DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Schumer tees up vote on rules change if voting rights legislation is blocked

Schumer tees up vote on rules change if voting rights legislation is blocked

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed the Senate will forge ahead on voting rights legislation and will vote on changing the rules of the upper chamber by Jan. 17 if the GOP once again blocks the bill.

"We must adapt. The Senate must evolve, like it has many times before," Schumer wrote in a Dear Colleague letter Monday morning. This message is his strongest to date suggesting that changes to the legislative filibuster are necessary.

"As former Senator Robert Byrd famously said, Senate Rules 'must be changed to reflect changed circumstances,' " he said. "Put more plainly by Senator Byrd, 'Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past.' "

Schumer is tying voting rights legislation to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob

In an effort to make good on their promise to take up voting rights legislation this month, Senate Democrats are linking the upcoming anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol with what they see as increasing threats to the right to vote enacted by various Republican state legislatures.

"Much like the violent insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol nearly one year ago, Republican officials in states across the country have seized on the former president's 'Big Lie' about widespread voter fraud to enact anti-democratic legislation and seize control of typically non-partisan election administration functions," Schumer wrote in the letter.

Democrats say last year's insurrection was propelled by former President Trump's false claims that the election was stolen from him and that election fraud was rampant, allegations that spurred Republican state legislatures to implement new voting restrictions.

Democrats argue passing The Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would, among other things, ensure that states have early voting, make Election Day a public holiday and secure the availability of mail-in voting, are necessary measures to combat the actions taken by some state legislatures.

The GOP is expected to once again reject the bills, arguing they're a form of federal overreach. In a 50-50 Senate, Democrats need 10 Republicans to join them to advance the legislation because of the 60-vote threshold required under Senate rules. But uniform Republican opposition has led voting rights advocates to urge Senate Democrats to abolish the filibuster, or carve out an exception for voting rights legislation.

In order for that to happen, all Democrats need to be on board. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have repeatedly defended the filibuster and may not be open to amending it, despite supporting the voting legislation itself.

Manchin took part in a series of meetings on potential rules changes with other Democratic senators during December, which continued through the holidays.

Senators have been discussing two different approaches to altering Senate rules: either setting up a "talking filibuster" that would give the minority the ability to block action on legislation or creating a carve out that would provide a path for Democrats to pass voting rights legislation with a simple majority, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

This source said the discussions have focused on how to preserve the character of the Senate: "No one wants the Senate to be a hundred-member version of the House."

If a talking filibuster rule is established and a group of senators launched a filibuster, the Senate would be in session 24/7 — no weekends off. There would be a mechanism for a 60-vote threshold to cut off that extended debate period. It's unclear what route Schumer will take, and discussions with leadership and a small group of Senate Democrats, including Manchin, continue this week.

Outside pressure

As Politico reported, the U.S. Conference of Mayors released a letter signed by more than 140 mayors of both parties, urging the Senate to pass the two voting rights bills.

Fix Our Senate, a campaign focused on eliminating the filibuster, also shared a letter signed by 60 organizations pressing Senate Democrats to address the filibuster in order to pass voting rights legislation.

"Just as we needed to extend the debt limit to avoid economic calamity, we need to pass federal democracy and voting legislation to safeguard our democracy," the letter reads. "And just as you had earlier been prepared to recognize that the U.S. economy is more important than the filibuster, we urge you to make a similar assessment when it comes to our democracy and our right to vote."

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/03/1069...-if-voting-rights-legislation-is-blocked

Kill it altogether. The GOPers would, if they needed to, bank that.

You lost.

Once again, the Mandate Nazis will fail.

Call me whatever you want, 40, you're the one with the fascists. EVERYBODY else sees it.

And look at you and Muni celebrating the end of democracy. Half the country will never trust the vote again, if the voting rights bill is not passed. The other half doesn't trust our democracy to be fair to them after the way they have treated others, both currently and historically. Also, their idea of fair is that they get whatever they want, and the others get what they are allowed.

The new GOP mantra. "If you can't win cheat". If cheating doesn't work? Commit a coup to overthrow the government.

Explain how that works to Trump.

When you have legislation the people want, there is no need to change the rules. 60 votes is easy to get.

When you have an agenda that no one wants, there is a need to change the rules in order to force the agenda down their throats.

Shame on the Mandate Nazi Dems!

The Republican portion of the U.S. senate represents over 40 million less people than the Democrats do. So let's not get into "what the people want".

No you can’t. The Republicans have opted to oppose the packages without negotiating in good faith.

I know you don’t like to answer questions, but what is your retort to Biden’s question of “What is it the Republicans actually want or stand for right now except to oppose?”

It’s pretty clear they are just trying to prevent anything that goes through on the hopes of Trying to say the current administration didn’t get anything done to retake the legislature back later this year.

He never seemed to say that when McConnell was using the nuclear option.....

Mitch McConnell triggered the 'nuclear option' again. Here's what that means.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...Tg4DG9QIViK6GCh2ZygLqEAMYASAAEgKqpfD_BwE

Those Nazi republicans!

Threatening and doing are two different things. That is why I don't get all upset with Shumer and whoever when they talk about the filibuster.

In the end, it is a bad idea. If it wasn't, it would have been abolished long ago.

I see federalizing elections as unconstitutional and ramming through these proposals in the name of voting rights is laughable. Talk about stealing elections...lol

We all lost.

So, you agree the filibuster should go, but you disagree with doing the right things to insure fair and open voting and fair counting of EVERY vote. It's not bad enough that your side represents so many fewer people than the left due to only having two senators per state. But you seem to think fair and open voting is going to end the good ole boys grip on power, and I think that bothers you. So your side plainly planning to cheat and steal the next election by changing the vote counting 'qualifications'… In other words, your side wants to be the people who determine WHO can vote and who's votes get counted, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS 3/5s OF A PERSON. I can see why you are all for it. Talk about stealing elections.

