General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJohnny2X2X
(19,478 posts)It's a matter of if he's willing to go it without any Republicans on board.
piddyprints
(14,655 posts)And will vote for it. The problem is getting past the filibuster, which he wont budge on. He is perfectly willing to sacrifice our democracy for his own delusions about bipartisanship.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,790 posts)Mad_Machine76
(24,491 posts)Why do you think it would be overturned?
Fiendish Thingy
(15,790 posts)OnDoutside
(19,998 posts)Mike Nelson
(10,024 posts)... he will vote for it, of course. The problem is that it needs 60 votes to pass... and Mitch is determined to block it because it means more American citizens will vote.
gab13by13
(21,804 posts)the For The People Act.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Only if he receives infinite pressure from all possible directions.
TwilightZone
(25,598 posts)We need more than Manchin. We always did. That fact is constantly - and intentionally - ignored, in my opinion.
Get the other four and then go after Manchin. Otherwise, all of this incessant complaining about Manchin is entirely pointless.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)We have to do them all simultaneously though: no time for a serial process.
PortTack
(32,900 posts)PortTack
(32,900 posts)Of HR1. They all know they will have to end the filibuster..or suspend it or whatever. She wouldnt lay out specifics, but said they have a plan.
Arm chair politics and speculation isnt for me. Ill let our dem leaders do the heavy lifting...and support them with emails, calls and donations
Fiendish Thingy
(15,790 posts)Manchin supports a bill that would automatically apply 1965-type VRA regulations to voting in all 50 states, without any sort of test or pre-clearance to determine necessity.
Such a bill would undoubtedly be reversed by the current SCOTUS.
...and he STILL is the ONLY Dem senator not to co-sponsor the For The People act, HR1/S1.
Theres a reason they call him J.C. Joe...
FBaggins
(26,888 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 4, 2021, 01:21 PM - Edit history (2)
I don't think that it was really intended to be enacted. I think it exists to draw out republican opposition and/or judicial action.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,790 posts)Challenges to constitutionality.
Besides, once the filibuster is killed to pass HR1, Dems can ram through court reform/expansion to protect democracy even more.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)HR1/HR4 have been very carefully crafted.
But Manchin's "improvement" is unconstitutional on its face.
FBaggins
(26,888 posts)It may very well have been intended to withstand challenges.
But that's a different thing from arguing that it wouldn't be overturned by the current court.
I don't think they would find that challenging at all. Likely in half a dozen different directions.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,790 posts)If SCOTUS gains 6 new, young, liberal justices, then Bidens agenda is safe.
FBaggins
(26,888 posts)I suspect that well need three new senators before the filibuster is seriously in danger.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,790 posts)FBaggins
(26,888 posts)... between supporting a bill - and being willing to get rid of the filibuster in order to get it passed.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)His "support" for the bill is meaningless if he continues to allow it to be blocked.
Hotler
(11,549 posts)keeping the orange one's tax cut. Which doesn't make sense, because he said trickle down doesn't work.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)brooklynite
(95,390 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,921 posts)budkin
(6,768 posts)He's always supported this one.