WTF Community

Biden/Harris Administration - Legislative objectives, Cabinet picks, Challenges & more

Biden sets the tone for US’s Foreign Policy and stunting what Trump had been doing.

The president said that he would end support for Saudi Arabia in its intervention in Yemen and that the U.S. would no longer be “rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions.”

President Biden on Thursday ordered an end to arms sales and other support to Saudi Arabia for a war in Yemen that he called a “humanitarian and strategic catastrophe” and declared that the United States would no longer be “rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions.”

The announcement was the clearest signal Mr. Biden has given of his intention to reverse the way President Donald J. Trump dealt with two of the hardest issues in American foreign policy.

Mr. Trump regularly rejected calls to rein in the Saudis for the indiscriminate bombing they carried out in their intervention in the civil war in Yemen as well as for the killing of a dissident journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, on the grounds that American sales of arms to Riyadh “creates hundreds of thousands of jobs” in the United States. And he repeatedly dismissed evidence of interference by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in American elections and Russia’s role in a highly sophisticated hacking of the United States government.

Saudi leaders knew that the move was coming. Mr. Biden had promised to stop selling arms to them during the presidential campaign, and it follows the new administration’s announcement last month that it was pausing the sale of $478 million in precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia, a transfer the State Department approved in December over strong objections in Congress. The administration has also announced a review of major American arms sales to the United Arab Emirates.

President Biden on Thursday recommitted the United States to global alliances and a role in the world that projects democratic principles, using his first major foreign policy address to promise that he will counter “advancing authoritarianism” and to announce an end to U.S. support for offensive operations in Yemen that are blamed for thousands of civilian deaths.

Biden also said he would increase the number of refugees admitted to the United States and freeze troop redeployments from Germany, reversing Trump administration policies that the new president sees as out of step with American values.

“We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s,” Biden said during an address at the State Department that attempted to turn the page on isolationism and restore diplomacy as the tool of choice.

3 Likes

The Justice Department, as soon as Tuesday, is expected to ask US attorneys appointed by former President Donald Trump to submit their resignations, a turnover expected to spare two top prosecutors in Delaware and Connecticut overseeing two sensitive Trump-era investigations, a senior Justice Department official said.

In a call Monday night, acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson asked Delaware US Attorney David Weiss to remain in office, where he is overseeing the tax probe of Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son. John Durham, appointed as special counsel by former Attorney General William Barr to reinvestigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, will also continue his work, but he is expected to resign as US attorney in Connecticut, the Justice official said.

The resignation request is expected to apply to 56 Senate-confirmed US attorneys appointed by Trump.

Justice officials have scheduled a call with US attorneys around the country to discuss a transition that is expected to take weeks. The Justice official didn’t say when the resignations would take effect.

3 Likes

Biden may be looking to putting in some Arizona Republicans in ambassadorships - which would be plum assignments and payback for their support during the election - Cindy McCain and Jeff Flake potentially.

Biden officials are weighing nominating prominent Republicans to ambassadorships — including Cindy McCain and Jeff Flake — to highlight the importance of bipartisanship in U.S. foreign policy, according to people familiar with their thoughts, Axios’ Margaret Talev and Hans Nichols report.

Why it matters : President Biden hasn’t put any Republicans in his Cabinet, but a move like this would symbolize a return to the Truman-era adage that partisan politics stops “at the water’s edge.”

  • It also would signal to other nations the Trump era is over, and Biden speaks for all Americans, not just Democrats.

What we are hearing : McCain, the widow of Sen. John McCain, has been discussed for the United Kingdom, while Flake, a former senator from Arizona, has been mentioned for South Africa, as well as postings in Europe.

The potential nominations of two Arizona Republicans who clashed with former President Trump and endorsed Biden also could boost Democrats, signaling a big-tent approach in a once-red state the new president won by some 10,000 votes.

