In an extremely significant shift, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), long one of the more traditional members of the caucus in her support of keeping the filibuster, signaled Tuesday that she would be open to a “carveout” to pass HR1 with a simple majority.
Get. It. Done.
This is not a significant shift. Feinstein voted for exactly this type of waiver in Nov 2013 when Harry Reid went ‘nuclear’ and changed the 60 vote requirement to 51 for all executive branch and lower court judicial confirmations.
All Dems are suggesting here is to do exactly what Reid did in 2013 and McConnell did in 2017 (for SCOTUS confirmations) and apply it for voting rights. This would actually be more limited than either the Reid or McConnell move because it would apply for just this legislation. The Reid and McConnell adjustments made the rules changes permanent for all future confirmations.
That is a BFD - a very welcome one. We will never make real change without this first real change.
But will she remember tomorrow that she said that today?
Wow, that was rude.
Clyburn:
“develop a Manchin-Sinema rule on getting around the filibuster as it relates to race and civil rights.”
Clever.
Seems, or perhaps should be, more general than that:
Democrats could potentially change the Senate rules to create an exception to the filibuster when it comes to voting rights legislation
Good idea Dianne, now go start twisting the arms of Manchin and Sinema. Twist hard!
It really sounds like the filibuster is on it’s last legs anyhow. Both sides are willing to carve into it.
It would be interesting if they could create some special protection for laws passed with 60 votes. A compromise between a constitutional amendment and 50+1 bills.
Just make the filibuster a talking one, so the Republicans get wall-to-wall coverage of how they’re holding up voting rights and preventing folks from giving bottled water to people waiting in long lines.
It’s not really significant…
Just kool… 
at this particular (Jim Crow 2.0) time. Without it, things get drastic at the Polls.
All right, DiFi–way to wake up and smell the covfefe! 
Why are Manchin and Sinema never told it is their job to find this Republican support they always pontificate about?
Agreed. The longest single-person filibuster on record is a little over 24 hours - not a big delay in the senate world of T- Th work weeks and weeks-long recesses.
I think filibusters can go longer if more than one person commits to them, but there’s still a natural limit. The ARP vote-a-Rama was like a filibuster in that in theirs it could go on forever, but in the end it didn’t and the Republicans made some serious procedural mistakes.
A revised filibuster whereby it takes 40 votes to continue to debate, those voting to continue debate must engage in on-topic debate for the entirety of the time the debate is kept open, would fix many problems.
That would be interesting, indeed.
And give them a week to achieve it.
Can we do it please? We need to pass the John Lewis Bill. And we have to do whatever it will take to pass it.
This is just a goddamn Congressional rule - I cannot understand why some seem to think it was carved in stone by Gawd Almighty.
While I’ve previously indicated my support for this idea–and I haven’t (yet) changed my mind on it–I’m also under no illusion that they’d do anything other than turn it into a Faux/ONAN broadcast, live from the floor of the Senate, lying as fast as their lips can move. 
Wouldn’t even care if it’s on-topic.
The media would cover things in split-screen with their talking heads, and more people would be exposed to the goings-on. If it’s a just filibuster, that’ll lead to more calls from constituents in support, if it’s not a just filibuster, they’ll be getting an earful.
