Today’s The Day: Schumer Moves Forward With Vote To End GOP Filibuster Of Voting Rights Legislation | Talking Points Memo

[discobot]

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is set to have the upper chamber vote to end Republicans’ filibuster of voting rights legislation on Wednesday evening, likely followed by a vote to change how the filibuster functions. Schumer also plans to take a “talking filibuster” proposal to the floor, under which voting rights legislation would only require a simple majority to advance toward final passage, following lengthy debate.

---

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1401802

[epicurus]

Why the hell not? If we lose, the entire country will know that two members of the U.S. Senate are working for the other side. I’m good with this strategy.

[billymac]

Let’s vote and get Senators on the record. Everyone of them. Romney, Collins, Murkowski and Sinema and Manchin. A carve-out, a talking Filibuster - both are the minimum. Let’s vote and move on.

[jwbuho]

It seems to me that if Manchin and Sinema are sincere in their support for the voting rights bill and their reasons for preserving the filibuster, the talking filibuster/majority vote option would appear to be something they’d favor. Debate is supposed to present arguments and seek to persuade: okay then. Try to do those things. Then vote, dammit.

ETA: Good to see Kelly’s cards on the table–and the note that he is up for reelection is a good indicator of the direction the political winds are blowing on this. (And apologies for the mixing of metaphors there.)

[godwit]

We will also know that 52 members and an entire political party think democracy is not in their interest.

[godwit]

@billymac

A carve-out, a talking Filibuster - both are the minimum. Let’s vote and move on.

No. Let’s vote, and then vote again. Mitch McConnell claims voting rights need more debate? Okay, we’re gonna debate. And vote, and vote again. In prime time.

[jtx]

Plans to close all but one polling place in a rural Georgia county...

[jwbuho]

I am assuming from the headline that in this instance at least, “rural” does not mean “majority-white.”

[maximus]

[birdford]

A lot of us have been burning up Kelly’s phone lines since he came out as “not committed” on filibuster reform - I think he read the tea leaves quite well.

Sinema has received 10 times as many calls as Kelly, so it is impossible to determine what muse she is listening to. I can only speculate that the truth lies somewhere between huge piles of dark money and complete mental dysfunction. She is not dumb, but she does seem to have some kind of vivid fantasy life in which she is a rebel and a maverick holding to true values or some such nonsensical bullshit.

[darcy]

Let’s vote and move on.

Well no one said “soon” so maybe.

[zandru]

I have pledged to buy bagels, if either of these votes take place at any time this week. I’m not bothering to stock up on schmear, though.

[alohanature]

Whatever happens with the filibuster (I’m not holding my breath), we still have to deal with the 1000 lbs ignored gorilla Climate Change. It’s going to bankrupt our country. The pain and suffering will be enormous. Don’t Look Up.

[dannydorko]

Who was it who recently said something along the lines of the following?

“Senators Manchin and Sinema, along with all of the Senate Republicans, seem to care more about preserving the rights of the Senate minority than they do about preserving the rights of minorities in general.”

[alohanature]

What the hell…the SENATE has nothing else to do so keep voting for the Voting Rights Act. Over and over and over again. That’s the ticket.

[thunderclapnewman]

Kyrsten Sinema is the Tulsi Gabbard of Sarah Palins

— Alacrity's Whatever (@AlacritysWhatev) January 19, 2022

[kovie]

Karen [Sinema] says what?

[Musgrove_the_great]

Making them vote on the various things in the john Lewis bill, one by one is a good move.

[callmeeric]

@thunderclapnewman

Kyrsten Sinema is the Tulsi Gabbard of Sarah Palins

She’s no Elle Woods.

[birdford]

May I remind Senator Thune of the following anecdote?

When Senator Lindsey Graham joined a Republican blockade of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in 2016, he went out of his way to frame his position that a confirmation to the court should never be allowed in an election year as principled, apolitical and utterly permanent.

“I want you to use my words against me,” Mr. Graham said then, swearing that he would hold the same stance even if it meant denying a future Republican president the chance to confirm his chosen nominee.

But less than 24 hours after that hypothetical became a reality with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, Mr. Graham, now the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, made a complete and brazen reversal. He promised that he would push forward immediately to confirm President Trump’s pick — seemingly unbothered by the obvious conflict between his position four years ago and his stance now.

“I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot,” Mr. Graham wrote Monday to Democrats on the judiciary panel, “you would do the same.”