If not for the filibuster, the votes would likely be there for a national law protecting abortion rights. It's already passed the House, and as usual, the only thing holding it up in the Senate is Manchin and Sinema hiding behind supposed reverence for the filibuster. A few nominally pro-choice Republicans would also take refuge behind that supposed love of procedure, in order to avoid protecting a woman's right to choose. But I think it may be possible to frame this in a way that makes that cowardly position less tenable.
Basically, rather than repealing the filibuster, just change the rules so it doesn't apply in certain circumstances (the same stunt the Republicans pulled to ram through these far-right Supreme Court justices in the first place). That's actually a long-standing idea, since for years it's been possible to get around the filibuster for "reconciliation," if the parliamentarian affirms certain things about the bill. Well, this would be similar. If the parliamentarian affirms that the bill would just restore a status quo that was overturned by the courts, then no super-majority is necessary in the Senate. Basically, if unelected judges have forced the issue, the Senate is no longer hamstrung by its anti-democratic voting rules, and a simple majority can carry the point.
In the short-term, it would function as a one-off exception. But, it might also come up in the future if, for example, the high court's theocrats were to overturn the case making gay marriage legal, and Congress wanted to pass a law restoring gay marriage rights nationally. It wouldn't trump the Constitution, of course-- if the court ruled that, as a matter of Constitutional Law, abortion was illegal, no mere law could overturn that. But when the court effectively reverses a prior ruling and thereby kicks matters back to the states, it would provide a more realistic path to have the federal government keep the matter as something handled consistently nation-wide.
Basically, rather than repealing the filibuster, just change the rules so it doesn't apply in certain circumstances (the same stunt the Republicans pulled to ram through these far-right Supreme Court justices in the first place). That's actually a long-standing idea, since for years it's been possible to get around the filibuster for "reconciliation," if the parliamentarian affirms certain things about the bill. Well, this would be similar. If the parliamentarian affirms that the bill would just restore a status quo that was overturned by the courts, then no super-majority is necessary in the Senate. Basically, if unelected judges have forced the issue, the Senate is no longer hamstrung by its anti-democratic voting rules, and a simple majority can carry the point.
In the short-term, it would function as a one-off exception. But, it might also come up in the future if, for example, the high court's theocrats were to overturn the case making gay marriage legal, and Congress wanted to pass a law restoring gay marriage rights nationally. It wouldn't trump the Constitution, of course-- if the court ruled that, as a matter of Constitutional Law, abortion was illegal, no mere law could overturn that. But when the court effectively reverses a prior ruling and thereby kicks matters back to the states, it would provide a more realistic path to have the federal government keep the matter as something handled consistently nation-wide.
Last edited:
