Progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday that there are currently enough votes in the Senate to suspend the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade and abortion rights if Democrats win control of the House and keep the Senate and White House.

“We will suspend the filibuster. We have the votes for that on Roe v. Wade,” Warren said on ABC’s “The View.”

She said if Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2025, “the first vote Democrats will take in the Senate, the first substantive vote, will be to make Roe v. Wade law of the land again in America.”

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    319
    ·
    4 months ago

    “if Democrats win control of the House and keep the Senate and White House.”

    You should have done that years ago when you had the opportunity and everyone was telling you, begging you, to do it.

    Now it’s too late.

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      141
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It’s not too late but they’re not getting credit until they actually fucking do it and they deserve credit for just saying they want to do it without doing it.

      (Edit: And to be clear the credit they’re going to get would be credit for doing the bare minimum, long after they promised to do it, long after they had multiple opportunities to do it.)

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        4 months ago

        Even if they agree to get rid of the filibuster on this one issue, it won’t do any good with the House under Republican control.

        • just_another_person@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          With the receeding of GOP support on this issue alone, there is no fucking way way they are keeping the Senate or House. Every dipshit political analyst out there who has not been paying attention for the last 1.5 years needs a swift kick in the head over their awful projection maps (looking at you, Nate). They’ve consistently been wrong, and calling all these flips in support “SURPRISES!”.

          It’s not surprising that women and reasonable people are making this their single issue to vote on, and against normal party lines. It will carry to November, and until this bullshit is ended. Watch.

          • rustydomino@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            4 months ago

            Whether this winds up being true or not, you’ve made my day just a bit better with your optimism. Thanks my dude.

            • just_another_person@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              4 months ago

              538 is wrong most of the time. Nate Silver has gone back to claiming none of his work is designed to predict outcomes, he’s “just running stats” now 🙄

              Whatever you think of him, know his models didn’t get a thing right with regard to elections after the Roe v Wade issue came back to light. The cycle goes like this: his data is wrong, he tells everyone it’s correct, then he writes some bullshit explaining how everyone else is stupid for reading his own published data wrong, but it was actually right in the end.

              Just take everything with a handful of salt unless there’s an obvious change affecting the numbers.

              • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                I’m not sure that’s correct. 538 was always a polling aggregator, but people treated it like 60% chance means “for sure.” I think what we’re now seeing is we don’t actually have much good polling data due to extremism, and therefore sites like 538 aren’t as valuable.

                I distinctly remember Silver refused to make a prediction on who would win in 2016 because he insisted that Trump’s 33% odds according to 538 meant there was a very real chance of a Trump victory. But everyone came out an blamed Silver for calling it wrong.

                I don’t actually like the guy, I think his analysis and political savvy is pretty weak and he comes off as incredibly arrogant. But he literally just runs a weighted data aggregator. So if the data is bad, his results will be bad too.

                • just_another_person@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  His models use aggregated data to create what he has shifted from calling “predictions”, to now being called “data” (as in, “the data says…”), or more recently just flat out calling them “odds”. Keep in mind he does not open source his analytics at all.

                  So taking that into mind, he’s just rebranding subtly, sure. His company got bought by Disney, and I’m sure they put the hammer down on the language because they are now an easy target to get sued. Fair enough. My issue is that prior to all of this, he was plainly making predictions, and used those words to say as much. He even talked at length about it, and why he started changing his own words to describe his work.

                  So he called them predictions the few times his data aligned with real-world outcomes, but on the downslope of his popularity in doing so, is backing away from that attitude.

                  Lay people will still read exactly what he’s doing as making predictions.

    • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      4 months ago

      They’ve only had a filibuster-proof majority once since 1980. They used it to pass the ACA (which should have included codifying Roe v Wade, among other things). It’s not too late if we can elect enough willing Congress members.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        4 months ago

        This is a story about suspending the filibuster. Which they should have done in Obama’s term instead of letting Lieberman dictate terms for the insurance industry.

        • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m aware of that. They need 51 votes to do it. They talked about suspending the filibuster in 2020 but Manchin and Sinema shut that down.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            4 months ago

            You don’t need a filibuster proof majority to suspend the filibuster, so there’s no relevance to how rarely they’ve had that.

            • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              21
              ·
              4 months ago

              Talking about the Democratic party’s history with the filibuster isn’t related to a current Democratic Senator’s comments on the filibuster?

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                4 months ago

                No? Why would it be. You don’t need a filibuster proof margin to eliminate the filibuster. If your point had been “a filibuster proof majority is so incredibly rare it makes governing essentially impossible” that would be relevant, but just pointing out we only had one once so that’s why Roe wasn’t codified is not.

                • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Senator Warren’s comments, and this post about them, aren’t just about the filibuster. It’s also about codifying Roe v Wade. And I was replying to someone who said they should have done something about when they could have. The only times they could have are when they either suspended the filibuster or when they had a filibuster-proof majority. And my reply related to the last time the Democratic party could have reasonably done anything about Roe v Wade, which just so happens to have been the last time the only time they had a filibuster-proof majority.

                  I don’t know why you’re gatekeeping so hard here. The votes on my comments indicate everyone else thinks I’m making positive contributions to the discussion. So maybe just relax a little and let people converse on the topic.

                • BassTurd@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  We didn’t have the votes to get it done in 2020 as the person you responded to pointed out. No, we didn’t need a filibuster proof majority, but we needed a voting majority to suspend the filibuster, which we didn’t have with Sinema and Manchin. Outside of Obama and the ACA, there hasn’t been an opportunity to get anything through both chambers that didn’t have Republican support.

                  So it is a valid excuse for why it’s not been codified without a filibuster proof majority.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        4 months ago

        Roe v Wade looked secure in 2008. It’s only in hindsight that we can say “coulda woulda shoulda”.

    • randon31415@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      4 months ago

      Just for fun, I looked at the last 50 years to see WHEN they could have codified Roe. There were only 4 periods with dem trifectas:

      -1977-81 senate majority 6

      -1993-95 senate majorty 4

      -2009-11 senate majority 9 (10 for a month)

      -2021-23 senate majority 1

      The senate majority is the number of senators you could loose who didn’t want to get rid of the filibuster on this topic OR who were pro life (like Harry Reid, the senate majority leader from 2005 to 2017, though in the senate from 1987-2017)

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The problem is the Dems have TWO conservative senators who refused to codify Roe. Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema both refused to suspend the filibuster.

        So we did NOT have a filibuster-proof majority 2021-2023.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        4 months ago

        There were only 4 periods with dem trifectas

        So ONLY 4 times when there was absolutely nothing standing in their way except themselves?

        That they don’t do what they promised on the rare occasions where they DO get the magic majorities they ask to get first isn’t exactly a good argument in their favor…

        • sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          4 months ago

          We got the ACA in the last one, and in the most recent one two Democrat senators defected to oppose it so it couldn’t go forward.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            4 months ago

            We got the ACA in the last one

            Which they negotiated into a giant giveaway to insurance companies with no price controls or other ways to limit profiteering. WITHOUT any Republicans forcing them to or even voting for the bill.

            two Democrat senators defected to oppose it so it couldn’t go forward.

            Yeah, there’s always a rotating villain or two who acts as a roadblock and scapegoat. So very convenient for a party that votes for legislation that their rich owner donors want much more often than legislation that the people at large want.

            Especially since the rotating villains are always heavily promoted by party leadership and paid more party funds for their campaigns than most other candidates.

            • evatronic@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              23
              ·
              4 months ago

              The ACA, while not perfect, literally saved my life. It prohibits lifetime maximums and eliminated the idea of pre-existing conditions.

              Without that, I’d be dead.

              Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

              • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                4 months ago

                This place is full of people who want to turn an aircraft carrier on a dime. They’ll never be happy with anything and it explains why their big ideas will never happen.

