Manchin says he "can't imagine" supporting a change to the filibuster rules for voting rights

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
Joe Manchin on CNN says he "can't imagine" supporting a change to the filibuster rules that would allow the Senate to pass voting rights legislation with fewer than 60 votes


6:36 AM · Aug 1, 2021

[dchill]

1. What does he want?

[BeckyDem]

2. We need to win more senate races so more Americans can be spared listening to his

rationalizations.

[Silent3]

3. Without new voter protections in place before those next Senate elections?

That makes doing so a very, very tall order.

[BeckyDem]

5. Yep, I worry about it too.

We are living in stressful times due not to mere disagreements on policy initiatives but on democracy itself.

[rickyhall]

4. Of course not, he's a crook. He does what his owners tell him.

[alphafemale]

6. He is as useful as a concrete life vest.

Bullshit.

[Bleacher Creature]

7. Maybe I'm being naive, but this is a lot less strident that he's been on this issue.

[global1]

8. Is He Being Blackmailed By Repugs Because Of His Daughter?....

Wasn't she involved with a pharmaceutical company and a major controversy?

Do the Repugs have something on her and they are getting to Joe because of that?

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. Manchin specifically stated his opposition to a "carve out" exception, not other modifications

Aaron Rupar’s tweet is inaccurate, based on Manchin’s own words. Tapper’s question was specifically about a carve out exception.

While a carve out exception for voting rights would be the most expedient method, Manchin is on record supporting modifying the rule to require 41 senators present, holding the floor (speaking) in order to sustain a filibuster, rather than 60 votes to end one.

If the rule was changed soon, and Schumer cancelled the August recess, we could have a voting rights bill on Biden’s desk by early fall.

[PortTack]

10. Sure hope so!!

[FBaggins]

12. Still stuck on that hope?

He has multiple times said that he supported requiring filibustering senators to actually debate - but he has not said that he would support a nuclear option to implement that change. Nor has he been explicit enough in the "make them talk" rhetoric to imply the change that you're suggesting (in fact, he's rejected it when asked).

You've also had it explained to you that rule changes don't work in the way that you keep assuming. A "carve-out" fits the nuclear option well (if the votes actually existed)... but those don't actually change the rules. That is... the language in the rulebook hasn't changed. All that happened was that a precedent was set saying essentially "this rule has been deemed not to apply to nominations". You could do that for voting rights, but they've never tried actually changing the wording of a rule substantially. They can't say "we now have a precedent that when the rule says 60 votes... it really means 60 votes on the first vote... and then 55 votes a week later... and then 52 votes (etc)"

[Rustyeye77]

11. I am sooo tired of his bs.

Keep it up…you’ll enjoy being in the minority again.

Biden should tell him West Virginia won’t get a dime.