Senate votes down filibuster change as Manchin, Sinema side with GOP
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 years ago • 65 commentsBy: Juliegrace Brufke (New York Post)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
An effort by Senate Democrats to change the filibuster rule was knocked down as expected on Wednesday night in a tense floor vote that saw two Dem moderates side with all 50 Republicans.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tried for the "nuclear option" to change the longstanding rule after the GOP used the filibuster to block sweeping voting-rights legislation pushed by the Democrats but the measure failed 52-48.
Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) voted with Republicans against the "talking filibuster" change, which would have effectively let Democrats wait out the GOP filibuster and pass the voting legislation with a simple majority.
The current rules require 60 votes to end a filibuster, a figure that was out of reach for Democrats in the evenly-split Senate amid staunch Republican opposition to the voting legislation.
Despite Manchin and Sinema reiterating their opposition to changing the filibuster rule, Schumer (D-NY) insisted on getting every senator on the record regarding his doomed effort.
Biden had attempted to persuade all Democrats to vote in favor of the voting rights bill but was unable to garner Sinema and Manchin's support.AP
I am profoundly disappointed that the Senate has failed to stand up for our democracy. I am disappointed — but I am not deterred.
We will continue to advance necessary legislation and push for Senate procedural changes that will protect the fundamental right to vote.
— President Biden (@POTUS) January 20, 2022
"Make no mistake, win, lose, or draw, members of this chamber were elected to debate and to vote, particularly on such an important issue as this," Schumer said on the Senate floor Wednesday morning. "And win, lose, or draw, we are going to vote."
Top Democrats, including President Biden, had ramped up pressure on Manchin, Sinema, and other potential holdouts for weeks, insisting the one-time carveout to the 60-vote rule was necessary to, as Schumer put it, "protect the cornerstone of our democracy."
"In this body, the proponents of our democratic rights, again and again, have brought legislation to the floor only to be met by a filibuster," Schumer said in the Senate floor ahead of Wednesday's vote. "Opponents of fair and open elections filibustered anti-poll tax legislation in 1942, 1944, and 1946; they filibustered the Civil Rights bill of 1960; and they filibustered legislation on literacy tests in 1962. All this before real, substantive progress was made. Our struggle today is not new, but we must nevertheless meet it with renewed conviction."
Manchin has publicly opposed the Democrats' mission to amend or eliminate the filibuster, claiming it would further divide the two political parties.AP
Acknowledging that his maneuver faced certain defeat, Schumer concluded his floor speech by vowing that Democrats would "keep pushing," "keep working," and "keep fighting, long after today, because this issue is so important to all of us."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responded by accusing Schumer and the Democrats of trying to "smash the Senate, silence millions of Americans, and seize control of our democracy."
"Please note that, even in the Democratic Leader's manufactured case, even when he presumably wanted the most persuasive theater he could possibly muster, the Senate will only have spent about a day and a half on this bill before he tries to ram it through," McConnell said. "Since when does the Senate pass any significant bill in a day and a half, much less a gigantic elections overhaul?
Schumer, who voted no for procedural reasons, ridiculed Republican claims that the new election laws in the states will not end up hurting voter access and turnout.Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times
"Our colleague is not trying to conclude an unending discussion that he cannot stop," McConnell added. "He is trying to short-circuit a debate that he cannot win. This is just the kind of shortsighted power grab this body was built to stop."
Any potential drama was taken out of Wednesday's vote Jan. 13 after Sinema and Manchin reasserted their support of the filibuster, calling it a vital tool of the Senate needed to prevent "political whiplash."
"For the last year, my Democratic colleagues have taken to the Senate floor, cable news airwaves, pages of newspapers across the country to argue that repealing the filibuster is actually restoring the Senate to the vision the Founding Fathers intended for this deliberative body," Manchin said on the Senate floor Wednesday.
"My friends, that is simply not true. It's just not true. The United States Senate has never, in 233 years, been able to end debate on legislation with a simple majority vote."
Democratic leadership pivoted to the election measure after a massive $2 trillion social spending bill hit a wall in December, with Manchin voicing opposition to multiple provisions in that legislation.
