Oof. Probably better if she just didn’t talk about this – instead better to try and get the Senate majority elected with a D house too, and then just let the Senate get rid of the filibuster since the president is irrelevant to that. All this does is help push away some moderates. Hopefully it won’t make a big difference though
kia75 on
Heck, we should eliminate the filibuster, period. It serves no purpose other than to keep laws from being passed.
I don’t mind a speaking filibuster like days of old. If you want to speak for a day or two to bring the spotlight on a bill you don’t agree with, go ahead. But the filibuster itself is undemocratic and tends to be used for undemocratic means (usually to keep civil rights from being passed) rather than the good filibuster of Hollywood fame.
OppositeDifference on
I’m glad she’s on board with that.
We’d need a Senate majority though, and that will unfortunately be a stretch goal this year, even if she continues to run a fantastic campaign. (as I fully expect her to)
That’s not so say we don’t have a chance this year, but if you see us holding the Senate after Election night, be aware that you’ve just seen Democrats impressively over-perform.
[deleted] on
[removed]
HandSack135 on
Why not just in general?
KageStar on
Maybe it was the editing, but she didn’t need to shoehorn the upbringing part into her homebuyer question. It looks disjointed when it’s read. She did have a decent answer once she got to discussing policy. My only critique with her presentation is the lack of specificity in her plans:
>The second is to cut through the red tape that currently exists in local, state and federal levels. And really cutting through the red tape so that we don’t unnecessarily burden the ability to actually create this additional housing that brings down the cost of homeownership and rent.
What types of regulations or requirements are you doing away with here? This is too abstract to the average voter.
>I have a plan to take on corporate landlords. They have to be held accountable. We’ve seen it in so many places around our country. These corporations come in, they buy up a bunch of property and then they jack up the prices. It becomes too expensive for people to actually be able to afford to live, where they work and where they want to live.
What does “held accountable mean” and how will that lead to a drop in prices and/or more supply. I have an idea what’s she’s getting at but I spend way too much time following politics. Her reply has me expecting “how” that never comes.
Overall she’s getting better, but Trump is still doing a better job moving people on issues like the economy because he’s giving a simple and more direct answer.
It’s easier for the lay person to digest:
“Economy is bad and worse than 4 years ago. China is killing us. Tariffs will fix it.”
Of course it’s a bad plan and will only cause prices to go up, but compared to Harris’ level it feels more concrete and definitive.
I like her policies and ideas but she already has my vote. Her camp needs to tighten up on answering for people who aren’t as engaged in politics/already on her side.
I_Hate_Redditors___ on
Ooooh can’t wait to see who the dems queue up to play spoiler this time!
kittenTakeover on
I don’t like the filibuster because it can be dismissed at will. It’s also arbitrary in how it’s executed. I think we should decide what we want. Do we believe 50% is enough consensus for the creation of laws or do we believe 60% is better? 50% will mean a more legally unified country, but it might also produce more conflict. 60% will be more flexible, but it might lead to less eventual unity of the country. We could also except certain legislation from the regular percent. For example, things that have deadlines or are very time sensitive probably should stay at the 50% level, such as yearly budgets, approving nominations, etc.
> Kate Archer Kent: You've said you want to work with Congress to pass a federal bill to codify abortion rights.
> How do you plan to get enough support in Congress to restore abortion rights when you'd likely need to pass a Senate filibuster? You'd have potential legal hurdles.
The filibuster needs to go. It made sense when you had a Congress that was reasonable and looked for common ground. Things are so partisan now that it’s used to stop any legislation from moving forward.
Sure_Quality5354 on
Get rid of it period. Let the majority rule. No need for archaic rules developed during slavery times to prevent progress and passage of important legislation
The_Starving_Autist on
Removing the filibuster is a double edged sword, isn’t it?
foamy_da_skwirrel on
Plz do it for voting rights too
mgnorthcott on
Most of the “swamp” that Donald trump wanted to get out of Washington was actually at the cause of his own party. Nothing getting done, filibusters, lobbying, secret handshakes, corruption etc etc, are all strong cornerstones of exactly what MAGA politicians actually are!
inmatenumberseven on
Another reason to vote for her.
higbeez on
I think that the filibuster should not exist. Instead when someone says that they need to discuss a bill more in depth before voting (which is technically what a filibuster is for) then a timer starts for a week or a month or whatever and the bill must be voted on by the end of that time period and a simple majority passes.
That way people can’t rush a bill to vote but at the same time you can’t kill a bill by filibuster.
jaynovahawk07 on
I have mixed feelings about eliminating filibusters.
