Bernie: Congress Must Codify Roe v. Wade 'NOW'

[Emile]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) was one of several Democratic lawmakers calling urgently for the codification of abortion rights into federal law on Monday night, shortly after a Supreme Court draft decision was leaked by Politico, revealing that the majority of the court’s justices were leaning toward overturning 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision.

“Congress must pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW,” Sanders wrote on Twitter. “And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.” Efforts to pass legislation codifying the decision have long been stymied, with the most recent push failing to pass the Senate in February by a margin of 46-48. The Women’s Health Protection Act, as it was known, failed to gather the 50 votes needed to pass after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) crossed the aisle and joined Republicans in opposition.

Congress must pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW. And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-calls-for-roe-v-wade-to-be-codified-now-after-alitos-supreme-court-draft-decision-leaks

[yardwork]

1. This thread will not go well.

[Emile]

4. People are against ending the filibuster?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

44. No... glad to see Bernie taking the lead on this.

[Demsrule86]

53. You know I love you...but Bernie should not take the lead period. And to call for a vote we

would undoubtedly lose is madness. I got to say I am feeling pretty angry today. This didn't have to happen.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

88. EXACTLY!! (Bernie knows this.)

[Rebl2]

89. What does

tighten up mean in this case.

[Demsrule86]

173. It is meaningless really...we don't have the votes. Let's concentrate on electing Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

172. It makes us look weak. And the GOP never succeeded now did they? We need to concentrate

on any bills that could help with the midterm. I don't give two shits what Sanders wants. He is one Senator. We have to play this smart.

[notinkansas]

126. "but Bernie should not take the lead period"??

Couldn't disagree more. We need every single senator to come to their senses on this issue. Every single anti-choice senator needs to be voted out in the midterms. They all need to be leaders.

This is not a time to wallow in a political grudge.

[Demsrule86]

171. No, He should not. And certainly calling for it now when we don't have the votes is

foolish. We are here today in large part because of 2016.

[inthewind21]

226. Yes, yes we are

[notinkansas]

235. Well, I certainly reject that stance.

We certainly do need to force that vote. Particularly prior to the midterm election so that politicians cannot hide from voters their vile decision to take rights away from women.

[gldstwmn]

231. Chuck Schumer says he is going to bring it to a vote.

The Senate will vote on a bill creating a federal right to an abortion, Schumer says

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Senate will vote to codify the right to abortion into federal law, in response to a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

"A vote on this legislation is not an abstract exercise, this is as urgent and real as it gets," Schumer said in a floor speech on Tuesday morning, following Politico's Monday night reporting of the draft, which could change before the final version comes out this summer. "We will vote to protect a woman's right to choose and every American is going to see which side every senator stands."

Any such vote would be symbolic. Democrats control the Senate but only hold half the seats, and they can't muster the 60-vote supermajority needed to pass the law that Schumer suggested. Some senators, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have called to eliminate the filibuster's supermajority rules to pass a law to protect abortion rights with a simple majority vote. Democrats do not have the support from within the party for such a tactical move, as two centrist senators — Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — are opposed to changing any filibuster rules without bipartisan support.

(snip)
Schumer also repeated his accusation that conservative justices "lied" to the Senate in the course of their confirmations regarding their views on whether the Roe decision was settled precedent. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has denounced the leak but not commented on substance of the apparent draft decision, which could change before the Supreme Court officially issues its ruling.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096131690/schumer-abortion-rights-senate-supreme-court-leak

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

234. BRAVOOOOO!!!

[pnwmom]

115. After how useful he was in 2016, waiting till September to do any campaigning,

I'm not feeling very grateful.

[LizBeth]

159. End of Sept I believe, then only giving his same ole stump speech.

[Demsrule86]

174. I do not fee grateful today either.

[867-5309.]

204. Bernie is a strong feminist

And I too applaud him for speaking out!

[LizBeth]

209. MLK/Steiman wrapped in one. Yes, we know. He campaigned on it and we called him on it.

You do not get a womans card campaigning women issues are not the important issues or saying it is not enough to vote a woman president, like her being a woman is the only reason to vote for her, or saying she is playing the womans card.

[pnwmom]

216. The kind of strong feminist who didn't bother campaigning for the first female candidate

for President, except for six times in the last two months of the election.

Yeah, what a feminist.

[867-5309.]

223. Hillary lost among white women

Defections among Sanders voters weren't unusually high.

Bottom line, I think we should see Bernie as an asset - this story being a good example.

[pnwmom]

224. Defections among Sanders and Stein voters were the only defections that affected the outcome.

In an election that was settled by a tiny number of voters in a few states, they made all the difference.

We can thank anyone who didn't give full-throated support to Hillary, as soon as she was the certain nominee, for this outcome. Especially anyone who encouraged their own supporters to come to the convention and protest.

[867-5309.]

225. My point being you won't ever hold 100%. But Hillary held pretty well.

I don't have a problem with the platform being contested, a long primary, etc. I would have a big problem with anyone not supporting the nominee after the convention.

As an aside we can all be thankful Joe selected Kamala as veep and I expect her to be the first female president of the United States!

[pnwmom]

227. A half dozen last minute campaign appearances didn't help enough. And the primary

was extended for no good reason for more than a month after Hillary had won it. And all those protesters coming to the convention helped weaken her support.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

250. In fact Bernie is a HUGE asset...& that's why u shudnt counti out if Joe decides not to run in 2024.

If Joe DOES run, you can count on Bernie to be right by his side to help get him across the finish line again!!
Bernie is an asset indeed!!

[Demsrule86]

56. Asking for a vote that we will surely lose is not helpful. It just makes me more angry with him.

I'll leave it at that.

[Emile]

80. So your opinion is we'll lose. The fact is we don't know that until we try.

I choose that we fight back!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

92. THANK YOU!! YES!! Bernie will fight tooth and nail... why he commands respect.

Last edited Tue May 3, 2022, 02:50 PM - Edit history (2)

Elizabeth too... I'm certain she'll also spearhead this fight in the Senate!! Undoubtedly, Joe & Kamala too will soon speak out forcefully on this heinous decision and bring their considerable combined Senate experience to bear. LET'S FIGHT LIKE HELL... this assault by far-right extremist SCJustices on people's freedom to choose WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!!