The voting measure passed the House last week along party lines, with Democrats using a NASA-related bill as a vehicle to merge the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act — both of which previously passed the House but were repeatedly blocked by Republicans in the Senate — a procedural gambit aimed at preventing Senate Republicans from blocking the measure from coming up for debate.
The Freedom to Vote Act looks to override a number of election rules put in place by some Republican-led states and includes language to allow for same-day voter registration and no-excuse mail voting, prevent states from requiring a photo ID to vote, allow felons to vote in all states and would require super PACs and so-called "dark money groups" to disclose all donors who contribute more than $10,000.
Harris could have broken a 50-50 split, but Democrats lacked the 60 votes needed to overcome the GOP filibuster.EPA
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act aims to undo court rulings that weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by requiring certain states to receive federal preclearance before enacting redistricting plans or new voting laws.
Republicans led by McConnell say the legislation amounts to an unconstitutional federalization of elections by Democrats and is meant to give them a built-in voting advantage.
"This party-line push has never been about securing citizens' rights. It's about expanding politicians' power," McConnell said. "That's why their bill tries to weaken voter ID laws that are popular with Americans of all races. It's why their bill is stuffed with strange policies that have zero relationship to ballot access; new powers for bureaucrats to police citizens' speech online, new schemes where the federal government would directly fund political campaigns."
McConnell said the Democrats have caused a "fake hysteria" over the states' new voting laws and called the pending bill a federal takeover of election systems. AP
"This is not some modest bill about ballot access. It's a sprawling takeover of our whole political system," the Republican leader added. "It was never even intended to attract bipartisan support. This partisan Frankenstein bill that House Democrats slapped together was intended to do one thing only: Give the Senate Democratic Leader a pretext to break the Senate."
Republicans have instead called for the Senate to move on a bill to reform the Electoral Count Act to clarify Congress' role in certifying elections and avoid a repeat of last year's Capitol riot. That offer has been met with pushback from Democrats who argue it does not go far enough.
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
Senate Democrats on Wednesday failed to pass both their voting legislation and an attempt to alter the Senate filibuster as a last ditch effort to pass the voting bill.
Another progressive pipe dream goes down. Time is running out.....What's next?
Biden loses another assault on our governing norms.
I guess he’ll go back to undermining confidence in our democracy by delegitimizing election results.
From his couch in the basement?
One would hope that the majority party (which ever one it is at the time) would learn from this and attempt to work more towards cooperation and negotiation going forward. And maybe stop creating these huge highly partisan bills where they attempt to push thru all their wish list. There are pieces in both of the voting rights bills as well as the 'Build Back Better' bill that could be used in a compromise bill.
But I'm afraid all that's gonna come out of this is talking points for the election cycles.
Just try to remember that the next congress may have huge majorities and a real mandate, which won't require the blessings of the minority.
Yes, that is a definite possibility based on how the Democrats have been pushing their partisan issues and there are large parts of the country that are fed up. I do expect the Republicans to hold the majority in the House and it is a definite possibility that the Republicans could gain a supermajority (61+) of seats in the Senate. TBH I would not like to see that myself in 24 as I do not like to see such complete ownership of Congress and the White House by one party only. I prefer the brakes that the filibuster provides in the Senate.
Even so, Biden and the left would still control the White House.
And as you can see, the filibuster lives..
Yes, Biden and the left would still control the WH after the 22 elections. I do not believe the Democrats will hold the White House after the 24 elections, I think the election for that will go to the Republican candidate in 24.
And for the filibuster, if one party holds 61+ seats in the Senate then there really is no filibuster available as the one party would always have their 60 seat advantage.
That should then mean a lot of legislation. I suppose that even with Biden finishing out his term, they could override his veto.
And for the filibuster, if one party holds 61+ seats in the Senate then there really is no filibuster available as the one party would always have their 60 seat advantage.
That's a nice thought.
Manchin and Sinema are forward thinking enough to know that the future holds a GOP President and senate majority someday and that their democrats might wish to have the filibuster in such a day….The rest learned nothing from the Harry Reid experience of 2013
Compromise bills solve problems. There are no votes in solved problems. There are plenty of votes in overblown bullshit rhetoric like "assaults on our democracy" or "migrant invasions" or "the war on women".
Good, the filibuster is a needed part of system of checks and balances
The Dems will need it after the midterms.