Missouri Democrats probably had their biggest win in decades back in May of this year when they employed a 40+ hour filibuster to keep Missouri Republicans from changing the way the state’s ballot initiatives are done.
Because of this victory, Missourians will now be able to vote on the abortion issue, on raising the state minimum wage to $15 plus a min. of 1 hr of sick time for every 30 hrs worked, among other things.
Had they lost, Missouri Republicans likely would have squashed the chance for voters to decide on these key issues.
Pilchuck13 on
I don’t disagree, but the calls for changing the rules only happens when convenient to their own causes.
Does she support eliminating the filibuster when Republicans hold the presidency and congress? When they want to pass something that might not have 60% support. I don’t recall any politician standing up for the principle itself. It’s fine, but the other side gets to also play by the new rules. It won’t only apply to abortion.
gnomegnat on
We should rid ourselves of the ancients theater that may have helped in a time of ink wells and screw presses, but is as useful today as a three legged milking stool may be.
BrimstoneMainliner on
The filibuster is not law it is tradition, and tradition is nothing but peer pressure from dead people… eliminate that shit.
JaredRed5 on
For all intents and purposes the filibuster rule is already defunct. Only the Democrats are beholden to it. The Republicans violated it whenever it mattered for their interests.
Moritasgus2 on
I’m not sure why this is a major story honestly. Biden has said that he needs two more Dem senators in order to codify Roe. Well, that’s lower than the filibuster threshold, so logically he wanted to nuke it too.
ObiWanChronobi on
Elections (should) have consequences. One reason for a lot of political apathy in this country is born from the reality that congress is increasingly dysfunctional and unable to pass legislation. Requiring a super majority for normal legislation to pass is just not a viable way to run a country. Those in power should be able to wield that power.
Let both sides enact their agendas and allow the voters to accurately respond to that. Right now there is zero incentive to do anything when they can just got back to the voters next election and say “gee wiz I wish I could have done the things I said I would do, but those darn idiots on the other side stopped me. You’re going to have to give me even more money and vote for me EVEN HARDER this election!” And this isn’t exactly wrong but doesn’t mention that this is a self-imposed limitation.
End the filibuster!
Verumsemper on
This argument is not just about abortion!! we all need the right to privacy over our own bodies restored!! The constitution was never intended to give us rights, the founders made it clear our rights come from nature. the constitution is a contract to limit our natural rights, if it’s not in the contract then the rights remain with the people. This use to be what even conservatives believe until Reagan and the corruption by those consumed by hate and greed.
WyldeStile on
Don’t get rid of the filibuster. Go back to the speaking filibuster. A person has to stand without aid or without leaning on the podium and talk for however long that they can. Let them read War And Peace or sing every verse to 1,000,000,000 Bottles Of Beer On The Wall.
TimeCitizen on
I wish articles like this used the term “Pro-Choice” rights. The word “Abortion” infuriated people who are against women being afforded a choice and only deepens the divide.
DefinitelyNotPeople on
If this happens, Republicans could theoretically pass a national abortion ban with the same process. Seems shortsighted to push for this.
goddessnoire on
Can someone explain how Congress can restore abortion rights without passing an amendment to the constitution? Basically, how are they going to overrule the SC ruling?
EarthDwellant on
We need to get rid of filibuster and add on items that do not match the main laws. No more of topic amendments to bills.
MSGdreamer on
Reinstate the speaking filibuster. You shouldn’t just be able to say, “filibuster!” and have it count as one.
ProgressivePessimist on
>*“I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe,” Harris said in an interview that aired Tuesday morning. **“And get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need** to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom and for the ability of every person and every woman to make decisions about their own body and not have their government tell them what to do.”*
Does anyone remember that particular candidate who ran on change and had 58 Senators for 2 full years that could have easily bypassed the filibuster with any 51 of those 58 but only instead passed a Republican sponsored healthcare plan *without* a public option?
~~Pepperidge Farm~~ Progressives Remember.
We could have had abortion rights, paid family leave, child tax credit, universal Pre-K/college, public option, etc., but the Democrats are so committed to institutions they don’t fight.
I don’t understand why Harris is purposely shooting herself in the foot when she could be fighting for hugely popular economic policies and getting people excited to vote downballot.
Nightsong on
I don’t think the filibuster should be done away with in its entirety. What they should do is bring back the talking filibuster and make any Senator stand up at the podium for hours or days arguing why the bill should not be considered. A delay is fine as it lets people argue for and against a bill but it prevents a bill from being killed outright by one Senator simply declaring filibuster as it is now.
35 Comments
Glad she’s taking about this!