[pnwmom]

119. He only campaigned 6 times for her in 2016, so not exactly tooth and nail.

And then Trump got his foothold.

[Demsrule86]

176. Let's face it, if Hillary had run unopposed. She would be sitting in the White House....

and Roe would be safe for a generation.

[Demsrule86]

186. Nope, it was made all about Hillary during the primary..

[Demsrule86]

191. And I don't care if Hillary made Attila the Hun VP...with the courts at stake all Democrats

and those who caucus with the Democrats should have supported Hillary and not opined about who's job it was to attract certain voters. Women will die and what happened is inexcusable.

[Demsrule86]

175. Manchin has already said he won't vote for it...so what is the point?

What you describe is not fighting...more like political suicide.

[Emile]

221. Not fighting is political suicide!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

251. Touche again Emile!!

[Demsrule86]

283. Of course we have to fight, but we have to fight smart...until we elect more Demcrats...

Congress can do little if anything...thus we must be laser-focused on using this issue and the contraceptives issue and the LGBTQ attacks as well to bury the Republicans. We have opportunities in the Senate and the House...and the Roe V Wade issue will help us...so let's not give the GOP any other issue to use to rev up their shitty base. Fired up and ready to go.

[gldstwmn]

233. Let's get Murkowski, Collins and Capito to put their money where their mouth is.

[JohnSJ]

9. On this issue there won't be a problem. The problem will be two Senators who refuse to get rid

of the filibuster, and all the twiting and complaining will not change that.

The only chance we have is to retain the majority in the House, and win the Senate by at least two seats, anything else will be less than adequate

[gab13by13]

14. Are you sure that Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski will vote no?

[JohnSJ]

15. On the filibuster I am pretty sure they will vote to keep it

[Emile]

23. So we do nothing?

[Demsrule86]

179. We rally the base and women to vote in the midterms...and we win enough seats to fix this.

We speak out against it constantly...I think we might just save Georgia and win Texas after this.

[Demsrule86]

48. Of course they will.

[Noahv]

288. They just did

Link to tweet

[gopiscrap]

302. welcome to DU

[Demsrule86]

188. That is exactly right.

[W_HAMILTON]

131. Nor should it.

Maybe sit this one out, Sanders.

You basically hockey-assisted the death of Roe v. Wade.

[Demsrule86]

182. yep...that is what I think too.

[DFW]

201. Gee, ya think?

[yardwork]

211. Obvious, I know.

[iemanja]

2. Agreed.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. And you get to 50 how, exactly?

Bernie whistling in the wind again.

[Emile]

6. By taking a vote!

[Demsrule86]

37. There is no point in trying if we don't have the votes. Failing makes us look weak. We

need to concentrate on winning the midterm and adding as many Democrats as possible...we also need to reelect Joe Biden. That is our only path. Senator Sanders knows the votes are not there so I fail to see why he suggests this unless he means after the midterms where hopefully we have the votes.

[Demsrule86]

184. The GOP got nothing but judges and a reconciliation tax bill. The minority gets nothing and

given our situation with 2024 where we can be damned sure the GOP will attempt a steal, we need to play this smart, and taking votes we will surely lose will demoralize voters who will then believe it is hopeless.

[Demsrule86]

258. which was done in reconciliation just like Infrastructure and they had a bigger majority in

the Senate.

[Doremus]

137. So we can only try to do productive things every two years?

Curious, what is the window for that? What month is it permissible to fight in election years? July, August? Sooner, later? What's the cutoff?

[Demsrule86]

192. How about we concentrate on winning elecitions even midterms and see just what we can get

done if we stick together and don't demand unicorns as the price of our vote. This is a "we must hang together or surely we will hang separately" moment.

[Voltaire2]

10. A vote for do nothing.

[Demsrule86]

45. Sometimes there is nothing you can do. This was set up in 2016...when some on our side

refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. Three Trump judges will vote to end Roe...one was already waiting when those on our side didn't vote for Hillary. Also, the same sort of thing happened in 2000 and two justices appointed by Bush2 will vote to end Roe. And of course, one judge Thomas is from Bush1. He clearly received votes from our side given the magnitude of his win. After all, how you look in an Army helmet and what you would do if your wife was raped were of national significance.

Truly, we brought this on ourselves by our refusal to look at the big picture in terms of elections. You fight like hell in the primaries but once that is over, you always vote for the winner, and let's try not to mortally wound one another in primaries too. And let's face the truth, does anyone really believe if there had been no primary in 16 that Trump would have won the election? It was a big mistake...hopefully not a fatal mistake.

But now we need to put this aside and mend our ways in order to save our party and our Republic. Let us begin with the midterms. I fear this will be a long battle but we must fight this war against those that would destroy our constitution and our Republic.

[Voltaire2]

222. Exactly.

[Tumbulu]

95. Exactly

And I am furious and agree with you completely on all points.

[Demsrule86]

193. We win the midterm and then we vote.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

252. I hear ya... will never understand that kinda defeatist attitude.

[iemanja]

114. With Republican women

Like Murkowski. Pretending this can't pass is an excuse.

[Demsrule86]

194. That is ridiculous. I do not believe either Collins or Murkawski will vote for an Abortion rights

bill. But here is the thing, we know they won't vote to end the filibuster thus we won't be able to get a vote anyway.

[aocommunalpunch]

150. Putting those against abortion access on the record.

How hard is this? You then campaign the fuck against them.

[bucolic_frolic]

154. I likes your attitude!! /nt

[Demsrule86]

195. Everyone knows Republicans are against abortion...and making our folks take such a vote in the

midterm is madness...you do want Sen. Warnock reelected I suppose? Let's not make it harder by taking a useless vote when we don't have the numbers.

[gldstwmn]

236. Exactly. Hold them accountable. Either walk the talk or face the consequences.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

253. DING!! DING!! DING!! We hava winna!!

Not hard at all... but then, for whatever reason, some just choose to ignore reality. I for one will NEVER understand that defeatist attitude... it's time to fight people!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

238. Why insult Bernie on this? He should be applauded... apparently Chuck Schumer agrees with Bernie!!

No surprise there... proud of Sen. Schumer taking a lead role in forcing a Senate vote too!! This is what leaders do... LEAD!!