YES! Mob rule doesn't result in the common good. The system is intentionally designed to make it easier to kill a bill, making it more likely that bills that do move forward actually promote the common good.
It is telling that the Democrats are trying to push this through by any means necessary when all indications show that they are going to lose almost everything in the upcoming mid-terms. Not to mention it doesn't look good for any Democrat Presidential candidates in 2024.
Hillary's standing off-stage rabidly waving her hand saying, "Pick me! Pick me!"
If she is going to run again (shudder at the thought), at least she should start crafting her loser excuses.
Misogyny, the FBI, Republicans, some Democrats, the media, vast right wing conspiracies, and probably a whole plethora of other excuses awaits!
And for a 3rd time, she'll be told to sit down and color.
I wouldn't be surprised is she claims racism.
She did have a lengthy Why I Lost list after 2016 but I don't remember if racism was on it. If it wasn't, it's a good one for her to use, because bogus accusations of "racism" seems to be 2022 gaslighting code word with some Democrat politicians and media.
You can't forget the Russians she hired to dish dirt on herself... oh, wait a sec... {chuckle}
Democrats are now trying to "explain" Biden's remarks on Russian aggression in Ukraine. The day after an epic press conference. Way to be clear there, Joe.
BTW, does this mean that Democrats won't bother to run in the states they have claimed passed voting laws which suppress voters? According to the Democrats' own words, the elections will be rigged and they won't win, so why waste money running?
Psaki was on FNC this morning doing more "clean up on Aisle 12". More evidence that "the leader of the free world" needs his staff to explain his own horrible statements.
The poor leader of Ukraine had to tweet this to remind the world that little invasions of countries aren't okay:
We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions and small nations. Just as there are no minor casualties and little grief from the loss of loved ones. I say this as the President of a great power
— Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) January 20, 2022
Can you imagine how baffled and pissed off Ukranian leadership must be after yesterday?
It sure looks likes like Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) led the way. The GOP only followed.
Manchin and Sinema had the guts to stand up to liberal Democrats. Republicans shouldn't be trying to take credit for leading from behind. Republicans didn't do anything to prevent changing the Senate filibuster except sit on their hands.
Republicans didn't do one damned thing.
Manchin and Sinema are DINOs. Both corrupt.
The obvious solution is to kick Manchin and Sinema out of the Democratic Party. DINOs betrayal can't go unpunished, right?
Voting rights are intact.
Anyone who wants to vote can, if they are legally eligible to do so.
I wonder if anyone can explain why Texas law limiting the number of days of early voting, and which sets times for voting, is racist and suppressive while Delaware, which had NO early voting, was not suppressive or racist?
This is one of the reasons why I lambast politicians as they seem to have a habit of using words that are ambiguous rather than simple plan speech.
Democrats continue to harp that all these Republican voting laws are suppressive and because that word actually has multiple meanings the Democrats are not lying. The new Texas laws do make voting a little bit harder for some people. For example a person living in Harris County will not be able to walk out of his home at 2AM and decide they want to go vote right then and there by going down to the 24 hour voting station. They will have to go when the polling stations are open as the 24 hour station was closed. So yes the Democrats are not lying in this regard. But it's such a weak argument that it really should be laughed at.
As was said in the past, words matter. And if a politician can carefully choose words that have multiple meanings they can lead people to believe what ever their little partisan hearts want to believe...
Yeah it's called propaganda...
It doesn't seem like many on the left want to talk about restrictive voting laws in NY and DE.
Because they have been led to believe anything the left does is never wrong.
Well, that, and to debate it seriously, then they would actually have to read the laws and come to the conclusion they have been lied to about these laws.
If no one has ever had the opportunity to vote early, then there would be no voter data by race determining who tends to vote early. If you have had early voting and collected data by race as to who votes early, and right wing conservative Republicans get access to that data and then create laws that specifically cut out the voting days most often used by black voters, then that's fucking racist.
I like your comments, they are a constant source of amusement.
Thank you!
It's rather sad that you find racist disenfranchising of American voters amusing.
Are you pretending that Republicans didn't take voting data by race and draft voting laws that specifically targeted black Americans?
