Harris And The Abortion Issue

Independent thinker

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
31,562
Reaction score
27,328
Points
2,788
She has clearly stated that she thinks and would try her best at eliminating the Senate filibuster for just the abortion issue only. So, turnabout is fair play. Shouldn't Trump and the Republicans, if they win, be allowed to end the Senate filibuster for just the abortion issue only? I mean fair is fair, right?
 
She has clearly stated that she thinks and would try her best at eliminating the Senate filibuster for just the abortion issue only. So, turnabout is fair play. Shouldn't Trump and the Republicans, if they win, be allowed to end the Senate filibuster for just the abortion issue only? I mean fair is fair, right?
If Trump gets in nothing is going to happen on abortion, its not a federal issue and never should have been.
 
SCOTUS ruled it's a state issue
SC(r)OTUS took away women's right to bodily autonomy

.
1730414617023.webp
 
Congress can pass a law, thank you. SCOTUS doesn't have that ability.
 
She has clearly stated that she thinks and would try her best at eliminating the Senate filibuster for just the abortion issue only. So, turnabout is fair play. Shouldn't Trump and the Republicans, if they win, be allowed to end the Senate filibuster for just the abortion issue only? I mean fair is fair, right?
No I don't agree. The Democrats want to dismantle every aspect of the Constitution, the GOP has to enforce the Constitution.
 
If Congress tried to pass a law establishing a national abortion policy, no matter what that might be, half of the Attorneys General in the country would sue to stop implementation of the law, and they would WIN.

Don't be stupid.
 
Has she shared with you how she plans to accomplish this? Or do you have to elect her first before she'll tell you?
Why you guys askin' me shit like this?

I'm not running for office.

I'm not involved with the Harris campaign.
'
I'm not a legal scholar.
 
How about this? The government agrees to give free irreversible vasectomies to all males that want one. If guys who don't want the responsibility of getting a woman pregnant, I fail to see why they wouldn't get one.
I thought you guys didn't like free stuff?
 
Why you guys askin' me shit like this?

I'm not running for office.

I'm not involved with the Harris campaign.
'
I'm not a legal scholar.
We're asking cause you're the one repeating the ridiculous lies being spewed by the dishonest vapid twatwaffel that you want to put in power.
 
How about this? The government agrees to give free irreversible vasectomies to all males that want one. If guys who don't want the responsibility of getting a woman pregnant, I fail to see why they wouldn't get one.

Why is it the man's responsibility?
 
Why you guys askin' me shit like this?

I'm not running for office.

I'm not involved with the Harris campaign.
'
I'm not a legal scholar.

And yet one of our SC legal scholars can't define what a woman is.
 
She has clearly stated that she thinks and would try her best at eliminating the Senate filibuster for just the abortion issue only. So, turnabout is fair play. Shouldn't Trump and the Republicans, if they win, be allowed to end the Senate filibuster for just the abortion issue only? I mean fair is fair, right?
The filibuster is just a Senate rule. It's not a law and the president can't dictate one way or the other. That being said, yes, the Senate can decide to waive the filibuster for one issue only. The downside of doing that, obviously, and this is something democrats never seem to account for, is that the next Republican Senate would simply waive it for their pet issues and it would become meaningless. IOW, big time backfire and democrats would run around with their hair on fire demanding that it be reinstated.
 
The filibuster is just a Senate rule. It's not a law and the president can't dictate one way or the other. That being said, yes, the Senate can decide to waive the filibuster for one issue only. The downside of doing that, obviously, and this is something democrats never seem to account for, is that the next Republican Senate would simply waive it for their pet issues and it would become meaningless. IOW, big time backfire and democrats would run around with their hair on fire demanding that it be reinstated.
The more worms you let out of the can eventually leads to being no worms left in the can. In other words, any time you claim you are going to eliminate the filibuster "for just this one issue" only means there will always be one more issue. And, yes, about the only way a president can influence getting rid of the Senate filibuster is to have both the president and the Senate be of the same party. The Senate is going red this election. That is a guaranteed fact. So, if Harris wins, the filibuster won't be ended, no matter how much she claims it will. Her only shot would be in the Senate turning back blue again at the midterms.
 
Back
Top Bottom