[Emile]

247. Exactly

[Calista241]

8. Manchin has been anti-abortion (pro-life) forever.

It's even in the term he uses to describe himself, a 'pro-life democrat'. The chances of him eliminating the filibuster to codify abortion rights is slim and none.

[Emile]

11. Collins and Murkowski will cancel him out!

[Joenobody]

29. Yeah right

Still think that there is water in that Collins well?

[Demsrule86]

35. Collins and Murkowski won't help us; they will say that now Congress must do something. The

will have ruled.

[FoxNewsSucks]

117. It should be voted on,

but I'm not holding my breath expecting the "concerned" Susan Collins to do the right thing.

She voted for beer-bong woman-assaulting Brett Kavanaugh, and said MF45 "learned his lesson". I expect absolutely nothing from her.

[FoxNewsSucks]

300. she wasted city tax money having it washed off

she's self serving first , republican second, everything else after .

I'd like to say I'm surprised by the snotty comments below, but I cant

[inthewind21]

228. How you ask

Haven't been paying attention have you? If you think Collins and Murkowski are women first, well, they put Kavanaugh on the bench. But you just keep ignoring their past votes and telling yourself they will cross over if helps you sleep at night.

[Noahv]

290. Well, that didn't age well

Link to tweet

[Noahv]

296. "insulting"

Very, very interesting opinion on what to insult means.

[Calista241]

39. Murkowski is up for re-election in November.

She's not going to rock the boat that badly. And I don't see Collins doing more than complaining.

[Calista241]

58. They could easily vote to support the legislation, and vote against the rule change.

That may be the more likely scenario.

[Noahv]

298. That didn't age well

"easily".

[obamanut2012]

163. Alaska has codified the right to abortion

[BradAllison]

112. How is Susan Collins pro-choice?

Start there first.....

[Emile]

121. She says she is. I know her voting record on SC Justices says different.

Either way this vote will put her on record, I see no problem with that!

[BradAllison]

125. She's gonna make it about the fillibuster

She always has cover. She's a fucking slug.

[Emile]

129. Who cares! We are fighting back and that's what is expected

of our politicians!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

248. ☝️☝️☝️ THIS!!!! ☝️☝️☝️

LET'S FIGHT PEOPLE!! Do not listen to those sayin we shouldn't even try... that's a losing strategy for sure!!

[inthewind21]

229. Put her on record

She voted for Kavanaugh. How much more on the record do you need?

[Demsrule86]

196. They won't vote for us...they wil annnounce that SCOTUS has spoken period...but it never gets

that far as we don't have the votes to end the filibuster.

[Polybius]

198. Casey (D-PA) would also be against a national abortion law

But that's 50-50, so I guess the Veep would be the tiebreaker. That's if we can get past the filibuster.

[gldstwmn]

237. Shelley Moore Capito is also supposedly pro choice.

[Noahv]

289. Breaking news. They didn't

Link to tweet

[jalan48]

20. +1

The time for three dimensional chess is over. Fighting will energize Democrats.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

16. He is?

[hamsterjill]

17. Then someone skilled needs to look into his past.

And find something that can be used to convince him otherwise. There has got to be something and we all know there is.

Shocked? I’m sorry, but Manchin’s control needs to end.

[Calista241]

41. If that happened, it would be a crime. Straight up blackmail and extortion.

It would be safer to just elect more Democrats in November.

[hamsterjill]

77. It's not a crime if it's true.

Sorry if I offended your purity, but I’m sick of the bullshit.

[marie999]

151. It is still a crime to blackmail someone.

[hamsterjill]

161. Gray area.

Look, I’m tired of Manchin’s bullshit grandstanding and if some derogatory information was discovered about him or his family, and he somehow changed his mind and cooperated on some things, who would I be to question his decision to do the right thing?

Now, any further discussion on this is just going to be alert bait. So have a very nice day. Maybe you could call Manchin’s office and ask him, pretty please, would he stop being an asshole?

[inthewind21]

230. Actually

It's called opposition research.

[Demsrule86]

197. Lets get real...that is never going to happen.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

254. Hear hear!!

[gab13by13]

18. What happened in 2016 is over,

we can hang our heads and do nothing or we can push Chuck Schumer to fight back.

There will be a lot of pressure on Senators when a vote to codify Roe happens.

The House has already passed its bill. Think about the run up to voting on a carve out to the filibuster to save Roe. There will be tremendous pressure on Senators, they will be on record.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

19. I agree

We have to stop the "We probably won't win, so we shouldn't try" stuff.

[W_HAMILTON]

136. The hell it is.

This potential Court decision is one of the many, MANY lasting effects from that election period. -- and it won't be the last.

[Demsrule86]

199. No it is not over. I see the same sort of crap today...and we can't get rid of the filibuster thus

there will be no vote possible...but you all can hurt the midterms by these sorts of actions...I hope you don't. We need to run on this in the midterm and try to get the needed votes. It is the only solution.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

255. Chuck Schumer IS fighting back, along with Bernie, Elizabeth & others.

He deserves credit for showing leadership in the Senate!!

[CrackityJones75]

24. Always there grandstanding for things he knows cannot happen.

Pretty damned easy to stand up and claim to be the person looking to save everyone when you know damned well you don’t have the votes. I have watched this guy do this over and over and over and over again.

[CrackityJones75]

25. And by all means hold a vote.

We should absolutely hold a vote.

[Emile]

27. Another vote for do nothing because it's Bernie?

[Demsrule86]

33. A vote at this point would achieve nothing. We need more Democrats and Sen. Sander must

know this so why isn't he pumping up the midterm or helping with Senate races in areas he can help.

[CrackityJones75]

103. Oh? You'll have to quote me.

Where did I say do nothing? I say do EVERYTHING including the things that we are too afraid to say here.

[Emile]

106. So would you support this if someone other than Bernie suggested it?

Be honest!

