Tangle - Passing an abortion bill (without the filibuster).

Episode Date: July 6, 2022

On Thursday, President Biden for the first time expressed support for making an exception to the filibuster rule in order to codify abortion rights and the right to privacy through Congressional legislation. Plus, a question about an Arizona voting law.You can read today's podcast here.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the filibuster. This is something we've covered before. We'll recap a little bit about that and why we're jumping into it right now. But as always, before we start, we're going to jump in with some quick hits. First up, the Highland Park shooter was charged with seven counts of first-degree murder.

New details emerged that the shooter planned the attack for weeks, had weapons taken from him by police in 2019 for threatening behavior, and purchased his gun legally. He evaded initial capture by disguising himself as a woman. Number two, a Georgia grand jury investigating alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election subpoenaed Senator Lindsey Graham and former Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman. Number three, Pete Arradondo, the school district police chief in Uvalde, Texas, resigned his city council seat yesterday. Number four, United Kingdom Prime Minister

Boris Johnson is facing a political calamity after two of his top cabinet ministers resigned in protest of his handling of misconduct allegations against a conservative party lawmaker. Number five, Russia took control over the Luhansk part of Ukraine's eastern Donbass region and now controls about one-f Roe v. Wade in the law. And if the filibuster gets in the way, it's like voting rights. We provide an exception for this. Require an exception to the filibuster. The modern filibuster is nothing like the Jimmy Stewart version.

It's become an overused tool of obstruction. And in practical terms, it essentially means that a simple majority of 51 votes isn't nearly enough to pass legislation. If you don't get 60 votes for a bill, it's dead. Which means, theoretically, senators from the 21 least populated states, representing just 11% of of Americans could overrule everyone else. You know, the history of this is that when Democrats and progressives kind of let their head get in front of them and, you know, move off the filibuster for this or that thing, it tends to blow up on them in short order. On Thursday, President Biden for the first time expressed support for making an exception to the filibuster rule in order to codify abortion rights and the right to privacy through congressional legislation.

A reminder, the Senate is the upper chamber of Congress. It functions on what's called unanimous consent. That means if a single senator objects to something, the entire Senate has to stop and address that senator's concern, often with what's called a cloture vote. If the vote passes, the debate ends and the Senate moves to a final vote on judicial nominees or a piece of legislation. However, it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. Since the Senate is made up of 100 senators, for a long time that meant 41 senators could block the confirmation of a judge or a piece of legislation by refusing to move to the final vote. They would just endlessly call for more debate so no vote could happen. This is called a filibuster. Ironically, one of the big things you

can't currently filibuster in the Senate is a rules change to the filibuster. So with 50 Democrats on board, Democrats could change the filibuster rules, either broadly or for a specific piece of legislation. In 2013, Democrats eliminated the 60 vote threshold on most judicial nominees. In 2017, Republicans did the same, but with Supreme Court nominees. Throughout history, the specifics of how the filibuster works have repeatedly changed, but it has remained intact on major legislation. In January, Democrats floated the idea of abolishing the filibuster to address voting rights, but Biden seemed cool on the idea. When 48 out of the 50 Senate Democrats voted to change the rules, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema rejected

the move. Now, Biden is expressing a total willingness to eliminate the filibuster for abortion rights for the first time. The most important thing we have to change, I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law, Biden said to reporters on Thursday last week. And the way to do that is to make sure Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way, it's like voting rights. It should be that we provide an exception to this, requiring an exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the Supreme Court decision. In a conference call with Democratic governors on Friday, Biden reiterated calls to end the filibuster or create a carve-out to pass abortion rights laws. If Biden were to end the filibuster or create a carve-out, it would likely come after the November 2022 midterms.

Given that Senators Manchin and Sinema both maintained they would not end the filibuster, Biden would need two more Democratic senators in office to get to 50 votes. We've done a deep dive on the filibuster's history and also covered the news about it a few different times, as well as my own shifts in opinion about it. If you want a longer refresher or to listen or read some of that previous coverage, you can find links to it in today's newsletter. Given Biden's comments and the recent Supreme Court rulings, this set off a wave of new commentary about how Democrats might move forward. Below, we're going to explore some with what the right is saying. The right argues Democrats will regret abolishing the filibuster and should consider what's coming.

