Something happened during the Democrats’ excitement-packed Chicago convention that has drawn relatively...

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he was considering changing or open to changing or may change the filibuster rules next year to pass a federal Roe law, enshrining national abortion rights. Schumer said that he would pass two voting rights laws under a filibuster exception. On abortion he said, “I have to discuss that with my caucus. This is one of the issues we would have to debate and discuss and evolve.”

  • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
    122·
    2 months ago

    This is what a trial balloon looks like.

    He can’t do it today because the House is controlled by Republicans, and they won’t go along with passing anything.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      45·
      2 months ago

      A trial balloon for what?

      To see if Dem voters want Roe vs Wade codified still or if we changed our mind over the last 30 some years we’ve been saying we need to do it?

      He can’t do it today because the House is controlled by Republicans, and they won’t go along with passing anything.

      What was the excuse for 2020-2021?

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
        111·
        2 months ago

        It’s a trial balloon for actually doing it.

        In 2020-2021 Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema weren’t willing to go along, so the votes weren’t there.

          • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
            7·
            2 months ago

            They’re both going to be gone. If the election goes well, Kristen Sinema will be replaced by Ruben Gallego, and there will be 50 Senators + the VP willing to pass this kind of change.

              • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
                6·
                2 months ago

                We were discussing:

                Schumer said that he would pass two voting rights laws under a filibuster exception. On abortion he said, “I have to discuss that with my caucus. This is one of the issues we would have to debate and discuss and evolve.”

                And you bring in a completely different topic to jump up and down about.

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  32·
                  2 months ago

                  Sorry man, trying to multitask.

                  Completely got mixed up and thought we were talking about how we won’t get M4A, not how we won’t get Roe v Wade codified.

                  But I gotta put my phone down and handle something so I just deleted the comments where I fucked up

          • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            2 months ago

            Are any other Dems going to say they oppose it? We don’t know yet. Because Schumer wouldn’t call a vote so we could identify which incumbents need to be replaced.

            He could hold the vote now. Show people which Republicans need replaced.

            Um…what? Are you saying that anything could be done to “replace” a handful of incumbents literally 68 days before the election? Please play that scenario out for me. Say 5 Democrats voted in a way that showed you they “need to be replaced”, and you wake up ready to put a game plan into motion on…checks notes…Thursday, August 29th. What do you do to “replace” those incumbents, starting tomorrow? Keep in mind the deadline for ballot access was like a week ago, and you don’t really know what states they’re from, so presumably you have no idea who you’d even need to reach out to in order to find a candidate, let alone convince someone to run, hire campaign staff, film ads, buy airtime, schedule debates, and barnstorm their constituency. Tell me your first week’s activity.

            But I don’t think I’m going to get any answers here

            You mean in response to your ludicrous, illogical questions? No, no you’re not. Glad you’re not expecting any.