[Demsrule86]

200. Explain to me how we get a vote...we can't get rid of the filubuster...so how is a vote possible.

And also explain to me how Senator Sanders does not already know this?

[Emile]

220. Explain to me why it's bad to fight for something

we all believe is a right?

[Uncle Joe]

26. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Emile.

[The Grand Illuminist]

28. Ending the filibuster would do much more harm than good.

Remember the what the wise man said....

[Demsrule86]

32. No it wouldn't. Nothing will ever get done with the filibuster. And folks hate Congress

because nothing ever gets done...that is why many don't bother to vote.

[The Grand Illuminist]

43. You got to look at this from another prospective.

If the GOP has the senate and house majority and the White House, and there is no filibuster, everything the Democratic party worked for to be law would be reversed quick as a wink. The majority can be a tyranny for the greater good.

[MamaCuatro]

122. exactly

Agree +1000

Be VERY careful what you wish for.

[Demsrule86]

202. They will likely do that anyway. The idea that you trust the GOP not to end the filibuster is

madness. And if we have fixed Medicare, the ACA, and other important things that people want...let the GOP try to take it away.

[Demsrule86]

62. We can't do anything with the filibuster it must go. But it can't until we have more

support in the Senate.

[Demsrule86]

64. We should do everything we can. But the reality is we don't have the votes to end the filibuster.

I favor ending the filibuster, but we need more votes.

[FoxNewsSucks]

120. That's what disgusts me,

They get their way when they're the majority, and still do when they're the minority.

And way too often the people on our side who do fight are often condemned instead of being supported.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

256. You said it!! It's time for the commendation to stop & the fighting to start!!

[Demsrule86]

205. What did the Gop get really? Judges that our some on our side deemed not important enough

to vote for Hillary. Other than that they got a tax bill in reconciliation and that's it.

[Demsrule86]

259. All I will say if we show loyalty and stop playing footsie

in the General with third parties who only make us lose, we will win elections and get good policies passed. And that is our only path now...we need more Democrats. Consider if Gore and Clinton had won. It would be a different country.

[betsuni]

263. +1

[Demsrule86]

281. I actually wasn't accusing you of not voting for Hillary Clinton...I assume everyone here

did. Third parties cost us elections. Quite an interesting and informative post.

[Demsrule86]

282. I just want to clear. Those that voted for anyone other than Hillary Clinton in the General

are the reason for our dire situation. I sincerely don't know how they sleep at night...and I am not accusing you of voting third party... so no need to be defensive. I assume as I said before that everyone here votes for the Democratic candidate in a General when the only other choice is electing a Republican.

[Joenobody]

36. We would be smarter to codify the filibuster

Without it in place roe, and most other laws/institutions/etc would become political footballs that just change possession as often as a party can grab a couple branches of government. Given the current court we can expect conservative majorities for atleast another 15 or 20 years...

[AleksS]

69. You might have something.

Remove the filli. to codify R v W, (and any other urgent issues—thinking voting rights, etc. ) then re-institute it as law of some sort so it can’t be removed without overcoming a filibuster.

(I’m not a lawyer do I may be wrong about the ability to codify senate rules as law, but it’s still an interesting thought. Potentially senators like Murk and Collins would loosen the filibuster temporarily for reproductive rights if they won’t vote to kill it permanently.)

[jimfields33]

79. I'm not sure why we are always in reactive mode

Why has congress not done this in the last 50 years? We had filibuster proof majorities at some points during this time. So frustrating.

[Celerity]

287. we are always in reactive mode because we have (due to the US first past the post single member

district majoritarian system with no proportional representation, thus an almost 100% default to a 2 party only outcome) an extremely diverse coalition, whereas the Rethugs mostly only have 2 types (or a combo of the two types). Most Rethugs are usually either low tax, downsize government as much as possible, no to little regulation types, or the RW culture warriors and racists/homophobes/misogynists, or a combo of both types.

It is far harder to get our party to agree on proactive things, so we revert to defence.

[BumRushDaShow]

127. What do you mean by "codify"?

"Cloture" (move to end debate) is a RULE. Each chamber, at the beginning of a session, develops, debates, and votes on the RULES that will be in place (subject to temporary modification per their regular processes and those changes get voted on within their respective chambers).

In fact, each chamber has their own "Rules Committee" that meets regularly to do just that (and who draft and debate the Rules for carrying out the business of evaluating each piece of legislation scheduled to come before them).

House Committee on Rules

Senate Committee on Rules & Administration

Congress cannot "make a law" that somehow directs what the "Rules" are for either or both of the chambers. The chambers decide for themselves how to proceed.

Article I

(snip)

Section 5.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

[Joenobody]

178. Yet, we have laws

That direct things congress must do and how it must be done.

The electoral count act, which we are all very familiar with does just that. The 49th congress has been able to effectively set rules for every following congress on how they must count electoral votes. If that has not been found unconstitutional then clearly it is within the power of congress to establish laws regarding the rules a house operates under.

[BumRushDaShow]

219. There is a "separation of powers"

And the "laws" of which you speak are actually the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH directing what the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, through its Departments/Agencies, needs to do, "on behalf of the people, by promulgating regulations in support of those laws.

And when there is a dispute about the constitutionality of those laws, the JUDICIAL BRANCH is supposed to step in and decide.

The electoral count act, which we are all very familiar with does just that.

The "electoral count" is something that is codified in the U.S. Constitution itself and has nothing to do with a chamber's "manner of proceedings", which is what "debate" ( "cloture" ) is about.

The Constitution says this about "electoral votes" (and the process of the Presidential election and succession has been amended/updated/revised four times, through the 20th Amendment, 22nd Amendment, 23rd Amendment, 25th Amendment, and this is not counting the allowances of protected classes to vote and/or to remove a barrier to voting).

12th Amendment

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii

Civics 101.

Open up your Constitution and read it. Lots of interesting stuff in there.

[Joenobody]

261. No, it isnt.

It is clearly the legislative branch directing how the legislative branch must work to certify electoral vote counts that's not even debatable. The electoral count act, specifically, outline the procedures to count, accept, and challenge electoral votes from states in the US congress.