                They turn everyone off and discourage everyone because nothing is ever good enough. It would be one thing to be happy but not satisfied but even that isn’t enough.

                • evatronic@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I know.

                  They have unrealistic expectations about how the world works and feel like anger, even if justified, should be enough.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                4 months ago

                I’m glad it saved your life and I am aware that it was an improvement over the former status quo.

                That being said, though, it’s inadequacies HAVE lead to the deaths of many, perhaps thousands or even hundreds of thousands, from not being able to afford treatment before it’s too late.

                Dems had a unique opportunity to save as many lives as possible, and they negotiated themselves down to a tiny step in the right direction and then pretended that it’s the best anyone could possibly do.

                It’s been over a decade and a half since they took that tiny step and they’re still resting on their laurels and vehemently opposing anyone who suggests that improvements are needed or even possible.

                Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good

                I’m so fucking tired of that lame argument for complacency.

                Incrementalism isn’t good. Taking a tiny step in the right direction and then declaring victory as the other party predictably makes it worse than it originally was as both parties gradually turn further and further right isn’t good.

                It’s throwing rare scraps to the starving masses from the banquets they throw for their owner donors, including the health insurance industry leeches that the ACA massively enriches.

                • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Politics is about incremental progress, which is not sexy enough for you guys. If you want the revolution, go start it. Shit or get off the can. All this moral grandstanding is vacuous and meaningless

                  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Politics is about incremental progress

                    Because that’s what the powerful have decided for you, NOT because it’s the best way.

                    If you want the revolution, go start it. Shit or get off the can

                    “If you don’t like my favorite band, make better music yourself” 🙄

                    All this moral grandstanding is vacuous and meaningless

                    Yeah, expressing dissent should be for those with the power to change things themselves only. What a great idea! 🙄

                • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  That being said, though, it’s inadequacies HAVE lead to the deaths of many, perhaps thousands or even hundreds of thousands, from not being able to afford treatment before it’s too late.

                  Yeah, but less people died than they would have if there was no ACA.

                  Its terrible that people die in the country every day from healthcare issues that are taken care of by every other first world country on the planet.

                  but god damn, sitting here saying shit like you are screams of nothing but impotent anti-ACA troll flailing.

                  the ACA needs to have its holes patched, yes, but don’t sit here and pretend its not saving a fuckton of lives.

              • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                the flaws in the ACA only exist cause follow up bills to patch the holes that came up after rollout couldnt be passed due to, you guessed it, republicans.

                cause republicans are against anything and everything that benefits the 99.9%

                • evatronic@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Indeed. Everyone tries to blame Democrats for, when they have the slimmest of majorities, for not doing everything, when there are literally 49 Republican senators out there who are the ones who are truly blocking progress.

    • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      4 months ago

      If they have all of those things (again) and still don’t give us Medicare for all (again) I’m fucking done.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      When elected into a supermajority with a clear mandate: “well, sorry sweetie, we just have other priorities.”

      When facing a landslide defeat this election season: “trust us voters, we will do the right thing this time and totally not let you down!”

      • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        When they’re in power: Reach across the aisle! Government is about compromise!

        When they’re at risk of losing power: Vote for us because we’re not as bad as the Other Guys!

        • crusa187@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          One thing I know for sure about “bipartisan compromise” - whenever it happens, it means the American people are getting absolutely screwed.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think Machinema opposed it then. Though if she says she’s got 50 now, it requires at least one of them. They should have done this all in Obama’s first term though.

    • jumjummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      You mean in the couple months that the democrats controlled all three branches of government in the past 20 years? During that time we got the ACA. Vote blue across the board in November to have a chance at getting all three branches blue again to actually accomplish something.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      The USSC would just say that it’s unconstitutional at this point, even if they codify it into law.

      Hell, they’d probably declare it unconstitutional even if it was a literal constitutional amendment, simply because it wasn’t one of the original amendments laid out in the bill of rights, thus also laying out the legal precedent for challenging literally any of the constitutional amendments that weren’t in the bill of rights.