Keep the filibuster .. but make them go back to a [talking filibuster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#Talking_filibuster). This “I object and I’m going home now” version is garbage. If you want to block something, hold the floor.
Oof. Probably better if she just didn’t talk about this – instead better to try and get the Senate majority elected with a D house too, and then just let the Senate get rid of the filibuster since the president is irrelevant to that. All this does is help push away some moderates. Hopefully it won’t make a big difference though
Heck, we should eliminate the filibuster, period. It serves no purpose other than to keep laws from being passed.
I don’t mind a speaking filibuster like days of old. If you want to speak for a day or two to bring the spotlight on a bill you don’t agree with, go ahead. But the filibuster itself is undemocratic and tends to be used for undemocratic means (usually to keep civil rights from being passed) rather than the good filibuster of Hollywood fame.
I’m glad she’s on board with that.
We’d need a Senate majority though, and that will unfortunately be a stretch goal this year, even if she continues to run a fantastic campaign. (as I fully expect her to)
That’s not so say we don’t have a chance this year, but if you see us holding the Senate after Election night, be aware that you’ve just seen Democrats impressively over-perform.
[removed]
Why not just in general?
Maybe it was the editing, but she didn’t need to shoehorn the upbringing part into her homebuyer question. It looks disjointed when it’s read. She did have a decent answer once she got to discussing policy. My only critique with her presentation is the lack of specificity in her plans:
>The second is to cut through the red tape that currently exists in local, state and federal levels. And really cutting through the red tape so that we don’t unnecessarily burden the ability to actually create this additional housing that brings down the cost of homeownership and rent.
What types of regulations or requirements are you doing away with here? This is too abstract to the average voter.
>I have a plan to take on corporate landlords. They have to be held accountable. We’ve seen it in so many places around our country. These corporations come in, they buy up a bunch of property and then they jack up the prices. It becomes too expensive for people to actually be able to afford to live, where they work and where they want to live.
What does “held accountable mean” and how will that lead to a drop in prices and/or more supply. I have an idea what’s she’s getting at but I spend way too much time following politics. Her reply has me expecting “how” that never comes.
Overall she’s getting better, but Trump is still doing a better job moving people on issues like the economy because he’s giving a simple and more direct answer.
It’s easier for the lay person to digest:
“Economy is bad and worse than 4 years ago. China is killing us. Tariffs will fix it.”
Of course it’s a bad plan and will only cause prices to go up, but compared to Harris’ level it feels more concrete and definitive.
I like her policies and ideas but she already has my vote. Her camp needs to tighten up on answering for people who aren’t as engaged in politics/already on her side.
Ooooh can’t wait to see who the dems queue up to play spoiler this time!
I don’t like the filibuster because it can be dismissed at will. It’s also arbitrary in how it’s executed. I think we should decide what we want. Do we believe 50% is enough consensus for the creation of laws or do we believe 60% is better? 50% will mean a more legally unified country, but it might also produce more conflict. 60% will be more flexible, but it might lead to less eventual unity of the country. We could also except certain legislation from the regular percent. For example, things that have deadlines or are very time sensitive probably should stay at the 50% level, such as yearly budgets, approving nominations, etc.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.wpr.org/news/kamala-harris-presidential-campaign-vice-president-housing-affordability-pfas-pollution-wpr-interview) reduced by 94%. (I’m a bot)
*****
> Vice President and Democratic nominee for president Kamala Harris told WPR's "Wisconsin Today" on Monday that she supports ending the filibuster to restore Roe v. Wade to protect abortion rights nationally.
> Kate Archer Kent: You've said you want to work with Congress to pass a federal bill to codify abortion rights.
> How do you plan to get enough support in Congress to restore abortion rights when you'd likely need to pass a Senate filibuster? You'd have potential legal hurdles.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/1foggb9/kamala_harris_tells_wpr_she_supports_eliminating/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ “Version 2.02, ~694290 tl;drs so far.”) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr “PM’s and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.”) | *Top* *keywords*: **work**^#1 **need**^#2 **Wisconsin**^#3 **people**^#4 **down**^#5
The filibuster needs to go. It made sense when you had a Congress that was reasonable and looked for common ground. Things are so partisan now that it’s used to stop any legislation from moving forward.
Get rid of it period. Let the majority rule. No need for archaic rules developed during slavery times to prevent progress and passage of important legislation
Removing the filibuster is a double edged sword, isn’t it?
Plz do it for voting rights too
Most of the “swamp” that Donald trump wanted to get out of Washington was actually at the cause of his own party. Nothing getting done, filibusters, lobbying, secret handshakes, corruption etc etc, are all strong cornerstones of exactly what MAGA politicians actually are!