The Constitution says that congress must count the votes, it does not say how, that being left up to congress to decide on their own.

However, each congress does not set these rules themselves. They are set by a law which is held as constitutional, despite it establishing rules in both chambers.

Nothing you posted changes the fact that there is a law on the books, and observed every 4 years, in which the 49th congress set in law the procedures followed by every congress since.

As long as that is true, there is not reason to believe that other laws establishing rules that either house must follow could be established.

[BumRushDaShow]

262. What?

What I included was the portion of the Constitution that DIRECTS what Congress is expected "to do" related to what is a specific special function. Each chamber then sets up it's own rules for how to carry that out. The law that you are referring to, which is one the RW loons point to, is explicitly dealing with that "special function" of Presidential elections, and in that case attempted to resolve a circumstance of a "contested election".

You have similar "special functions" noted in the Constitution where the 2 chambers (and even the 3 branches) interact in a joint fashion, for example -

Impeachment (where you later had "Former Presidents Act" that not only provides a pension for former Presidents, but explicitly forbids such for those "removed from office" (impeached, convicted, and removed))

State of the Union

Declaration of War (where you later had he "War Powers Resolution" that attempted to reassert the role of Congress within the context of a President acting as the Article II Sect. 2 "Commander in Chief" with a requirement that the Executive notify Congress within 60 days of initiation of hostilities so Congress can then begin debate on what we have come to know as an "Authorization of Use of Force" )

This "electors" procedure and "War Powers" procedure were "legislation" that addresses ancillary situations related to that "special function".

Again, you are trying to compare special Constitutionally-designated powers/functions with the routine procedures that each chamber decides on during their sessions.

The most recent case in point was the nonsense clown show where a bunch of GOP members of the House sued in an attempt to contest the amendment to the House Rules in court. Their beef being regarding the penalties enacted against them for either refusing to wear a mask in the House chamber and/or refusing to go through security, and in the former case, they argued the amended Rule was "unconstitutional" (a violation of the First Amendment) and the courts threw out the suit. Why? Because each chamber can make its own Rules (and these Rules are voted on by the chamber itself).

Most of the rest of the odd situations were addressed by Constitutional Amendment.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/8/text

[Demsrule86]

207. That is not possible and without the filibuster the voters decide...they have a reason to vote.

[uponit7771]

30. K&R, let Americans see who standing against abortion rights

[Demsrule86]

31. In order to do this we need to elect more Democrats. And Senator Sanders is not the

the person I want to hear from today.

[Emile]

34. So do nothing until we elect more democrats because it's Bernie?

[FoxNewsSucks]

133. I think it was,

particularly after the extent of fecesbook influence and other russian interference has been found out.

Long-term Sanders supporters didn't join that "or bust" thing, and Sanders worked his ass of to get Clinton elected, and then equally hard for Biden.

[myohmy2]

38. this...

...is a litmus test for us Dems...

...are we willing to do what it takes to save Roe?

...November and our future hang in the balance...

...republicans...

[betsuni]

40. "It is not good enough to say 'I'm a woman, vote for me!"

[comradebillyboy]

67. "Don't threaten me with the Supreme Court."

Misogyny is alive and well and is shockingly widespread.

[LizBeth]

97. +1

[LizBeth]

96. +1. I will never forget. Or forgive.

[Demsrule86]

208. Nor will I.

[gab13by13]

42. I guarantee this, take it to the bank,

Hopefully we hold the Senate in 2022, but don't look now, there are many vulnerable Democratic Senators up for reelection in 2024.

I guarantee this, whenever the GQP gains control of the Senate the first thing it will do is to abolish the filibuster.

[Demsrule86]

210. Oh please, one race at a time. I agree they will abolish the filibuster.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

266. Without a doubt.

[JT45242]

47. A vote MUST be taken in the Senate so that all (R)s must defend their voting record!

Do not let them hide behind "The SCOTUS picks I voted for said they would stand by precedent."

Make them stand up and say "NO - WOMEN HAVE NO CHOICE"

Since only 25-35% of people agree with that, it might win us a few swing states in the Senate.

Heck, between this vote and the January 6th commission, it might even put Iowa in play when it comes out that Grassley was part of the insurrection and voted against this.

I don't care if we lose the vote on this law this month. I think it will have a bigger impact in November.

That is how you make Maserati Manchin and Cinema Synema irrelevant -- we get to 53 or more.

The Rs never had to take heat for votes because McTurtle never called them. We rarely make them stand up and put on the record a vote on a law that we think will not get past the filibuster. We need to start to do this on every issue.

Abortion.
Child tax credit.
Lowering the Medicare age (either 62 to match social security or 60, don't care which, it's a start)
Student loan forgiveness up to$25K for UNDERGRAD loans
Assault weapons ban
Mandatory background checks
Repealing the tax breaks for all over $400K income

the list goes on... make them have to defend what they voted against that people want.

That is how you win. The election won't be about CRT, BLM, or defund the police. It will actually be about who voted for what people want.

[Emile]

50. +1 Spot On!

[Demsrule86]

212. None of what you want can happen with the current number of Democrats...our only choice is to

win the midterm period.

[JT45242]

232. not saying they pass -- saying people will be on the record

The goal is to show the contrast between the R's and the Ds relative to what people believe and want.


Then after the midterms, then they can pass after S&M become irrelevant because will have the votes.

[ECL213]

52. Can someone explain to me how "codifying Roe v. Wade" accomplishes anything...

when the Supreme Court can rule the law unconstitutional? Seriously, educate me because I don't understand.

[JT45242]

61. Roe v Wade had circuitous logic based on 'right to privacy', a federal law would supercede state law

If the federal government would pass a law allowing the procedure in all states the superior level rules would go into effect

federal law supersedes state law which supersedes local (county/city) laws.

Then the USSC decision that overturned the many existing state laws would be moot (Roe v Wade) because there would be a specific federal statute protecting the right.

It might be challenged as an unconstitutional law because it was not enumerated in the Constitution as a power. Not sure how they would get around it -- they could make RU-486 and other abortion pills available for interstate commerce but in person abortions are medical procedures that occur in a single state -- so hard to justify interstate commerce.

