. We could very easily lose the majority. If we had a greater majority, even of 2 votes, I'd feel safer doing away with it. I just can't escape the feeling that if we scrap it NOW, we might then for the next 2-4 years lose the only tool left to us to stop Republicans from ramming through their own even more outrageous stuff, AND tearing down everything Democrats had just passed. Suppose for the sake of argument we scrap the filibuster now. Suppose the Republicans win a majority. Suppose they then, with a slim majority, are able to UNDO every single thing the Democrats just enacted. Do you seriously think they wouldn't??
As I said below, it--sacking the filibuster so we can save this democracy--is a risk that we almost HAVE to take. It is vitally important. All the stuff you posted above from the Brennan Center I totally understand and am deeply concerned about. All I was saying from the outset of this whole exchange, Fern, is to be mindful of that risk. Some people seem oblivious that it even exists. I'm not saying "don't take the risk". Just be aware that we could very easily end up being in the position--in '22--needing to use the very tool we've railed against to ourselves save this democracy from being turned into a smoking ruin. It underlines even more the importance of our turning out in droves, as never before, and making a resolute statement in '22 AND '24 that we ARE the majority, and ditch the stupid filibuster for good.
As always, I think you and I agree far more than not!
I don’t understand your concern about the filibusters ability to stop the republicans if they regain the simple majority as don’t think for a minute that they won’t do away with the filibuster if they see where it will get in their way. Because they WILL do away with it if they see fit to, or modify it to their liking, after all, we saw Mitch do it for their Supreme Court picks, and other judgeships!!!
So don’t think for a minute that they won’t do it again......
Bruce, I agree that all possibilities must be considered in order to make the best decisions going forward. You're well-informed and thorough, and I respect your opinions and analysis. Also, I trust Biden to make the proper decision in the end. As Christopher commented above, Manchin just might finish dancing and make the decision, and the rest can be decided later on.
Shall I refrain from using 'FFS' in my reply to you? It's hardly the most pressing question at hand but impossible to ignore. I knew what you consider to be the risks in modifying or doing away with the filibuster five decades before subscribing to LFAA. I believe that there is no choice but to so. Perhaps, our difference is smaller than I have interpreted to be. In that sense, I accept your last sentence as the resolution to our exchange.
The primary purpose of the filibuster was always maintaining white supremacy. Its original purpose, when devised by John C Calhoun, was to block any interference with enslavers.
I'd heard this one as cutting the ends of the turkey drumsticks, but same version of "we've always done it" with the "why" being "I had no other way and this is hopeless tradition"
There once was a woman who cut an inch or two off the ends of a ham every time she baked a ham. Her young daughter was curious about this and about wasting those bits of ham. Eventually, the young girl asked her mother why she cut off the ends of the ham before putting the ham in the oven. The mother looked surprised at the question and said that that's the way she learned to bake ham from her mother. So the next time she saw her grandmother the young girl asked why she cut the ends off the ham before baking. Slowly, the grandmother began to smile. She said, "Oh, yes. I always did that. You see, we lived in a small house and had a very small stove. I had to do that, otherwise the ham wouldn't fit in the oven."
The filibuster reminds me of that family's "tradition" of cutting off the ends of the ham -- it is a tradition that has long out lived any purpose it may have had in the past. Today it only serves to continue to enable the tyranny of the minority over the majority. It long past time for Senators Manchin and Sinema to wake wake up to the realities of politics today and help end the filibuster
You said with grace and humor what I am shouting in anger to myself: Ditch the filibuster already!
I'm cynical enough to believe that Manchin and Sinema enjoy their power trip and time in the spotlight. If logic applied to either of them, it would have worked by now. Let's hope our "better angels" can knock some sense into them.
Absolutely correct, Nancy. So frustrating. And the filibuster is so steeped in historic racism and civil oppression. Grrrr
I hope at some point they realize that Saving Democracy is more important than Saving the Filibuster. I'm usually an optimist but feel pessimistic on this. However, President Biden is a master at legislative influence and that gives me some hope. We could use LBJ right now.
Yes, Cathy. LBJ would break an arm or two. Biden is doing the usual, and not showing his hand. I would like to be a fly on the wall when he lays those cards down.
I pray he has a Royal Flush!
I'd pay a lot to see some of them to be "flushed" one way or another. . . .
Of course they love the spotlight—
As we say in Georgia, you damn right!
My only moment of pause and reflection about the ditching the filibuster would be the very real possibility of Republicans managing to wheedle their way back into gaining a simple majority in the Senate, and then what THEY would do if there was a filibuster-proof Senate. There would be no stopping them. It is a sort of "careful what you wish for" moment to look at a possible down side. (Slimeball McConnell has even hinted at such.) If I was confident Democrats could hold on to, or even increase, their majority in the Senate I'd be really gung-ho to ditch the thing. Should the unthinkable happen and Democrats once again become the minority party in the Senate (and the House), we would need every tool in the toolbox to stop them pushing through their agendas. Just a thought...
