Top Biden ally pleads with him to scrap filibuster for election reform

[hookaleft]

Rep. Jim Clyburn said it’s time for the president to embrace more aggressive changes to the Senate rules.

After months of setbacks and gridlock on voting rights, one of President Joe Biden’s top allies in Congress is calling for him to support amending the Senate filibuster.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) told POLITICO Biden “should endorse” the idea of creating a carveout to the legislative filibuster in the Senate for legislation that applies to the Constitution. In effect, the reform would make it possible for Democrats to pass their sweeping elections reform bill and another bill reauthorizing key sections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act with just Democratic support.

It’s a sentiment the congressman says he’s shared with White House counselor Steve Ricchetti and Office of Public Engagement Director Cedric Richmond as well. “I've even told that to the vice president,” Clyburn said.


Biden could “pick up the phone and tell [Sen.] Joe Manchin, ‘Hey, we should do a carve out.’” Clyburn said, referring to the centrist West Virginia Democrat who has resisted filibuster reform. “I don't care whether he does it in a microphone or on the telephone — just do it.”

*Snip*
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/10/clyburn-biden-filibuster-election-reform-499051

[SoCalDavidS]

1. Why Does President Biden Have To Call?

If this is something that Manchin would support (I don't think he would), then his fellow Senators should be the ones proposing the change, and taking a vote so it can be initiated.

Biden has literally Zero control over what the Senate does, and I hardly think Manchin is sitting by the phone, waiting for the President to call and ask for this "carve out."

If it's realistic, then just do it.

Hint: They Won't.

[CrispyQ]

2. +1

Also, there are other senators who oppose ditching the filibuster, conveniently hiding behind Manchin & Sinema. Schumer needs to twist some arms.

[SoCalDavidS]

3. Schumer Might Be One As Well

Like you, I've been saying there are others.

If Schumer is also opposed, he's obviously not going to pursue anything. I don't recall hearing him come out and complain about Manchin's refusal, so perhaps he is in the same camp.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Mitch ignored SCOTUS nominees, why not suspend filibuster for national security and democracy?

Mitch established the precedent. When outcomes are important for some extraneous reason, the Constitution is flexible.

Don't need to destroy the filibuster. Just suspend it. Set it aside, temporarily, for sovereignty and our political system.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

9. +1000

How is protecting voting rights any less essential than getting SCOTUS nominees shoved through if you've got a Republican president? I like the idea of creating a "carve out" to protect the right to vote.

Manchin and Sineas need to be made to understand that their legacies will be the destruction of democracy. Also, show them the tape of the GOP operative telling his audience to contact the two senators -- whether you're from their states or not -- and "Thank them for their patriotism." He cheered the two Democrats on for preventing the passage of "radical socialist Democrat legislation."

They're laughing at you, senators.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. It could even, at this juncture in time, be considered the prerogative of the Majority Leader

Already, he can bring what he wants to the floor, at the time and manner in which he chooses. This isn't far from that.

[whathehell]

10. Suspending the filibuster -- Very interesting idea!

[dalton99a]

5. Kick

[marble falls]

6. If it's a choice between the two, a good strong Federal voting bill the more important.

[KS Toronado]

7. Get rid of the damn filibuster

and start passing things the poor, middle class, and seniors will benefit from.......
and the reQublicans will have a hard time electing anyone for a lo_____ng time.

edit, forgot the important "Q"

[seta1950]

8. If

Those bills are not passed , we can forget about Democracy

[gulliver]

12. Passing election reform laws is a nice gesture, but it's not the answer.

Voting and voting and voting is the answer, whatever the rules end up being. If we end the filibuster to pass a voting rights bill, that doesn't mean that Republican-controlled states will just automatically obey the new laws. They'll fight them tooth and nail, right up to the Supreme Court.

The new Republican vote suppression laws pander to the disgruntlement and racism of that Party's hostage-taking lunatics. It's making a law against something just to assert that that something exists in the first place. They act as if the Big Lie is true in order to make it more true (for themselves).

What we can't do is let those laws do anything but motivate us to raise our turnout to 100% or as close as damn well possible. If someone tried to suppress my vote, it would only make me want to vote more and more often.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. You are absolutely, completely wrong

Focusing on voting, “whatever the rules end up being” is an outdated, familiar, comfort-zone paradigm that no longer applies when state legislatures can now reject or overturn the results of elections and ignore the will of the people. 100% turnout won’t matter if the states can flip off the voters and say “naw, our guy is the winner”.

Sure, the states will fight the new laws in court; better to force them to fight, than to give up without a meaningful fight on our part.

The fight is NOW, in the streets, in the next 30-60 days, NOT in November 2022.

Focusing on GOTV instead of voting rights is a naive fantasy bound to fail. The push for GOTV only becomes critical after voting rights is passed.

[gulliver]

16. The misunderstanding I think you may have...

...is that the political battle is in the legislature. My argument is that that is only a gesture, a good gesture to be sure, meaningful to "the good, democratic people." My point is that the real battle, and the one that really matters, belongs to the voters. Anything that serves to reduce the will to vote or rationalizes failure to vote against Republicans is poison.