Not sure how the RWNJ part of the court would try to dismantle the federal law -- but if passed it could prevent new heinous state laws from going into effect while it worked its way to the USSC, which would hopefully be reshaped with no Hand Maiden, Traitor Thomas, and Beer Bong on it.

[ECL213]

124. Thanks.

I think the court would still nullify it. They don't even need a valid reason anymore, they're perfectly willing to legislate from the bench. If they followed precedent, the Interstate Commerce Clause could absolutely be used because it has been interpreted so broadly in the past, but why follow precedent if it doesn't say what you want it to say?

[Demsrule86]

213. I don't think there are constitutional issues...and in addition to codifying Roe...we need to

add at least two justices to the Supreme court.

[betsuni]

59. +100000000000000000

[comradebillyboy]

70. Sad but true.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

86. False. He campaigned hard for Clinton.

This is on the Republicans. Don't alienate progressives.

[LizBeth]

100. Barely and late, certainly not hard.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

105. That's just not the truth. And Sanders voters turned out for Clinton

at rates higher than Clinton supporters did for Obama. Just stop. This isn't Sanders fault. And it isn't Sanders' supporters fault.

[LizBeth]

109. Sanders spent months mouthy off the damaging talking points the Republicans picked

up after he lost. Every conversation. I had started about SC and every one, to the last person shrugged shoulders. And no, they did not come out to vote for HRC. Sanders did irreputable damage in the campaign like no Democrat, (Oh wait, he is not a Democrat) has ever done during a primary race. Never forgive or forget. I do not give an iota about what he has to say today.

[Emile]

113. I supported Sanders and voted for Hillary. We need to unite, not divide!

[LizBeth]

116. Never forgive, never forget. Tell that to those girls and women struggling to

find a doctor to abort. Just put it to the side, NO. Not going to happen.

[Emile]

123. We are on the same side, aren't we?

[LizBeth]

128. Democrats generally are. What we saw in that campaign, not at all and Sanders

made it abundantly clear over months working up his supporters. And now we have this. Women were begging for the consideration and all we got were shrugs of shoulders, not now, more important issues. So today I do not want to hear about a rewriting of history.

[Emile]

132. I don't see this fighting the 2016 election as being helpful. Hillary won

that election with the majority of votes!

[LizBeth]

135. Of course you do not see the problem with Sanders contaminating HRC the way NO

Democrat does in a primary. Why would you want to put the ownness on his shoulders.

[FoxNewsSucks]

139. It seems we're only on the same side

if we fall in line and agree with them, and their wrongly-remembered version of history.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

130. The numbers don't support you

The highest number is 12% of Sanders voters voted for Trump. 24% of Clinton supporters voted for McCain. Link.

Sanders did a better job of getting his supporters to Clinton than Clinton did getting her supporters to Obama.

[LizBeth]

141. Enough to swing states like Michigan and only people that then voted Trump.

Not to mention all those that stayed home. But that was not the real damage. For months he used rw false and non truths in his campaign doing irreputable damage to HRC.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

143. This is just a ridiculous game

How about we go after Boomers for giving us Trump, then, since they overwhelmingly went for him. They could have swayed the election. How about the decision to not visit Wisconsin? This isn't on Democrats. This is on Republicans. Don't alienate progressives like this and then act surprised when they are reluctant to stand behind you. But, of course they will, because it's the position they stand for.

[LizBeth]

144. You are right, it is not on Democrats.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

147. Just say it then

Because there were a LOT of Democrats that supported Sanders. I was one of them. We also voted for Clinton. So please stop talking about Sanders supporters being the problem if you agree it isn't Democrats. Or say the quiet part out loud and be done with it.

[LizBeth]

149. I have made clear the damage done to HRC.

[LizBeth]

142. He told women, out loud, that our concerns with SC were not the "important" issues.

Do tell me how I should just let that go. Every Sanders supporter I started with SC and every supporter shrugged their shoulders. All the people I begged and pleaded with, not ONE, NOT ONE, agreed the SC was the issue of the day. To tell me today to let it go is another slap across the face.,

[Cuthbert Allgood]

145. But Sanders supporters voted for Clinton.

In higher numbers than Clinton supporters did for Obama. He did his job. Those of us that supported Sanders did out job. We vote for Clinton in very high numbers. It's not on us. It's not on Sanders. It was a primary. He wanted to win it. Was he just supposed to not run against Clinton? Was nobody supposed to?

And maybe you need better friends, because I knew the SC was a major issue.

[LizBeth]

162. Isn't it ironic you can talk about HRC (the woman) in 2008, but not Sanders (the man) in 2016

telling us women issues were not the IMPORTANT issue in every speech? On a day that we are told we can lose medical care for our women and girls. The man must be protected from us mean women. Totally ironic and telling.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

164. I'm comparing the two. You are saying that Sanders didn't work enough for Clinton.

He did. You are saying that his voters caused what we have today. His voters voted for Clinton at a really high level. Higher than her supporters did for Obama. And he didn't say they weren't important. He said he was focused on the economic issues. He has 100% fought to stop a conservative takeover of the SCOTUS. His voters realized it was important, too, and they voted for Clinton.

This isn't on Sanders nor his voters. Stop putting your attention there and focus it on the Republicans where it belongs. And if you are going to be pissed at anyone in the Senate that isn't a Republican, you know which two to look at.

[LizBeth]

166. 6 appearances starting late in Sept with his stump speech. NO! He did not work hard.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

168. And yet over 88% of his supporters voted for Clinton.

So, let's stop blaming him and his supporters. We did the work. We cast the votes. If you keep telling the people that were his supporters that did vote for Clinton (again, the VAST majority of his supporters) that this is on them even though they voted like they should have, what is the reason that they keep doing the voting if they are just going to get blamed.

[LizBeth]

169. The man told us in EVERY speech one way or another women, gays, POC wasn't the IMPORTANT issue.

That they were protected and we needed to move on to middle class and white male because they were the ones most picked upon. You want to ignore that, fine. I will not. Never forgive, nor forget.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

170. Now you are just misstating his position, so we're probably done.

He 100% did not say that the most important groups were middle class and white males. Nope. He did say that he felt that changing the economy and the way we do things will impact everyone.