Republicans will get rid of the filibuster when it's convenient for them. They don't need Democrats doing it for them.
THAT'S what I'm afraid of.
Me too. So they should do whatever they can while they still have power. I also fully realize that nothing will sway Manchin. How is he not a republican? He walks like one, talks like one.
He's trying to have it both ways, but he's kind of a quasi "blue-dog" Democrat from the past, á la former WV Sen. Robert Byrd. The way the political landscapes have shifted around him means, for all intents and purposes, he's essentially what one might call a moderate Republican. Definitely DINO. However, my instincts tell me he also does it to curry favour with conservative donors in WV. At some point he may very well have to "put up or shut up" if he's going to continue to call himself a Democrat.
As we have seen them do many times.
Abolishing the filibuster is the only way to have any future for the Democratic Party, and Democracy in this country. With the filibuster Republicans can and will prevent any federal legislation for fair elections. They will allow the states to codify voter restrictions leading to Republican victories starting in 2022 and going forward. At that point Democrats won't be able to do anything to stop them. And the moment the Republicans feel thwarted by the need for 60 votes in the Senate they will eliminate the filibuster. So hanging onto it now with the hope that in the future the filibuster will give a Democratic Senate minority input and some control over legislation is naive. Republicans have shown their true colors. The only option at this point is get rid of it and have about 18 months with Democratic control to guarantee fair elections. Which even then will be difficult due to gerrymandering and dark money.
Please, I'm NOT saying "hang on to it", and no, I don't think it's "naive" to be mindful of the risk. Like you, I believe the 400-some-odd days of Democratic rule in a filibuster-less Senate could be groundbreaking and lead to, among other things, guaranteeing equal voting rights across the board. THAT right there IS worth the risk. I'm just being "devil's advocate" and spelling out the risk of scrapping it and what the down side might conceivably be. That's all. I'm all for doing away with it. However, that thought does make me a little uneasy about the future. Besides, if we f**k up and lose the Senate majority, the Republicans may do the job and abolish the filibuster for us. Then, look out.
I believe everyone here is aware of the risks of a Democratic Senate minority with no filibuster. The issue is with a Democratic Senate majority with no filibuster much more can be done to increase the odds that Dems will retain and perhaps increase their majority. The way things stand Dems will be in the minority after January 2023 and sooner rather than later the filibuster will be a thing of the past. Better to get some benefits NOW.
Sadly, Yup....on all points. But if we get that 400 days, we would have it made for 22 and 24 -- and a fair fight after that? Worth a shot.
If the republicans get a simple majority in the senate and see a need to do away with the filibuster they will, or they’ll modify it to suit their needs, like they did for the judgeships just a short time ago!!!
Okay, Bruce we'll lose the ability to hold free and fair elections. We'll keep those 'Darkies' down, lose the mid-terms and the 2024 presidential election. What will you then reflection upon? Won't it be obvious?
The most recent Deconstructed podcast with Ryan Grimm provides all the particulars you need to know in trying to understand Joe Manchin's "Wash-Rinse-Repeat" strategy. His guest is a native West Virginian expert on Joe and his entire family.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deconstructed/id1354611827
Podcast blurb:
It’s become a familiar pattern for West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin: first, announce your opposition to a Biden legislative priority. Second, extract some concessions on the theory that this will attract Republican support. Finally, announce that you’ve had a change of heart and can support the bill, which is of course meaningless since the longed for Republican votes never materialize and no floor vote ever happens. Now Manchin appears to be doing the same old dance with Biden’s budget plan. Whatever the merits of this political strategy, it has certainly turned Manchin into the and most talked-about Senator among DC pundits. But who is he really, and what do West Virginians think of him? West Virginia native Stephen Smith, founder of West Virginia Can’t Wait, joins Ryan Grim to discuss his state’s senior senator.
Thanks so much, Christopher. I've been hoping that this is the case, but this will allow me to sleep tonight. Of course, tomorrow could be another story. Any ideas in Kirsten Sinema? I'll watch the podcast in a few.
Sinema is to Manchin what Graham was to McCain.
You can quote mean that one.
"me on" said the spelling moron.
Good work, Christopher. Will this reach the reluctant Bruce? Reaching to the root!
I've been guilty plenty of times of assuming I knew how some politician "worked", but having been wrong so many times taught me to rely less on my instincts and more on the facts.
We are drowning in good information but it takes some digging (and luck) to find it.