Many said it would create an untenable situation in Congress. Some argue that the filibuster is now on the ballot in the 2022 midterms. In the Washington Post, Mark Thiessen said it'd be a mistake for Democrats to take such a risk before an election. In an act of stunning political and legislative incompetence, President Biden is calling on Senate Democrats to bypass the filibuster to pass legislation codifying Roe v. Wade, even though he knows full well he does not have the votes to make this happen, Thiessen said. But even if he did have the votes, it would be foolish to weaken the filibuster just months before a wave election that is expected to sweep Democrats out of power on

Capitol Hill. The president's party has lost, on average, 27 House seats in midterm elections since 1946, and this will not be an average midterm election. Biden has been the most unpopular president since the modern polling era began with Harry S. Truman. Republicans are all but certain to win back the majority in the House, and they need only a net gain of one seat to take back the Senate. It's possible that Democrats could somehow manage to hold off a GOP Senate takeover in 2022, but the field is even more tilted towards Republicans in 2024, Thiessen said. Democrats will be defending 23 seats, while the GOP will be defending just 10. None of those GOP seats are in states Biden won in 2020,

and only one, Florida Senator Rick Scott's, is in a state that Donald Trump won by less than five points. So, the odds are overwhelming that if Republicans don't win back the Senate this year, they will do so in 2024. And considering the unprecedented serial disasters Biden has unleashed in his first term, Republicans are more than likely to control the House, Senate, and White House in just over two years' time. The Washington Times editorial board said Biden already forgot what a mistake this was.

Mr. Biden, who will turn 80 in November, perhaps can blame a senior moment for his inability to remember back to 2013, but Senate Democrats who were there at the time obviously learned nothing from then-Majority Leader Harry Reid's detonating the nuclear option and having it blow up in their faces, the board said. Let's refresh their collective memories. Mr. Reid, the Nevada Democrat, orchestrated the elimination of the Senate filibuster on nominations of federal district court and appeals court judges so his party could ram through then-President Barack Obama's radical left-wing judicial nominees over the objections of Senate Republicans. Senator Mitch McConnell then, and currently the minority leader, warned Democrats at the time that it would be a parric victory, and a short-lived one at that. After Republicans recaptured the Senate and Donald Trump became president,

they took the nuclear option to its logical next step, abolishing the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, stripping Democrats of their ability to block Mr. Trump's three high court picks, the board said. Thanks in no small part to Mr. Reid's short-sighted partisan power grab, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett are on the bench today. Their votes in Dobby Jackson Women's Health Organization resulted in Roe being overturned. The Walsh Journal editorial board said ending the filibuster is now on the ballot. As if the stakes for November's elections weren't high

enough, President Biden now says he wants to bust the Senate's filibuster to guarantee access to abortion, the board wrote. It won't happen before November, since the cooler heads of Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are defending the filibuster's moderating purpose. Democrats will no doubt forget to thank them when Republicans next take power. But how long can they hold off progressive demands? The Senate is 50-50, so if Democrats pick up two seats in the midterms, that could be the end. Don't be deluded by Mr. Biden's sales pitch about a single-issue exception to the 60-vote filibuster rule. This is like an engineer saying he wants to relieve pressure on the Hoover Dam by blasting a small section of concrete. The result wouldn't be a trickle.