What we are facing is a Republican Party that ignores law and is close as hell to ignoring democracy altogether. Passing a law to try to keep muggers from mugging doesn't stop mugging. Passing a federal law, democratic though the process may be, will not stop Republicans from simply abandoning democracy. They were far too close to that in 2020.

The political battle for democracy is in the hands of the voters...if anyone. Things like raw numbers of votes mean something. They tell us who outnumbers whom in terms of political power. Mobs and muggers don't read fine print like laws. Raw voting numbers are simple and understandable. It's much, much harder for a state legislature to ignore a 200,000 vote loss than a 20,000 vote loss.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. The political battle is in the streets

You completely ignore the impact the power of the legislatures to ignore the will of the people.

Thousands are, and will be purged from the voter rolls and won’t even be allowed to cast ballots. Thousands more will find it so difficult or confusing to vote, or to request an absentee ballot that they will simply give up, as was the plan and intention in drafting these laws. Thousands more will show up at the polls and be denied a ballot for a myriad of reasons.

Even if Dems manage to win by 20,000 or 200,000, the legislature can just say “hmmm, smells like there was a lot of fraud- we’re not certifying this race”. That is precisely what is likely to happen in Georgia for Warnock’s re-election- the legislature will refuse to certify his race, and the governor will appoint a Republican to fill the vacancy. If people wait until then to take to the streets, it will be far too late.

Rather than wait until November 2022 to test your theory that “it’s much much harder for a state legislature to ignore a 200,000 vote loss than a 20,000 vote loss” (to which the GA legislature will simply say “hold my beer”), I prefer to see direct action NOW, this summer. If voting rights laws are passed now, it would give the DOJ powers to intercede and even arrest state officials who suppress the vote or ignore the will of the people.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Biden is giving a speech on voting rights on Tuesday

That will get on the news, and bring to the fore efforts by activists to pass the bills.

I expect Schumer will initiate a push to change the filibuster to Manchin’s proposal to require 41 senators present and speaking to sustain the filibuster.

That will leave Sinema standing all alone; as much as she loves being the center of attention, I don’t think she will enjoy this position, and will likely use the moment to become the “saviour” of voting rights. The alternative, to be labeled the villain and enabler of Jim Crow 2.0, and the ensuing consequences, including becoming the focal point of activists’ rage, would likely be unbearable.

The next few weeks will be significant, and not only worth watching, but participating in. To find out what you can do to save democracy and to find voting rights events and activities near you, go to:

Indivisible.org

[Vinca]

14. Biden can't scrap the filibuster and I don't see the holdouts changing their inaction because

of anything Biden might say.

[PortTack]

18. The WH May have more power than one thinks

Law professors: the filibuster is unconstitutional, and Kamala Harris can issue a ruling.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/op-ed-filibuster-unconstitutional-heres-101532325.html

There is a clear next step in changing the Senate filibuster: Vice President Kamala Harris, as presiding officer of the Senate, can — and should — declare the current Senate filibuster rule unconstitutional. This would open the door for discussions on a new rule that would respect the minority without giving it an unconstitutional veto.

In 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon, sitting as presiding officer of the Senate, issued two advisory opinions holding that a crucial provision of the Senate’s filibuster rule — requiring two-thirds vote to amend it — was unconstitutional. Nixon’s constitutional determination was reaffirmed by subsequent vice presidents Hubert Humphrey and Nelson Rockefeller. In fact, it was this ruling that allowed both the Democratic-controlled Senate in 2013 and the Republican-controlled Senate in 2017 by a simple majority vote to eliminate filibusters for all executive and judicial nominees.

Harris possesses the same power to rule that the current version of the Senate filibuster, which essentially establishes a 60-vote supermajority rule to enact legislation in the Senate, is unconstitutional because it denies states “equal Suffrage in the Senate” in violation of Article V of the Constitution

[crickets]

20. Interesting article. nt

[FBaggins]

21. This nonsense again?

The VP holds no special power in the Senate (apart from breaking ties). This is essentially the same nonsense that Trump was trying to sell in getting Pence to reject some EVs.

Harris possesses the same power to rule that the current version of the Senate filibuster... is unconstitutional

The "same" power meaning none at all. The VP can "rule" that all she wants... but it takes a single senator to say "um... that's BS" and then the "ruling" is up for a vote. The exact same vote (requiring Manchin, Sinema, and probably half a dozen other reluctant Democrats to go along) that we've been discussing since January.

The Senate as a whole holds power. The presiding officer - whether it be the VP, any other senator, or even the Chief Justice in an impeachment - is an entirely administrative/ceremonial position. They have no power unless 51 votes back them up... because it's the 51 votes that hold power.

[onenote]

22. +1

[Wild blueberry]

17. Yes!

Biden was a senator for so long that he still has pull with his colleagues.
All Democratic senators need to be pushed to pass For the People Act and the John Lewis Act.
Any Dem holdouts, including the silent ones, are pledging their allegiance to Dark Money and not our democracy.