General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Johnny2X2X
(22,729 posts)It's a matter of if he's willing to go it without any Republicans on board.
piddyprints
(14,924 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
(19,070 posts)Mad_Machine76
(24,846 posts)Why do you think it would be overturned?
Fiendish Thingy
(19,070 posts)OnDoutside
(20,790 posts)Mike Nelson
(10,539 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
(27,697 posts)the For The People Act.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Only if he receives infinite pressure from all possible directions.
TwilightZone
(28,835 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
(35,531 posts)PortTack
(35,531 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
(19,070 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
(28,081 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
(19,070 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
(28,081 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
(19,070 posts)If SCOTUS gains 6 new, young, liberal justices, then Bidens agenda is safe.
FBaggins
(28,081 posts)I suspect that well need three new senators before the filibuster is seriously in danger.
Fiendish Thingy
(19,070 posts)FBaggins
(28,081 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
(12,988 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
(96,882 posts)LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)budkin
(6,849 posts)He's always supported this one.