  • Biden aides say it’s premature to discuss either name and that no decisions have been made about ambassadorships.
3 Likes

We keep learning of more heinous Trump policies as the Biden admin. cancels them.

For instance, did you know the U.S. Interior Dept. just canceled a Trump directive giving local & state officials power to block purchases of land & water for conservation?


3 Likes

Trump’s lawyer’s push out the argument that the Democrats are just politically motivated, and part of the ongoing ‘vengeful’ actions from the Dems.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawyers for Donald Trump opened his impeachment defense Friday by strenuously denying he played any role in inciting the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol, blasting the case against him as politically motivated “hatred” and part of a yearslong Democratic “witch hunt.”

Lawyers for the former president told senators that Trump was entitled to dispute the 2020 election results and that his doing so, including in a speech that preceded the assault on the Capitol, did not amount to inciting the violence that followed. They sought to turn the tables on prosecutors by likening the Democrats’ questioning of the legitimacy of Trump’s 2016 win to his challenge of his election loss. When Trump implored supporters to “fight like hell” on Jan. 6, they said, that was no different from the Democrats’ own charged rhetoric that risks precipitating violence.

“This is ordinarily political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years,” said Michael van der Veen, one of Trump’s lawyers. “Countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles.”

After a prosecution case rooted in emotive, violent images from the Capitol siege, the impeachment trial shifted to defense lawyers who made a fundamental concession: The violence was every bit as traumatic, unacceptable and illegal as Democrats say — but Trump did not order it. Van der Veen said the siege was carried out by people who had “hijacked” for their own purposes what was supposed to be a peaceful event and had made plans for violence before Trump had even spoken.

Acknowledging the horrors of the January day is meant to blunt the visceral impact of the House Democrats’ case and quickly pivot to what Trump’s defenders see as the core — and more winnable — issue of the trial: Whether Trump can be held responsible for inciting the deadly Jan. 6 riot.

The argument is likely to appeal to Republican senators who want to be seen as condemning the violence but without convicting the president.

“They haven’t in any way tied it to Trump,” David Schoen, one of the president’s lawyers, told reporters near the end of two full days of Democrats’ arguments aimed at doing just that.

He previewed the essence of his argument Tuesday, telling the Senate jurors: “They don’t need to show you movies to show you that the riot happened here. We will stipulate that it happened, and you know all about it.”

In both legal filings and in arguments this week, Trump’s lawyers have made clear their position that the people responsible for the riot are the ones who actually stormed the building and who are now being prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Anticipating defense efforts to disentangle Trump’s rhetoric from the rioters’ actions, the impeachment managers spent days trying to fuse them together through a reconstruction of never-been-seen video footage alongside clips of the president’s monthslong urging of his supporters to undo the election results.

4 Likes

Peeling back these Executive orders.

Executive Order on the Revocation of Certain Presidential Actions

February 24, 2021 • Presidential Actions

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Revocation of Presidential Actions. The following Presidential actions are revoked: Executive Order 13772 of February 3, 2017 (Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System), Executive Order 13828 of April 10, 2018 (Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility), Memorandum of January 29, 2020 (Delegation of Certain Authority Under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute), Executive Order 13924 of May 19, 2020 (Regulatory Relief To Support Economic Recovery), Memorandum of September 2, 2020 (Reviewing Funding to State and Local Government Recipients of Federal Funds That Are Permitting Anarchy, Violence, and Destruction in American Cities), Executive Order 13967 of December 18, 2020 (Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture), and Executive Order 13979 of January 18, 2021 (Ensuring Democratic Accountability in Agency Rulemaking).
Sec. 2. Implementation. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the heads of executive departments and agencies shall promptly consider taking steps to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies, or portions thereof, implementing or enforcing the Presidential actions identified in section 1 of this order, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, including the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. In addition, any personnel positions, committees, task forces, or other entities established pursuant to the Presidential actions identified in section 1 of this order shall be abolished, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
© This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 24, 2021.

2 Likes

President Biden plans to call Saudi Arabia’s King Salman on Wednesday, ahead of the public release of a potentially damning intelligence report about the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a source briefed on the call told Axios.

Why it matters : The call, if it happens as scheduled, will be Biden’s first conversation as president with the Saudi king. While they are likely to discuss a range of issues, the conversation will be colored by the imminent release of the explosive report expected to involve one of the monarch’s sons.

  • The report, an unclassified document produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for expected release on Thursday, implies Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was involved in Khashoggi’s murder and dismemberment at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018.
  • Bin Salman has denied involvement but accepted responsibility as the kingdom’s de facto leader.

Biden is moving to recalibrate the Saudi relationship after the Trump administration made Riyadh’s preferences in the Persian Gulf a priority for U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. both withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and failed to take action for the murder of Khashoggi, who was a Washington Post columnist.

  • During the 2020 campaign, Biden accused the crown prince of ordering the murder, stressed he wouldn’t sell weapons to the Saudis and promised to “make them the pariah that they are.”
  • The Saudi government has recently been sending signals that it’s ready to cooperate on the civil war in Yemen and make improvements on human rights in an effort to avoid a crisis with the new administration, Axios’ Barak Ravid has reported.

The intrigue : Biden will be speaking with the 85-year-old king, who technically is the head of government, instead of his son, known as MBS, the nation’s heir apparent.

  • White House press secretary Jen Psaki previewed the differentiation last week when she said: “The president’s counterpart is King Salman.”
  • “I expect that, in appropriate time, [Biden] would have a conversation with him," referring to King Salman.
  • A spokesperson for the National Security Council would not confirm Biden’s scheduled call Wednesday. The State Department referred an inquiry about the call to the White House.
  • Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin spoke with MBS, who is also the country’s defense minister, last week.

The big picture : Avril Haines, the nation’s top intelligence official, pledged during her Senate confirmation hearing that the Biden administration would release the intelligence report.

  • “Yes, senator. Actually, we’ll follow the law,” she replied to a question about the report’s release.
3 Likes
1 Like

Pushing through the Biden Cabinet level nominees

4 Likes

White House plans to withdraw Tanden nomination; Biden says U.S. will have enough vaccine doses for every adult by end of May

Latest: White House plans to withdraw nomination of Tanden to head budget office

The White House plans to withdraw the nomination of Neera Tanden as director of the Office of Management and Budget as early as Tuesday evening, according to people familiar with the matter. Tanden was facing bipartisan opposition from senators due to past comments she made on her Twitter feed.

Meanwhile, President Biden said Tuesday that by the end of May, the United States will have enough coronavirus vaccine doses for “every adult in America” who wants one, a goal that he previously projected would be achieved by July.

2 Likes

Here comes H.R. 1 - the bill that just passed Congress. It has been sitting on Sen McConnell’s desk and he was never going to touch it, but now that the Dems control the House/Senate, it could pass…however it is going to be a very tough fight.

It looks to tamp down all the issues with voting rights, gerrymandering, campaign finance, Scotus nominations, and requires a President to submit his taxes.

The ACLU does not seem to support it. I am not sure on what but people are pointing to the PAC money issues, and widening up the amounts people can give. Again, am not sure.

Here’s what H.R. 1, the House-passed voting rights bill, would do

House Democrats passed a comprehensive voting, elections and ethics bill on Wednesday, part of what they say is an urgent effort to fight Republican efforts in states across the country to restrict ballot access. If passed, the bill would mark a huge expansion of voting rights, and a major overhaul of campaign finance and redistricting laws. Republicans say they want to stop it in the Senate.

Republicans at the state level across the country have proposed a wide range of measures, many in response to allowances that were made for voting during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.

The measures include curtailing eligibility to vote by mail, prohibiting the use of ballot drop boxes, and in the case of Georgia — where the GOP lost two Senate seats and which voted for a Democratic president for the first time since Bill Clinton’s 1992 win — blocking early voting on Sundays.