" the state made cuts to early voting , created a photo ID requirement and eliminated same-day registration , out-of-precinct voting and preregistration of high school students."
" In its ruling, the appeals court said the law was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. Republican legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision," the court said."
There is no other reason to make such cuts to early voting, early voting is not in any way increasing the risk for election fraud. Neither is same day registration or mail in ballots. There is no evidence of any widespread vote fraud. The only reason some apparently brain damaged conservatives start to imagine there must be election fraud is when they lose an election. They simply can't accept that the majority doesn't agree with them. That's when their slimy Republican representatives study the voting patterns to figure out ways to disenfranchise eligible Democrat voters, it has zero to do with preventing fraud because they haven't been able to find any. There is no need to add additional voting laws to prevent something that's simply not happening. There is, however, one huge motive behind adding additional voting laws which is to prevent something that they know is happening, specifically an increase in black and minority voting which heavily favors Democrats and that's something Republicans just can't allow to happen unchallenged.
Now you are simply inventing things YOU wished I had said and attempting to poorly debate what you put in my mouth.
Do better if you are going to keep responding to me--at least be honest.
There is no voter suppression, and you can believe your own eyes or keep parroting what the DNC, Democrats, and most of the media tells you. Your choice.
It's really amusing that you apparently believe such nonsensical hyperbole.
Exactly how weak is trying to put words in other's mouths and attempting to argue that which was invented?
Intellectually lazy and dishonest.
Thanks to the corrupt DINOs Sinema and Manchin
Gonna need to see the proof of corruption. Would it be because they are pleasing people and getting donations from conservatives as well as dems?
Don't think that, nor your disdain for their respective stances, qualifies as corrupt. Sorry.
And no one has been capable of naming even one US citizen who is eligible to vote but has been "denied" his/her right to vote. Funny, that!
Both corrupt fucking DINOs.
Maybe you aught to boot them out of the party, send them on over to the corrupt republicans where they belong right?
The republicans can use 52 votes in the senate.
yep the brain dead are going to be crawling out of the woodwork to go to the media and express their hurt and outrage over someone who stands up to power...
Who cares what this nobody thinks.
Of anything.
That's what I thought. A former staffer? WTFC
She's an excellent example for the exact opposite of US ideals, values, and laws .
It's no surprise that she now demonizes Kyrsten Sinema - she became a Socialist/Marxist.
By the way, she stopped working as a low level Sinema staffer in 2013. I wonder why she waited NINE YEARS to start talking smack about Sinema?
Thanks for the info. I was going to google it too.................Now I can say with great emphasis WTFC LOL
You're welcome.
Dangerous?
From Donald Trump today:
"President Biden admitted yesterday, in his own very different way, that the 2020 election may very well have been a fraud, which I know it was. I'm sure his representatives, who work so hard to make it look legit, are not happy."
But I know, I know, Biden's big lie about illegitimate elections is perfectly okay! Trump's is a crime against democracy!
Why are you quoting Trump's idiotic comment?
Why are you quoting Trump's idiotic comment?
Because I find it funny (and tragic) that the democrats who've flipped out about Trump now blindly support a democrat doing an impression of him.
"If I don't get what I want, the election is illegitimate"
Trump or Biden, who can tell anymore?
Bidens comment is related to what we have been hearing and seeing from Trump and the Republicans in thrall to him for the past 14 months.
what the hell does that mean?
Trump is plotting to steal future elections. I thought everyone knew that.
And Trump says the same of Democrats. And it goes on and on
As I said, Trump or Biden, who can tell anymore.
Boy o boy...the things leftists say are getting loonier and loonier by the day.
Desperation is certainly setting in.
Same type of shit we heard in 2016-2020
Let's see all your proof.
These politicians never want to change the rule because of some higher principle. It’s always just to make it easier to “win.” So we only hear about reforming or getting rid of the Electoral College right after a Republican has been elected president. And we only see support for ending the filibuster when they want to pass some legislation that they think will help their own people get reelected.
In his rant last night, Bernie Sanders was explicit in saying that we needed to get rid of the filibuster just because they have this bill they want to pass. There was nothing about it being a better way to run the Senate in general.
No reason to change Senate rules that apply to everything else to get one thing through. Like everything else if it can't get required votes it should not become law.