Another reason to vote for her.
I think that the filibuster should not exist. Instead when someone says that they need to discuss a bill more in depth before voting (which is technically what a filibuster is for) then a timer starts for a week or a month or whatever and the bill must be voted on by the end of that time period and a simple majority passes.
That way people can’t rush a bill to vote but at the same time you can’t kill a bill by filibuster.
I have mixed feelings about eliminating filibusters.
Missouri Democrats probably had their biggest win in decades back in May of this year when they employed a 40+ hour filibuster to keep Missouri Republicans from changing the way the state’s ballot initiatives are done.
Because of this victory, Missourians will now be able to vote on the abortion issue, on raising the state minimum wage to $15 plus a min. of 1 hr of sick time for every 30 hrs worked, among other things.
Had they lost, Missouri Republicans likely would have squashed the chance for voters to decide on these key issues.
I don’t disagree, but the calls for changing the rules only happens when convenient to their own causes.
Does she support eliminating the filibuster when Republicans hold the presidency and congress? When they want to pass something that might not have 60% support. I don’t recall any politician standing up for the principle itself. It’s fine, but the other side gets to also play by the new rules. It won’t only apply to abortion.
We should rid ourselves of the ancients theater that may have helped in a time of ink wells and screw presses, but is as useful today as a three legged milking stool may be.
The filibuster is not law it is tradition, and tradition is nothing but peer pressure from dead people… eliminate that shit.
For all intents and purposes the filibuster rule is already defunct. Only the Democrats are beholden to it. The Republicans violated it whenever it mattered for their interests.
I’m not sure why this is a major story honestly. Biden has said that he needs two more Dem senators in order to codify Roe. Well, that’s lower than the filibuster threshold, so logically he wanted to nuke it too.
Elections (should) have consequences. One reason for a lot of political apathy in this country is born from the reality that congress is increasingly dysfunctional and unable to pass legislation. Requiring a super majority for normal legislation to pass is just not a viable way to run a country. Those in power should be able to wield that power.
Let both sides enact their agendas and allow the voters to accurately respond to that. Right now there is zero incentive to do anything when they can just got back to the voters next election and say “gee wiz I wish I could have done the things I said I would do, but those darn idiots on the other side stopped me. You’re going to have to give me even more money and vote for me EVEN HARDER this election!” And this isn’t exactly wrong but doesn’t mention that this is a self-imposed limitation.
End the filibuster!
This argument is not just about abortion!! we all need the right to privacy over our own bodies restored!! The constitution was never intended to give us rights, the founders made it clear our rights come from nature. the constitution is a contract to limit our natural rights, if it’s not in the contract then the rights remain with the people. This use to be what even conservatives believe until Reagan and the corruption by those consumed by hate and greed.
Don’t get rid of the filibuster. Go back to the speaking filibuster. A person has to stand without aid or without leaning on the podium and talk for however long that they can. Let them read War And Peace or sing every verse to 1,000,000,000 Bottles Of Beer On The Wall.
I wish articles like this used the term “Pro-Choice” rights. The word “Abortion” infuriated people who are against women being afforded a choice and only deepens the divide.
If this happens, Republicans could theoretically pass a national abortion ban with the same process. Seems shortsighted to push for this.
Can someone explain how Congress can restore abortion rights without passing an amendment to the constitution? Basically, how are they going to overrule the SC ruling?
We need to get rid of filibuster and add on items that do not match the main laws. No more of topic amendments to bills.
Reinstate the speaking filibuster. You shouldn’t just be able to say, “filibuster!” and have it count as one.
>*“I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe,” Harris said in an interview that aired Tuesday morning. **“And get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need** to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom and for the ability of every person and every woman to make decisions about their own body and not have their government tell them what to do.”*
Does anyone remember that particular candidate who ran on change and had 58 Senators for 2 full years that could have easily bypassed the filibuster with any 51 of those 58 but only instead passed a Republican sponsored healthcare plan *without* a public option?
~~Pepperidge Farm~~ Progressives Remember.
We could have had abortion rights, paid family leave, child tax credit, universal Pre-K/college, public option, etc., but the Democrats are so committed to institutions they don’t fight.
I don’t understand why Harris is purposely shooting herself in the foot when she could be fighting for hugely popular economic policies and getting people excited to vote downballot.
I don’t think the filibuster should be done away with in its entirety. What they should do is bring back the talking filibuster and make any Senator stand up at the podium for hours or days arguing why the bill should not be considered. A delay is fine as it lets people argue for and against a bill but it prevents a bill from being killed outright by one Senator simply declaring filibuster as it is now.
Thank god finally!!!!