That particular measure has been called a flagrant and obvious attempt to disenfranchise Black voters in the state. The chairman of Georgia’s new House Special Committee on Election Integrity, state Rep. Barry Fleming ®, said his committee’s mission is to “restore the confidence of our public in our elections system,” an allusion to the false claims spread by former president Donald Trump about voter fraud in the 2020 election.

GOP officials in Arizona, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — all states that could have an impact on future presidential elections — are also considering legislation that would restrict voting.

That’s why Democrats are moving forward with their bill at the national level, and while it might not pass in the Senate, they want to put pressure on Republicans, who have called it a political power grab.

“It is not designed to protect Americans’ vote — it is designed to put a thumb on the scale in every election in America, so that Democrats can turn a temporary majority into permanent control,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Tuesday.

Here’s what the bill actually contains:

A set of national voter registration and mail-in voting standards: H.R. 1 requires the chief election official in each state — the secretary of state in most — to establish an automatic voter-registration system that gathers individuals’ information from government databases and registers them unless they intentionally opt out.

And it says it’s the government’s responsibility to keep that information up-to-date, based on information from agencies like state motor vehicle administrations, agencies that receive money from Social Security or the Affordable Care Act, the justice system, and federal agencies including the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, the Social Securit The law would also guarantee voters same-day registration either at early voting sites or at precincts on Election Day. Each state would be required to allow at least 15 days of early voting for federal elections, for at least 10 hours a day with at least some time before 9 a.m. and after 5 p.m. The law would limit how states can purge voter rolls.

Nonpartisan redistricting commissions: In an attempt to get rid of gerrymandering, the law would require each state to use independent commissions (not made up of lawmakers) to approve newly drawn congressional districts. The commissions would each include five Democrats, five Republicans and five independents, requiring bipartisan approval for districts to be allowed.

“Regardless of whether it’s a red state or a blue state, we are seeing significant manipulation in the legislative redrawing of districts,” said Tom Lopach, CEO of the nonpartisan Voter Participation Center, which has advocated for the bill. “H.R. 1 presents an opportunity for everyone to get onboard with independent, unbiased and balanced redistricting that frankly is good government.”

It would also give the public a whole new level of scrutiny, and a chance to object to badly drawn districts. The law would require a public comment period and give citizens a legal basis to challenge gerrymandering. (Currently, gerrymandering challenges have to be made on constitutional grounds, and if a law were passed, there would be a clearer argument to present in court against gerrymandered districts.)

Big changes in campaign finance law: H.R. 1 would require super PACs and “dark money” groups to disclose their donors publicly, a step Democrats say would eliminate one of the most opaque parts of the U.S. election process. It would establish a public funding match for small-dollar donations, financed by a fee on corporations and banks paying civil or criminal penalties.

It would also require Facebook and Twitter to publicly report the source and amount of money spent on political ads.

New ethics rules for public servants: The bill would create the first ethics code for Supreme Court justices, to be created within a year of the bill’s passage.

It would also stop a controversial practice in Congress: When a member of Congress settles a sexual harassment or discrimination lawsuit, in certain cases they can use taxpayer money to settle. H.R. 1 would prevent taxpayer money from being used for such settlements.

The bill would also create more oversight on lobbyists and foreign agents.

A requirement that presidential candidates disclose their tax returns: This one is a little more relevant to recent events. Democrats have been frustrated for years that Trump never released his tax returns, and H.R. 1 would require it by law.

Can it pass in the Senate?

Senate Democrats plan to move the bill forward, but Republicans in the chamber have been very public with their pledge to fight it forcefully. A similar House bill was passed in 2019, and then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) refused to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Current Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has promised to end what he called McConnell’s “legislative graveyard,” and bring more bills passed by the House to the floor to force votes. But if they actually want it to pass, Democrats don’t have a lot of options.

