If Harris Ends The Filibuster 'For Roe,' She'll Force A Fracking Ban

[mystery-ak]

If Harris Ends The Filibuster 'For Roe,' She'll Force A Fracking Ban
Christopher Jacobs

What does abortion have to do with the future of fracking in the United States? Much more than one might expect.

Kamala Harris’ announcement that she supports an “exception” to the filibuster underscores the stakes in November’s election. If Democrats gain unified control of both houses of Congress and the White House in January, Harris’ statement makes clear that they would undoubtedly use their power to pass radical legislation — not just on abortion but on energy and many other topics.

Democrats Would ‘Nuke’ the Filibuster

At the risk of mixing metaphors during a discussion of abortion policy, one cannot be half-pregnant when it comes to the Senate filibuster. Harris’ talk of an “exception” masks what is ultimately a binary choice: You either support the legislative filibuster or you don’t.

Consider that in 2013, Senate Democrats abolished the filibuster rule for presidential nominees — both executive branch officials and lower court judges — while retaining a carveout that still required 60 votes to confirm Supreme Court justices. That 60-vote requirement for Supreme Court justices lasted until … the next vacancy on the Supreme Court, whereupon Republicans, who by then had retaken the Senate, abolished the Senate filibuster for presidential nominees entirely.

To use Harris’ own phraseology, hear her when she says, “We should eliminate the filibuster.” She doesn’t just mean “for [codifying] Roe [v. Wade],” she means for anything that gets in Democrats’ way.

Harris and other Democrats have proposed so many different “exceptions” to the filibuster that, even by the end of a two-year Congress, the “rule” would ultimately look like Swiss cheese. Whenever they regained unified control, Republicans would not (and should not) agree to a one-sided fight — where passing Democrat priorities takes only 51 Senate votes, but passing Republican priorities takes 60 senators — and would likely abolish the filibuster outright.

more
https://thefederalist.com/2024/09/27/if-harris-can-eliminate-the-filibuster-for-roe-she-can-nuke-it-for-fracking-bans-and-gun-control-too/

[DefiantMassRINO]

When I was a kid, it only took 51 votes to pass things in the US Senate.

Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid changed that.

It can be changed again, but no minority party is going to willingly give away the oversized influence that the 60 vote threshold gives them.

Unless its written in the US Constitution, the threshold should be a simple majority or 51 votes.

States who Senators are in the majority should argue to the Supreme Court that their states are being denied equal representation in the US Senate.

States in the minority have 6/5 power while majority states only have 5/6 power.

No President should have authority to do anything unless it's in the US Constitution or approved by Congress.