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.”

  • 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.