Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) single-handedly raised the stakes of the 2024 elections on Tuesday, revealing he’d consider carving out rare exceptions to allow votes on protecting voting and abortion rights.

Schumer’s plan would move the Senate closer to getting rid of the filibuster, a longtime rule that requires 60 votes instead of a simple 50 vote majority to advance legislation.

    • 24_at_the_withers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      2 months ago

      He can’t, as this is an ideological split between the parties and would need to go through the house as well, where it would fail. Bringing this up now helps inform voters of an issue that could be resolved if Democrats turn out and take control of the house while retaining control of the Senate and executive branch.

      • darvocet@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s more about getting the republicans on record with a vote on a clean bill. Hard to campaign when you voted no on voting rights.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          Especially if it forces GOPers to vote against rape, viability and incest exceptions. Getting those fucks on record about that would be awesome.

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m highly skeptical that anyone in the GOP would a) have trouble crafting a campaign message that trashes an ostensibly “clean” bill or b) lose any support over a vote either way. Anyone who cares about abortion or voting rights is already voting blue, and anyone who’s voting red at this point won’t care about this procedural tactic. We’ve been hammering Dems to get GOP votes “on the record” for decades, and it hasn’t really been the factor that moved the needle in any meaningful way.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    2 months ago

    You don’t have to get rid of the filibuster. You only have to get rid of the procedural filibuster. Make 'em stand and talk.

    • xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Maybe keeping people in office till they’re 80 and 90+ would be less appealing if they had to stay in session for a real physical filibuster?

      • would_be_appreciated@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Strom Thurmond was already 53 when he did his 24-hour filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. I’m convinced he still could’ve done it at 100 years old when he left office fueled by nothing but hate.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The majority already has the power to “make em stand and talk”. They generally choose not to in order to avoid wasting everyone’s time.