Thanks FERN. ;-)
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Are you taking me to task for merely "reflecting" on a possible--or theoretical--downside of jettisoning the filibuster and what might mean should Republicans regain control of the Senate? I detest the filibuster and would like nothing more than to see it done away with, but, as with anything, there are risks, ESPECIALLY with razor-thin majorities like the Democrats currently have. In the short-term, yes, Democrats could enact things that are very long overdue, but my concern is down the road even further. Republicans, with a possible Senate majority and then without a filibuster, could then turn around and UNDO everything Democrats have enacted. If I remember correctly, Heather has even alluded to this possible scenario. We could be back to square one. It is simply something to bear in mind. Please do not assume I am pro-filibuster. I'm certainly not. It's the timing I'd question. I'm merely concerned with a possible negative side-effect of ditching the filibuster right now, when the majority in the Senate could go either way. If after elections in '22 we ended up with, say, even a 52-48 split in the Senate, I'd feel much more comfortable ditching the damned thing. If we ditched it now, then lost the Senate majority in '22, we could potentially--POTENTIALLY--be screwed. I'm merely pointing this out.
You're correct - it's a calculated risk. However, if we're thwarted by our own "conservative" senators, and can't pass the voting rights legislation and are unable to undo voter nullification legislation here in Georgia and elsewhere, we're screwed by that! Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
"Damned if we do, and damned if we don't." Exactly. That is another bottom line to what I was saying initially. There could be some magnificent gains in the short term, but long term...there's a risk of them being undone. I think it might be worth taking the risk, but as I said, I'd feel more comfortable taking that risk if we had more of a guarantee of holding on to a Senate majority. It's soooooooo close right now.
Bruce, I understand. Not only is our margin razor-thin, but we have at least two senators who are iffy, at best. It's so frustrating to think that Manchin is holding his breath, still trying to convince 10 Republicans to agree to something that will likely hurt their party's chances in upcoming elections. He has to know the risks to our democracy if he won't at least agree to a carveout. If the midterms don't put us completely out of control, we might be able to build our majorities to a more comfortable level.
If we are so concerned with eliminating the filibuster for fear of what the republicans will do seems to me to be even more reason to get rid of it so as to get the voting rights act passed, the sooner the better so as to stand a chance of having a fair election in 2022, where as if we keep fooling around the republicans will have more chance at rigging the elections so we never will get the majority again, so it seems to me we have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by doing away with the filibuster, and the sooner the better!!!
Bruce, I suggest that you reread today's Letter. I cannot assume that you are acquainted with legislative bills passed by the Republican Party controlled state legislatures or the Republican Party's refusal to approve a national Commission to investigate the 1/6 attempted insurrection. There is much more on the record from which to learn that the Republican Party has morphed into the Trump Party and all that implies.
Do you have reason to believe that Joe Manchin will be able to bring 10 Republicans to a voting rights bill, which conforms to his parameters? There haven't been any signs that I am aware of which would encourage such an outcome. We will know shortly. If not Bruce, do you still think you'll be hesitant about changing or abolishing the filibuster?
I believe that todays Letter makes it very clear how imminent the treat to our Democracy is, A perusal of the Brennan Center for Justice for unbiased information about bills passed to suppress voting and possibly subvert election results may be of interest to you. Its link is below. The following excerpt was copied from the Brennan Center For Justice's site:
'As many state legislatures conclude their regular sessions, the full impact of efforts to suppress the vote in 2021 is coming into view.'
'Between January 1 and July 14, 2021, at least 18 states enacted 30 laws that restrict access to the vote.footnote1_o8u7qg41 These laws make mail voting and early voting more difficult, impose harsher voter ID requirements, and make faulty voter purges more likely, among other things. More than 400 bills with provisions that restrict voting access have been introduced in 49 states in the 2021 legislative sessions.'
'The new laws restricting voting access are not created equal. For example, four of these laws are mixed, meaning they also contain pro-voter policies (IN S.B. 398, KY H.B. 574, LA H.B. 167, OK H.B. 2663). Other restrictions are narrower in their scope (e.g., NV S.B. 84, UT H.B. 12). Three states have enacted broad omnibus voter suppression laws this year (GA S.B. 202, FL S.B. 90, IA S.F. 413), while Arkansas, Montana, and Arizona all passed multiple restrictive voting laws (Arkansas and Montana passed four such laws each and Arizona passed three).'
'This wave of restrictions on voting — the most aggressive we have seen in more than a decade of tracking state voting laws — is in large part motivated by false and often racist allegations about voter fraud.'
'Congress has the power to stem the tide. The For the People Act, passed by the House and now awaiting action in the Senate, would mitigate the effect of many state-level restrictions. And the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would protect voters by preventing new discriminatory laws from being implemented.'
There may be more new state voting laws still to come this year. Active regular legislative sessions continue in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And Maine’s special legislative session is ongoing.'