Unlike the coronavirus relief package making its way through the Senate, for which Schumer only needs 50 votes plus Vice President Harris’s tiebreaker, H.R. 1 isn’t being passed through the special reconciliation process that requires a simple majority.

Democrats’ other option is to eliminate part or all of the legislative filibuster — a political bombshell that would allow them to pass much more legislation with just 50 votes and Harris’s tiebreaker.

Even if they do pass it, it would probably come up against lawsuits. The conservative Heritage Foundation has called many of the bill’s provisions unconstitutional, and given how opposed congressional Republicans are to it, legal challenges seem inevitable.

2 Likes

Trump-mandated exams are making it hard to hire rangers & officials for the National Park Service & Bureau of Land Management.

Critics say the complex logic tests & personality assessments are eliminating qualified candidates to care for public lands.

3 Likes
2 Likes

Maybe shaming the R’s will help…but I doubt it.

PBS reporting

2 Likes

Marcia Fudge confirmed as first Black woman to lead HUD in more than 40 years

The Ohio congresswoman has pledged to address systemic racial inequities in housing.

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) speaks at an event at the Queen theater in Wilmington, Del. (Susan Walsh/AP)

March 10, 2021 at 9:27 a.m. PST

The Senate voted 66-34 on Wednesday to confirm President Biden’s nomination of Rep. Marcia L. Fudge (D-Ohio) as secretary of housing and urban development, making her the first Black woman to lead the agency in more than four decades.

Fudge, who entered Congress in 2008, won bipartisan approval to lead the embattled agency where the morale among civil servants had plummeted under the leadership of Ben Carson, who eviscerated fair housing enforcement and other civil rights protections during the Trump administration.

Fudge, 68, said during her January confirmation hearing that her priorities include ending discriminatory housing practices as part of Biden’s focus on dismantling systemic racial injustice and boosting Black homeownership, a critical component in narrowing the racial wealth gap.

3 Likes

It is done!!

NYTimes: No Republican Votes; Bill Vastly Expands U.S. Safety Net

No Republican Votes; Bill Vastly Expands U.S. Safety Net

4 Likes

Anti-filibuster liberals face a Senate math problem

Sen. Joe Manchin clarified on Tuesday that he continues to support an effective 60-vote requirement for most legislation.

2 Likes

:boom:

3 Likes

Getting to the next bill - HR 1 and what kind of threat the Republicans pose towards not passing it. Stacey Abrams is taking this straight on…and knows that the Dems need to eliminate the Filibuster and convince Sen Manchin and Sen Sinema to get on board.

As Republicans in the Georgia state legislature passed a series of voting restrictions over the past 10 days, Stacey Abrams, the state’s leading voting rights activist, saw an ever more pressing need to reform the filibuster in the US Senate. And she has a plan for how to do it.

The Georgia legislation and the Senate rules might seem unrelated, but to Abrams, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in 2018 and founder of the voting rights group Fair Fight Action, they’re directly connected. “Republicans are rolling back the clock on voting rights,” she says. “And the only way to head that off is to invoke the elections clause of the Constitution, which allows the Congress—and the Congress alone—to set the time, place and manner of elections at a federal level.”

The problem is that Republicans will surely use the filibuster to set an impossible 60-vote threshold for any such effort—and that two centrist Democratic senators, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, have said they oppose abolishing the filibuster. That’s why Abrams proposes tweaking it to allow major voting rights legislation to pass, and she thinks her plan can get reluctant Democrats on board.

In the same way that Democrats can pass budget bills and confirm judges and Cabinet members with a simple majority, legislation protecting voting rights should also be exempt from the 60-vote requirement, Abrams says.

“The judicial appointment exception, the Cabinet appointment exception, the budget reconciliation exception, are all grounded in this idea that these are constitutionally prescribed responsibilities that should not be thwarted by minority imposition,” she says. “And we should add to it the right to protect democracy. It is a foundational principle in our country. And it is an explicit role and responsibility accorded only to Congress in the elections clause in the Constitution.”

