Kayleigh McEnany's comment translated...

Fox News host praises Kamala Harris rhetoric on abortion

More context may be helpful for those who actually care.

 

Every time I read an OP from this handle I imagine someone working in the Ministry of Truth in the fictional novel 1984 posting articles on internet message boards. Amazing stuff.

 

The handling of the Dobbs decision is easily the worst GOP clusterf since the 2nd Iraqi invasion. When so many states took it to the maximum extreme, it validated what all the pro-abortionists had been warning everyone about. The GOP would have been wise to ease their way into the post-Dobbs era, but they immediately went for the jugular and to the far right extreme. If they had just eased into it, shown some restraint, it would not have turned off so many voters.

 

This is very true.
The other truth that the life extinguishers, will not admit, is there will never be a national ban on abortion. It would require 60 votes from the Senate and that will never ever happen.

 

Until Mitch McConnell did so no one ever thought that the filibuster would be eliminated for confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. While Harry Reed did it for lower court judges the difference is that decisions of lower courts are appealable. SCOTUS decisions become the law of the land. Similarly the overwhelming majority of the electorate didn't think that Roe v. Wade would ever be overruled until it was thanks to justices who assured Senators prior to confirmation that they would respect precedent until they didn't following their confirmation. FYI:
What Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett Said About Roe at Confirmation Hearings - FactCheck.org

Collins, who voted to confirm Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, said in a May 3 statement: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”

Murkowski, who had backed Gorsuch and Barrett, told NBC News: “If the decision is going the way that the draft that has been revealed is actually the case, it was not—it was not the direction that I believed that the court would take based on statements that have been made about Roe being settled and being precedent.”
​

I would further add that two of the three SCOTUS vacancies filled by Trump nominees all of whom voted to overturn Roe were the direct result of manipulation of the system including an outright lie by McConnell. McConnell refused to even allow a hearing the Merrick Garland's nomination by Obama to fill Antonin Scalia's seat after Scalia passed away in February 2016 leaving the seat open based on the narrative that it was an election year although the seat became open in February nine months prior to the election. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away six weeks prior to the 2020 election McConnell jammed the confirmation vote on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination through the Senate. Using Mitch's rationale with respect the Garland nomination there should have never been a vote on the Barrett nomination.

 

The divergent opinions from Todd Golden and Dennis Gates about post-Roe abortion rights are a microcosm of American society. GatorGrowl nailed it.

 

I think you are in the wrong forum! Thanks for what you do!

 

No problem at all. Just wanted to make sure you knew they weren't posted where you wanted them.

 

Actually you did have a very impressive OT response.

 

Wouldn't it require 60 votes to eliminate the filibuster?

 

The Senate majority leader can it on his own volition. Mitch did it in 2017 with respect to the confirmation of SCOTUS justices and he could probably find some pretext to doing again. Not saying that he will do so (and probably would not) on the abortion issue but it's always a possibility.

 

I didn't realize that the Senate majority leader could do it own their own. I'm doubting you, I just thought it was a Senate rule that the entire Senate would have to vote on to eliminate it.

 

Discussing the abortion of college coaches, especially gator coaches, is a step too far, even for this forum. I suggest a 3 day ban for Gator Growl to reflect on his errors.

 

Not sure I do think a change of the rules may require a vote of the majority but that would still be only 50 plus one (one being the Vice President if the Senate itself is split evenly). Although the majority leader may technically not be able to change the rules on his own the reality is that every member of his party would almost certainly go along with his decision.

 

I realize the vote is 50 plus 1 but I thought the filibuster is taking place in vote to close debate, so in essences wouldn't it take 60 votes close debate, therefore take 60 votes to make the change?

 

You do know that 93% of conservatives support contraceptive use...right?

Right?

Dude, think about it. If nothing else, we have teenagers too (my 3 kids are 13,17,19) and a few of those makes you say, we... are... done.

 

Senate rule 22 (cloture, written into the Senate rules in 1917), said that appeals are decided without debate and that only requires a simple majority, not 60 votes (60 since 1975, originally two thirds in 1917). When a member of the Senate raises a point of order against standing rules, the presiding officer will overrule that point of order because it is the written rule of the Senate in that situation. The senator then can appeal the point of order and since the appeal is nondebatable, per cloture rules, only a simple majority, not 60 votes, is needed to overrule the presiding officer.

If the simple majority is reached, the presiding officer must rule in favor of the point of order passed by the simple majority because the body overruled the officer and the rule is officially changed.

Take both of the cases of Reid in 2013 and McConnell in 2017. Both invoked a point of order that the presiding officer had to overrule. They both then appealed the ruling, and being that the appeal is nondebatable, only 51 votes was needed to overrule the officer. Thus the simple majority was able to change the rules. It's the "nuclear option" we hear about.

 

While I obviously cannot speak for you conservatives as a whole may not object to the use of contraceptives my impression is that they actively oppose the promotion of contraceptives including subsidies for their purchase. I recall a majority of conservatives opposed the mandate in the ACA requiring employer-provided health insurance include coverage for contraceptives based on what they call "religious freedom" along with their opposition to comprehensive sex education which has also been shown to reduce unwanted pregnancies. My impression is that their opposition to both the promotion of contraceptives along comprehensive sex education is that they (religious conservatives) believe that both encourage premarital sexual relations which they consider immoral.