Mr. Biden previously called for making the exception of voting rights for the filibuster. Is a carve-out for climate bills next? Once the legislative filibuster is killed for one priority, it will go for everything. That's what happened to the filibuster on judicial nominees. The legislative filibuster frustrates both parties when they're in power, but it prevents policy whiplash. Without it, Democrats could remake the Supreme Court, but Republicans could take over, add more justices, and institute national right to work and private accounts in Social Security. Congress would be a policy yo-yo, and elections would feel even more existential than

they do today. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to the left's take. The left is divided on the issue, with some supporting the filibuster and others opposing it. Some argue that Biden is not the fighter the left needs, but should go as far as possible. Others say there are better options than abolishing the filibuster. In Bloomberg, Matthew Iglesias criticized the idea, saying it's an ideal strategy if the goal is not to pass a bill, but to placate Democratic interest groups. The legislation for which the filibuster would be lifted is something called the Women's Health Protection Act, a bill Democrats characterize as codifying Roe v. Wade, but that goes further in some areas than the Supreme Court precedents that existed prior to this year, Iglesias said. So, the conditions are set for one of Biden

administration's favorite ploys, assuring the various party factions that all their dreams would come true but for the dastardly senatorial duo of West Virginia's Joe Manchin and Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema, both of whom oppose filibuster reform. There is a better way. Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have a bill that would federally entrench the undue burden standard established by the KCV Planned Parenthood decision without going as far as the Women's Health Protection Act and blocking all kinds of state-level abortion curbs, Iglesias wrote. Democrats could, without asking the more progressive members of the caucus to abandon their support for WHPA, hold a floor vote on the Collins-Merkowski bill. That wouldn't pass either, thanks filibuster, but it would put Republicans on the defensive as blocking a bipartisan bill.

Vulnerable Democratic members such as Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, and Mark Kelly of Arizona could be on camera, shoulder to shoulder with moderate Republicans rather than ensnared in intraparty infighting. Interparty in fighting. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web,

his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot.

Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca. In the nation, Jeet Heer argued that Biden is not the fighter America needs. Some congressional Democrats have come out for bolder action than a filibuster carve-out, Heer said. As Reuters notes, lawmakers, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have suggested Biden limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction or expand its membership, end the legislative filibuster rule, build abortion clinics on federal lands, declare a national emergency, and establish Planned Parenthood outposts outside U.S. national parks, among other options. To be sure, some of these proposals are risky in the sense they would receive blowback from Republicans, including GOP-appointed judges, and following these actions would require even more radicalism in the future. If Biden leased out land to abortion clinics on federal land, he'd have to be prepared to give blanket preemptive pardons to doctors and patients in case they are charged in the future. Yet, despite the risks, these radical proposals also bring considerable benefit. They would establish that reproductive rights are crucial, worth fighting for, and have the full support of the Democratic Party, Hears said, they would make Biden into a fighting president, the leader of a just

and necessary cause. But it is precisely because they involve fighting that Biden shies away from them. He's a conciliator, not a combatant. If you are a politician who really wants to secure backing for an agenda, these aren't reasons for inaction, but rather for forging ahead. After all, if you want to fight an election where you strongly disagree with a rival party, then polarization is good. You want to underscore, highlight, and proclaim as often and as loudly as possible that you believe in abortion rights and the GOP doesn't. And, if you have a court that is deeply reactionary, not just on abortion, but on a host of other issues you care about like climate, gun control, and election laws, then undermining public trust is a good thing.

In the Atlanta Voice, Victoria Norris said even abolishing the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade will leave Democrats back before the Supreme Court. The current codification bill, the Women's Health Protection Act, rests in part on the theory that Congress has the power over commerce, and abortions involve commerce. But there are weaknesses in this argument, Norse wrote. The court, not Congress, ultimately determines what is commerce. Even when Congress has created an incredibly strong factual record showing a commercial connection, the court has sometimes seen fit to reject it. In the 2000 case, United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court said that a sexual assault was not commerce and therefore any national economic law allowing survivors to sue their attackers was unconstitutional, despite a mountain of data

showing a link between women's economic prospects and gender-based violence. Is there an answer to this for rogue codification advocates? Yes. Very, very careful drafting, a raft of Senate and House hearings, and clear thinking about the opposition. The bill must not say that it is changing constitutional law. It cannot rely upon the term right to abortion, for after Dobbs, there is none. The drafters must focus on language that has already been upheld under the Commerce Clause involving a regulation of medical procedures. They should include language that specifically rejects, as a factual matter, the narrow Morrison

analysis. Congress finds that abortion is an economic activity and cannot be reduced to an operation or assault. Members should emphasize why women's actual life has constitutional protection that transcends the constitutional protection of potential life. They should rebut the Dobbs analysis of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, making it clear that women are equal citizens under the Citizenship Clause of that amendment, and that denying women the power to make medical decisions violates that amendment. All right, that is it for the left and the right's take, which brings us to my take. So we've covered the filibuster a lot, so there probably won't be many surprises here. I've said before, and I will say again, that I oppose abolishing the filibuster.