But, hey, please provide the Sanders quotation where he says that white middle class males are the most picked upon group. I'll wait.

[LizBeth]

177. He was/is ALL about his own demographics and a chip on his shoulders because he did not

get enough in his childhood.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

181. Still waiting for the quotation where he says white middle class males are the most picked on group.

You made the claim. Please support it or retract it.

[LizBeth]

185. It is in every speech and was pointed out every time he said it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

187. Shouldn't be hard for you to find one, then.

Just as a reminder, your claim is that he said white middle class males are the most picked upon group. I eagerly await reading your research on the matter.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

269. Queue the crickets!!

CHIRP!! CHIRP!! CHIRP!!
🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

267. Yes agreed, but that wud mean the Bernie bashing would have to stop!!

[betsuni]

268. He said Hillary was corrupt and beholden to Wall Street and corporations.

That's what his supporters believed, both sides. Evil.

[Emile]

270. and Hillary never said anything bad about Bernie! Why do

you keep fighting the 2016 election? Wouldn't we be stronger if we unite and stop this bickering? We have a fight ahead and divisiveness in the party is only going to hurt us!

[betsuni]

271. What did Hillary say about Bernie?

[Emile]

272. Stop it!

[betsuni]

273. Stop what, the truth?

"Because we agreed on so much, Bernie couldn't make an argument in this area on policy, so he had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character. ... Throughout the primaries, every time I wanted to hit back against Bernie's attack's, I was told to restrain myself. Noting that his plans didn't add up, that they would inevitably mean raising taxes on middle-class families, or that they were little more than a pipe dream -- all of this could be used to reinforce his argument that I wasn't a true progressive. My team kept reminding me that we didn't want to alienate Bernie's supporters. President Obama urged me to grit my teeth and lay off Bernie as much as I could. I felt like I was in a straitjacket." -- Hillary Clinton

[Emile]

274. Stop fighting the 2016 primary!

[betsuni]

276. No, populism is still a threat. Left-wing or right-wing.

Justice Democrats/Our Revolution are very jealous of how successful the Tea Party nuts have been transforming the Republican Party into a radicalized ideology nutty party.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

275. I didn't like her Wall Street connections. And the optics of it were bad. Still voted for her.

[betsuni]

277. She was a senator from New York. Where Wall Street is.

Barack Obama had a record amount of donations from Wall Street in 2008 and still regulated Wall Street. The idea of all politicians being corrupt is really stupid.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

278. I can like or not like whatever I want, really. But my point is that even not liking it

I still voted for her. Your assumption that those that didn't like the optics of it didn't vote for her is not accurate.

[betsuni]

279. I never said that.

[notinkansas]

148. Thank you!!!

The Bernie bashing at a time like this is what's unforgivable.

[LizBeth]

155. Every one of his speeches, one way or another, we were told women issues are NOT the

IMPORTANT issues. Yet, you feel the reminder after he now demanding something that can't or won't happen, to be the offense. Every speech he made he made clear that women, gays, poc had made the gains and their issues and concerns needed to take a back seat. Said it out loud. For all of us to hear. Right, reminding people now while he calls for this is the problem.

[W_HAMILTON]

138. Bull-fucking-shit.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

140. Well, that makes reality different than it actually was, then.

What don't you agree with?

[W_HAMILTON]

156. He didn't campaign hard for her.

It's another one of the bullshit lies his followers have told everyone for the past half-decade to try and absolve themselves for all the damage they did in 2016.

Going and giving his same 'ole tired stump speech that he used against Hillary during the campaign, but doing so on the Hillary campaign's dime, a few times does not make a "campaigned hard for" -- especially when you and all your surrogates are still taking cheap shots at her and outright badmouthing her on the internet and other sources of media.

Voting for Sanders in the 2016 primary was the only vote in my life that I regret and I will FOREVER regret it.

[LizBeth]

157. +1

[Cuthbert Allgood]

160. So how do you dismiss Sanders voters voting for Biden in high numbers?

Higher than Clinton voters voted for Obama? Do you go after Clinton for not doing enough in 2008?

Sanders made infinitely more appearances in Wisconsin than Clinton did, I remember that clearly.

[Nixie]

284. What you describe still goes on. One here even acknowledges

she was attacked from all sides, but then spams links that insinuate she would have lost anyway, ignoring that those attacks are what eroded support. It’s bizarre and very dishonest but obviously a deliberate strategy. “still taking cheap shots at her”. Yes, it’s an obvious strategy.

[betsuni]

286. +1

[betsuni]

285. +1

[Demsrule86]

214. Hmmm we can agree to disagree. After all it wasn't his job to win his voters over to Hillary...

[Emile]

91. Divisive group attacks is not helpful. We need to unite and fight like hell!

[LizBeth]

99. +1

[Beastly Boy]

65. I will take Bernie more seriously when he shows (or creates) a realistic path

to first get rid of the filibuster and then codify Roe v Wade. Better yet, when he takes concrete steps that would lead to achieving both.

I am 100% in favor of the Senate codifying Roe v Wade, as soon as possible, but damn, Bernie needs to move beyond rhetoric and show he can add some substance to back up his talk.

This, BTW, goes for all the Democratic lawmakers calling for legislative action. And no, forcing a vote without any hope for passing either measure is not by any means futile. It has merits beyond the actual outcome. Just be realistic about short term, and plan for a very long term game down the line.

[SouthBayDem]

66. "Sanders (D-VT)"??

Very poor basic fact checking. That's why I avoid the daily beast when I can.

[seta1950]

68. If only

Bernie had supported Hillary after he lost, I mean fully supported her , it’s sad to be here today as woman knowing we really missed our chance in 2016😢😢😢

[betsuni]

74. +1

[Cuthbert Allgood]

87. He did.

He went on the campaign trail hard for her. Just stop refighting 2016.

[Beastly Boy]

93. This is not refighting 2016.

This is facing the consequences of 2016. The chickens have come home to roost.