Making it easier to vote isn't stealing elections. Allowing state senates to overthrow the vote is. When you know more people voting insures you lose, trying to make it harder to vote is a political weapon. Not some patriotic endeavor.

You have been busy here since they shut down The Lincoln Project.

They accomplished their mission.

I don’t like them either. I leave it up to you to feel the need to belong to a group that tells you what to think and believe.

https://lincolnproject.us/

Shut down? The Lincoln Project is very much alive and thriving, just like your imagination and fears. Some names have changed, but the mission is the same, stop the alt-right fascist takeover of the GOP. They just aren't throat punching Trumpism on the daily anymore.

He still thinks Trump scared N. Korea to stop firing missiles too. I don't know where in the hell he gets his information from.

Trump warns North Korea threats ‘will be met with fire and fury’

Published Tue, Aug 8 20176:28 PM EDTUpdated Tue, Aug 8 201710:25 PM EDT

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/trump-warns-north-korea-threats-will-be-met-with-fire-and-fury.html

Then there was the love letter and everything changed. Missile launched began again and Trump did nothing.

‘Kim does not want to disappoint me:’ Trump downplays a series of North Korean ballistic missile launches

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/02/tru...plays-north-korean-missile-launches.html

Seeing as how San Jose is now charging its citizens a ownership tax to exercise their 2a rights, I guess it is only equitable to charge say $25 for every time you enter the polling both.

That's the dem price. For GOPers it should be $2500.00, since the coup an all. You know, paying a price for your actions.

What a made up bunch of BS. No wonder they suck in so may of you gullible types. You'll believe anything.

Google is your friend.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/san-jose-rules-gun-owners-194741955.html

So it's mandatory gun insurance? Meh, you have to have insurance on your car in case you injure or kill somebody; guns are more dangerous to humans, so the liability is real. And insurance isn't a TAX. But I see what your point is, we just disagree as usual.

Ah I see. It was nothing close to what you tried to insinuate it was. Got it.

Read farther fellas....on top of the insurance requirement there is a $25 annual fee for owning a firearm that is collected and given to non-profits to uses as they see fit.....this is a tax on a Right no matter how you spin it.....tax one right tax'em all.

My guess is you are an average American who only has the attention span for reading the title of artickez only.

First step.

Oh I know you didn't go there Mr. Average American. Your whole damn party is dumber than stumps. Hell you elected a guy that could star in that dumbest criminals show. lmao. I read far enough to see the insurance and stopped because I was too busy laughing at your gun 'devotion' to care about your rant anymore. Should be $25 per gun.

Hell yeah. Tax people out of their rights. As someone else said, tax the right to vote also. Tax the illegals, tax those that don't get the vaccine, tax EVERYONE, more and more. Don't pay the tax? Lose the right.

I think that it's BS too arch, but you know damn well I couldn't let his little attack go without saying something to agitate. And it wouldn't work like that, trust me. It would be, don't pay the tax and get caught with the gun… go to jail. NOPE. If it weren't for the fact that the state provides forestry and park rangers, as well as game wardens to manage the population of the fish, animals, and birds we take; I'd be against those licenses too.


I'm not anti gun ownership, I believe in people's right to hunt, defend their homes, protect themselves and their families. I'm against idiots with guns, like the gravy militias, school/mass shooters, poorly screened/trained cops that either fear POCs or are bigots... things like that. I want us to find methods to control who has access and exactly what we can do with those guns. Personally, I think the militias that pretend to be toting guns to protect themselves/democracy at protests and rally's should be criminal. Those arms are being displayed in a free speech venue specifically to intimidate or deny the same freedom of speech they claim to be protecting. NOPE. They want who ever sees them to fear them. That can't stand. Shooters are obvious and hardest to solve legislatively. And cops just need a new neighborhood friendly restructuring and revamped training for the same. Cracking down on bigotry-in-blue is almost a MUST.

Just remember, this is coming from the same crowd that said "Bill Clinton is gonna take mah guns!"... and "Obama is gonna take mah guns!". Their hair has been on fire since the early 90's and nobody has tried to take their guns yet. It's The Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome.

Fear really takes a hold in people. I remember all the talk of Obama being a Muslim socialist and the doomsday scenario. And I'm not talking about the people who had legitimate qualms with him, because there were legitimate qualms, of which I had my own. But, we seemed to make it through 2009 - 2016 relatively un-phased. Due to the economic situation at the time, I'd be willing to bet most people's lives improved. Not necessarily attributing that to him, but it wasn't exactly an apocalyptic era, as predicted.

Just wondering how many times I can hear news media claiming "It will be the end of America as we know it" before people finally get jaded. Maybe the next generation.

Another thing that puzzled me about both Bill Clinton and Obama. The GOP claimed after both of them were nominated that they were both the most far left candidates possible. Both of them were no doubt very moderate Democrats. I think the objective of the GOP is to throw out the most wild accusations in hopes these things stick with their base.

I have no doubt that both parties do this in an attempt to manipulate their voters. The problem in the cases I pointed out however is that there was zero evidence with which to support those accusations.

What's interesting about Clinton is he was probably the most fiscally conservative president I've had in my lifetime (born during Reagan). He did some idiotic things - especially personally - like getting the ball rolling on the mortgage crisis, but I can't think of a single president from Nixon onward who was more fiscally conservative than he was.

A lot of people hold Reagan up to be a conservative idol, but his fiscal policies were far from actually being conservative.

Yeah, while Clinton did a good job, he was pretty much a scum bag in his personal life.