My position has seesawed a bit on this, but if anything, I think the last few months show why that position is rational for both Democrats and Republicans. We've covered five Supreme Court rulings in the last week or two. I describe my position on those rulings as decidedly mixed, though each has presented real-world, tangible implications that concern me deeply. The one at question here is the end of Roe v. Wade, a reality that only came to fruition because Congress chipped away at the filibuster. If Republicans had needed 60 votes in the Senate to confirm Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch, we'd be looking at a more moderate court and a different outcome. We'd be experiencing gradual changes rather than the whiplash of

decades of precedent being undone or new precedent being created. But if the changes happening to the country at the hands of the court feel big and swift and jarring, it seems obvious to me that we'd be in for something far worse if we abolish the filibuster for major legislation. Whatever Democrats think they could accomplish with 50 votes, an abortion protection bill, climate change funding, a federal minimum wage increase, would almost certainly be undone in 2022 or 2024. And it wouldn't just be undone. It could come with mandatory voting identification, the repeal of Obamacare, or a massive immigration overhaul, depending on how ambitious or confident Republicans were feeling. These are nightmare scenarios for the left. The Republican moderates many Democrats lionize now, like Mitt Romney or Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski, would be totally defanged.

In a potential world in 2024 where Republicans have 53 or more Senate seats, hold the White House and the House of Representatives, the center would be far less relevant. Simply put, each party's power is fleeting, and that is precisely what keeps both sides from wading into the filibuster reform abyss. and that is precisely what keeps both sides from wading into the filibuster reform abyss. Whatever gains Democrats think they could make with a few months or even two years of a Senate majority and no filibuster would be short-lived, and it wouldn't even be guaranteed. Manchin and Sinema take a lot of flack right now, but there are almost certainly other Democrats unwilling to take difficult votes whose position will become more obvious if their votes became more relevant with no filibuster and a stronger Democratic majority. I understand there is considerable disagreement here on the left. Shoot, there is considerable disagreement here among my own staff,

a few of whom I know strongly disagree with my position. But I think killing the filibuster is dangerous, bad for Congress, bad for Democrats, bad for Republicans, and would create more chaos than any substantial progress in the short or long term. I also think there are much better options, politically, for Democrats. Iglesias, however you feel about him otherwise, is right about this. The smartest move, from a purely political perspective, would be to take up the Republican abortion bill, sponsored by by two Republican women and push it forward. Democrats could also create their own narrower bill that codifies the most popular of abortion rights. Exceptions for rape and incest, protections for at least 10 weeks, guarantees that the life of

the mother is prioritized, and the right to interstate travel to seek out abortions. These ideas are all very popular and I could even imagine a world where, with enough pressure and a non-disastrous 2022 midterms, they get 60 Senate votes. If such a bill were blocked by Republicans, then those would become the talking points. Republicans won't vote to make exceptions for rape and incest, or the life of the mother, or abortion in the first 10 weeks. Instead, the party is mired in an internal dispute about abolishing the filibuster, which they don't have the votes to do anyway, or to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, a bill that won't be all that popular nationally. When we covered Dobbs v. Jackson, I wrote that Republicans didn't have a good plan for what to do if Roe were overturned. What's become obvious, somewhat

shockingly, is that despite the leak of the Dobbs decision in May and the years of work conservatives have put in to strike down Roe v. Wade, Democrats also don't appear to have any kind of plan for what to do next. And it's showing. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This question is from Francis in Linwood, Washington. Francis said, I see the Justice Department is suing Arizona over requiring proof of citizenship for voting. It seems reasonable to me that one would need to be a citizen in order to vote. Am I missing something? So the big issue here is that it's actually unconstitutional, at least according to the Supreme Court in 2013. What the bill in Arizona requires is voters to