[Emile]

152. You always so judgemental?

[Beastly Boy]

165. Not always. Only when the connection between cause and effect is inescapable.

[LizBeth]

167. +1

[LizBeth]

158. +1

[LizBeth]

102. +1

[dlk]

73. As long as the filibuster is in place, codifying Roe will never happen

The minority rules.

[RicROC]

75. How many times did the fascists vote to cancel Obama care? 70x?

They were not viewed as weak, instead it kept their base mentally in the game. They stood up and were counted.

Doing nothing results in nothing.

[FoxNewsSucks]

134. Exactly right.

I'm sick of the giving up and the doing nothing.

[Demsrule86]

218. They were never able to cancel the ACA...so what is the point?

And Consider, the GOP was put on record and we still lost to Trump...we need to concentrate on getting what policy we can with the number of Democrats we have and fighting to win the midterm...and we won't have a vote to put anyone on record because it won't get past the filibuster.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

265. BOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!

[AlexSFCA]

76. federal law would neuter state laws in the meantime but likely be overturned by future SC ruling

SC court has ultimate say and power over everything except, perhaps, military. The goal of gop has been to outlaw abortion nationwide which requires SC to rule that laws allowing abortions are unconstitutional. This is possible when fetus is ruled to be life.

[BlueWavePsych]

82. Kick

[llmart]

104. +1000

Still angers me to no end.

[Novara]

84. Hey Bernie, why don't YOU convince Manchin and Sinema...

...to abolish the filibuster? Because otherwise, you're dead in the water with this.

[Tumbulu]

98. Yep! nt

[comradebillyboy]

108. Here's how important it was to Sanders in 2016:

“Last night, Senator Sanders agreed that Donald Trump’s comments were shameful but then he said they were a distraction from, and I quote, 'a serious discussion about the serious issues facing America’”

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/hillary-clinton-knocks-bernie-sanders-response-donald-trumps/story?id=38063205

[Novara]

110. Yeah, he needs to STFU

[LizBeth]

118. He was telling women to sit down and shut up all over that campaign.

Shoving them to the side, hands in the face. More important things...

[iemanja]

153. I remember

that and on other occasions too, but he's right now. I hope congress does as he says.

[malthaussen]

94. There is a window of opportunity to do so...

... but if Congress continues to move at its usual glacial pace, that window is really narrow. And then there's no guarantee what people like Manchin and Sinema will do.

-- Mal

[TeamProg]

101. +1 !!!

[wiggs]

111. Fine. But there shouldn't even be a need in the first place for a law in order

to protect a person's choice regarding their own medical procedures.

[Nanjeanne]

146. This has been something Democrats have talked about, tried to do but just not with the urgency as

needed now.

Some context:

Of course I remember Barack Obama campaigning with the promise to Planned Parenthood that “the first thing I’d do as president” would be to codify Roe v. Wade by singing the Freedom of Choice Act, but then in 2009 he said it was not his “highest legislative priority.” And of course the Democrats lost the majority in Congress in the 2010 midterms, and it fell through into the cracks then as well. Such a shame.

More recently, Democrats introduced the Women’s Health Protection Act in Congress. In 2019 and again in 2021. It did not pass the 60 vote filibster threshhold unfortunately. The federal bill “guarantees a pregnant person’s right to access an abortion — and the right of an abortion provider to deliver these abortion services — free from medically unnecessary restrictions that interfere with a patient’s individual choice or the provider-patient relationship.” Senators Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Warren, and Booker all co-sponsored the bill, and Harris went further, outlining a plan that would require states and localities with a history of passing abortion restrictions that undermine Roe v. Wade to obtain federal approval before new measures can take effect.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

180. It's hard to think of a national leader on the left who has been more dismissive of abortion rights

than Bernie Sanders.

[Emile]

190. You posted it, want to give us examples?

[BlueCheeseAgain]

257. Sure.

He told Ed Schulz that we should stop talking about abortion and gay rights, and focus on economic issues:

One cause for concern, Sanders explained to Schultz, was seeing many white, working-class voters in “low-income states” like Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina voting against their own best interest.

“These are guys getting hung up on gay marriage issues,” Sanders told Schultz. “They’re getting hung up on abortion issues. And it is time we started focusing on the economic issues that bring us together: Defending Social Security, defending Medicare, making sure that Medicaid is not cut, that veterans’ programs are not cut.”

He called Planned Parenthood part of the establishment that he was running against:

Asked by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Tuesday evening about the fact that Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the Human Rights Campaign endorsed Clinton, Sanders replied, "We're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. So I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund [sic], in Planned Parenthood. But you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time and some of these groups are part of the establishment."

He campaigned for an anti-abortion candidate who sponsored several bills in Nebraska to restrict abortion rights.

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/20/524962482/sanders-defends-campaigning-for-anti-abortion-rights-democrat

The thing about Sanders is that he's very consistent: Economic issues are more important than everything else. He has a good voting record on social issues, but to him, they're less important than fighting the billionaires and the 1%. It's just not a top priority for him.

[Polybius]

203. Dennis Kucinich n/t

[SoonerPride]

189. Then, Bernie, convince your pals to end the filibuster NOW

otherwise this is meaningless.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

215. We have a President that said he can get things through the Senate

so maybe it's time to make that happen.

[SoonerPride]

217. Manchin and Sinema rebuffed Biden.

It simply ain't happening.

[Arazi]

245. K&R. Dem leadership, Bernie and Schumer agree on this

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Senate will vote to codify the right to abortion into federal law, in response to a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

"A vote on this legislation is not an abstract exercise, this is as urgent and real as it gets," Schumer said in a floor speech on Tuesday morning, following Politico's Monday night reporting of the draft, which could change before the final version comes out this summer. "We will vote to protect a woman's right to choose and every American is going to see which side every senator stands."

[Emile]

246. Great news!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

249. Wise move for Schumer to support Bernie and others on this!! My hat's off to him!!

[Just_Vote_Dem]

293. Don't lecture me, Bernie

[Emile]

295. What's so funny?

[Just_Vote_Dem]

297. People who complain about being "lectured"

when they're on a discussion site with people who have different points of view. I think it's amusing. Kind of a "private joke" thing I just let you in on