Advertise with Mother Jones

Stacey Abrams speaks at campaign event for Rev. Raphael Warnock in Atlanta on November 3.Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

As Republicans in the Georgia state legislature passed a series of voting restrictions over the past 10 days, Stacey Abrams, the state’s leading voting rights activist, saw an ever more pressing need to reform the filibuster in the US Senate. And she has a plan for how to do it.

The Georgia legislation and the Senate rules might seem unrelated, but to Abrams, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in 2018 and founder of the voting rights group Fair Fight Action, they’re directly connected. “Republicans are rolling back the clock on voting rights,” she says. “And the only way to head that off is to invoke the elections clause of the Constitution, which allows the Congress—and the Congress alone—to set the time, place and manner of elections at a federal level.”

The problem is that Republicans will surely use the filibuster to set an impossible 60-vote threshold for any such effort—and that two centrist Democratic senators, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, have said they oppose abolishing the filibuster. That’s why Abrams proposes tweaking it to allow major voting rights legislation to pass, and she thinks her plan can get reluctant Democrats on board.

In the same way that Democrats can pass budget bills and confirm judges and Cabinet members with a simple majority, legislation protecting voting rights should also be exempt from the 60-vote requirement, Abrams says.

TThe judicial appointment exception, the Cabinet appointment exception, the budget reconciliation exception, are all grounded in this idea that these are constitutionally prescribed responsibilities that should not be thwarted by minority imposition,” she says. “And we should add to it the right to protect democracy. It is a foundational principle in our country. And it is an explicit role and responsibility accorded only to Congress in the elections clause in the Constitution.”

I spoke to Abrams on Monday, just hours before the Georgia Senate repealed no-excuse absentee voting, part of a series of bills passed in recent days to restrict voting rights that Abrams calledJim Crow in a suit and tie.”

Abrams testified before the House in late February in favor of HR 1, the most ambitious democracy reform bill since the Voting Rights Act, which would boost voting access through policies like automatic and Election Day registration, early voting, and expanded voting by mail. “It’s the reform we need that will provide protection, provide a foundational level of access, regardless of your geography,” she says. She also urged passage of another House proposal, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would require states with a history of discrimination to once again get federal approval for any changes to voting laws and procedures, after the Supreme Court struck down this requirement from the 1965 Voting Rights Act in 2013. The measure is needed, she says, “to make certain we don’t watch [voting rights] be butchered or eviscerated.”

But neither bill will pass the Senate if Democrats don’t eliminate the filibuster, which Abrams calls “a racist procedural rule that is grounded in this notion that the minority must be protected unless we disagree with what the minority needs.”

I asked Abrams what she would say to Democrats like Manchin and Sinema to persuade them to go along with a “democracy exception” to the filibuster.

“This isn’t about retribution or revenge,” Abrams says. “This is about protection of the fundamentals of our nation, that if we do not protect the participation of voters in our election system, if we do not permit states to do what they must to protect their voters, then we will find ourselves losing our democratic values, losing our democracy. And so I would say to Democrats who are hesitant that short of completely revising the filibuster, we have to make certain that a minority of people cannot be in power in the Senate, and therefore deny the basic principles of citizenship to millions of Americans.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley ( D-Ore. ) has floated a similar idea, and an increasing number of Democratic senators are now expressing openness to eliminating the filibuster, especially for bills like HR 1.

“I would get rid of the filibuster,” Amy Klobuchar, the chair of the Senate Rules Committee and a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, told me on March 3, when the House passed HR 1. “I have favored filibuster reform for a long time and now especially for this critical election bill.”

Manchin said on Sunday he’s open to changes to the filibuster, such as forcing Republicans to continuously occupy the Senate floor to block bills. And if Republicans keep passing restrictions on the right to vote, a proposal like Abrams’ could start to find a broader consensus.

3 Likes

Got to get the ERA ratified…

3 Likes