provide proof of citizenship like a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers on a voter registration form. It also mandates that county officials cross-check voter registration rolls with citizenship records and disqualify people if they aren't listed as citizens in the database. That may all seem benign enough. As I've said in the past, I don't think non-citizens should be able to vote. But in 2013, the Supreme Court said a similar law was unconstitutional because federal statutes do not require such documentation. As the Justice Department's lawsuit put it, a prospective voter being able to provide documentary proof they are a citizen is, quote, not material to

whether that voter is qualified to vote by mail or in presidential elections, end quote. So in plain language, they're saying the inability to produce proof of citizenship at the ballot box is not proof you aren't a citizen. Right now, Arizona already has an attestation of citizenship on the ballot, and lying about that is already a crime. The Justice Department's argument is that without proof of widespread non-citizens voting, there is no reason to create an additional burden to voting, one that would impact immigrants and poorer people more than other voters. For whatever it's worth, Arizona State Legislative Legal Counsel also warned that the bill could run afoul of the law, and many legal experts seem to think the Justice Department's case is pretty strong. All right, that is it for your questions answered, which brings us to a story that matters.

Several states are stuck debating whether to send out inflation relief checks for their residents, the kind of fiscal stimulus economists believe helped cause inflation in the first place. the kind of fiscal stimulus economists believe helped cause inflation in the first place. California is considering a $1,050 check to taxpayers as part of a $17 billion relief package with more money going to lower-income Americans. Colorado, Indiana, Maine, and Delaware may initiate similar but smaller bills, according to Axios. If just a few states send out these checks, the impact nationally could be minimal. But if they gain traction, some experts warn it could worsen the very inflation they're trying to address in the short term. With so many states in a budget surplus this year and midterm elections around the corner,

state officials could be tempted to appease voters with cash. Axios has the coverage of the debate happening right now. All right, next up is our numbers section. This one is about our main topic today. The percentage of Democrats who strongly or somewhat support the filibuster rule, according to a June YouGov poll, is 21 percent. The percentage of Republicans who strongly or somewhat support the filibuster rule is 51%. The percentage of Democrats who are unsure whether they support the filibuster rule is 23%. The percentage of Republicans who are unsure whether they support the filibuster rule is 27%. The percentage of Americans who said abortion should be legal in the case of rape, according to Pew, is 69%. The percentage of

Republicans and Republican-leaning voters who shared that view was 56%. The percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters who shared that view was 56%. The percentage of U.S. adults who think abortion should be entirely legal at every stage of pregnancy is 19%. And the percentage of U.S. adults who think abortion should be legal, at least in some cases, at some point in a pregnancy, is 56%. is 56%. Alright, last but not least, our have a nice day section. Florida's Craig Clark is known locally as the Tech Fairy. That's because the retired computer technician is now spending his time fixing up old, broken computers and giving them to people in need.

Clark says he has already given away over 430 computers. Clark began his mission after learning that a 7-Eleven employee he was talking to had dropped out of college because someone stole her computer. He ended up gifting her a refurbished laptop, which he then used to graduate. Clark started seeking out computers and people in need on the Nextdoor app and now has a reputation for changing lives in his community. USA Today has the story and there's a link to it in today's newsletter. All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. As always, do you know what I'm going to say?

Go support our work, readtangle.com slash membership. Become a member. It is what keeps this podcast going, keeps our newsletter running, and we need more members to keep this whole project alive. Yeah, either way, we'll be back same time tomorrow. Peace. Our newsletter is written by Isaac Saul, edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager, Magdalena Bokova, who also helped create our logo. The podcast is edited by Trevor Eichhorn, and music for the podcast was produced by Diet75.

For more from Tangle, subscribe to our newsletter or check out our content archives at www.readtangle.com. We'll be right back. begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.