'Texas lawmakers in particular appear poised to enact additional restrictive voting legislation this year. During the 30-day special session that began in Austin on July 8, state lawmakers introduced a slew of restrictive voting proposals, including two omnibus bills (S.B. 1 and H.B. 3) containing numerous anti-voter provisions.'
These laws have been passed, Bruce.
https://www.brennancenter.org/
Fern, I read and comprehended Heather's letter very well, thank you.
"I cannot assume that you are acquainted with legislative bills passed by the Republican Party controlled state legislatures or the Republican Party's refusal to approve a national Commission to investigate the 1/6 attempted insurrection." Oh, I'm VERY well acquainted with bills passed by legislatures both in Texas AND here. I'm living it. Their repercussions keep me awake at night. Please do not infer, because I am playing "devil's advocate" that I don't believe these affronts to democracy are dire. They are. As for T***p, we'll see...I'm starting to wonder if his brand might be losing some lustre with some Republicans. The 420-something days between now and the '22 midterms is an eternity in politics. Anything can happen and just very well might.
"Do you have reason to believe that Joe Manchin will be able to bring 10 Republicans to a voting rights bill, which conforms to his parameters?" No. Joe Manchin is a fool.
"If not Bruce, do you still think you'll be hesitant about changing or abolishing the filibuster?" FFS, Fern, I was just expressing a possible--POSSIBLE--drawback there might be down the road in the future. I'm concerned about the timing, in light of the thinnest of margins we have right now in the Senate. We could very easily lose the majority. If we had a greater majority, even of 2 votes, I'd feel safer doing away with it. I just can't escape the feeling that if we scrap it NOW, we might then for the next 2-4 years lose the only tool left to us to stop Republicans from ramming through their own even more outrageous stuff, AND tearing down everything Democrats had just passed. Suppose for the sake of argument we scrap the filibuster now. Suppose the Republicans win a majority. Suppose they then, with a slim majority, are able to UNDO every single thing the Democrats just enacted. Do you seriously think they wouldn't??
As I said below, it--sacking the filibuster so we can save this democracy--is a risk that we almost HAVE to take. It is vitally important. All the stuff you posted above from the Brennan Center I totally understand and am deeply concerned about. All I was saying from the outset of this whole exchange, Fern, is to be mindful of that risk. Some people seem oblivious that it even exists. I'm not saying "don't take the risk". Just be aware that we could very easily end up being in the position--in '22--needing to use the very tool we've railed against to ourselves save this democracy from being turned into a smoking ruin. It underlines even more the importance of our turning out in droves, as never before, and making a resolute statement in '22 AND '24 that we ARE the majority, and ditch the stupid filibuster for good.
As always, I think you and I agree far more than not!
Bruce, I see you taking the high road here and I admire your restraint. Well done, friend.
I don’t understand your concern about the filibusters ability to stop the republicans if they regain the simple majority as don’t think for a minute that they won’t do away with the filibuster if they see where it will get in their way. Because they WILL do away with it if they see fit to, or modify it to their liking, after all, we saw Mitch do it for their Supreme Court picks, and other judgeships!!!
So don’t think for a minute that they won’t do it again......
Bruce, I agree that all possibilities must be considered in order to make the best decisions going forward. You're well-informed and thorough, and I respect your opinions and analysis. Also, I trust Biden to make the proper decision in the end. As Christopher commented above, Manchin just might finish dancing and make the decision, and the rest can be decided later on.
Shall I refrain from using 'FFS' in my reply to you? It's hardly the most pressing question at hand but impossible to ignore. I knew what you consider to be the risks in modifying or doing away with the filibuster five decades before subscribing to LFAA. I believe that there is no choice but to so. Perhaps, our difference is smaller than I have interpreted to be. In that sense, I accept your last sentence as the resolution to our exchange.
Edit: 3rd paragraph, 'threat' for treat. What a difference a letter makes.
Fran, submitting your comment to a Letter to the Editor in various newspapers would be fitting, along with Sara's below comment.
Feel free to share. I think I got this from my mother-in-law years ago, but can’t be sure. I’m confident it’s in public domain by now.
I read a similar story in Reader's Digest back in the 60s.
This is brilliant.
The primary purpose of the filibuster was always maintaining white supremacy. Its original purpose, when devised by John C Calhoun, was to block any interference with enslavers.
Right out of "Kill Switch" The definitive, exhaustive history of the filibuster!
Brilliant analogy, Fran, for the crack of dawn. I'm awake!
I'd heard this one as cutting the ends of the turkey drumsticks, but same version of "we've always done it" with the "why" being "I had no other way and this is hopeless tradition"
A story like this coule appeal to Senator Manchin. I hope he hears it.
Good point. Down home West Virginia boy that he claims to be.
I agree!