House plans to put Equality Act on the floor next week

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Wait, doesn't the SCOTUS decision in Bostock v. Clayton county make this (mostly?) redundant now? 

Even if it did it’s easier to repeal a judicial decision then an act of congress

[Badger]

I hope it's filibustered to the deepest pits of hell.

Only if you join it.

[MarkD]

I can't wait to see:

1 - which Democrats, if any, vote against it

2 - which Republicans vote for it.

Predictions, anyone?

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I hope it's filibustered to the deepest pits of hell.

Why?

Republicans get triggered by Trans people, they are whiny snowflakes who need their safe space.

[Kingpoleon]

I can't wait to see:

1 - which Democrats, if any, vote against it

2 - which Republicans vote for it.

Predictions, anyone?

I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if Romney voted for it. I think Collins, Murkowski, Portman, and Toomey are pretty likely. Why? Do you have some stringent opposition to it?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Manchin had reservations about the Equality Act last time it was brought up.  I would guess that his concerns have not been addressed.

https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin/status/1107695307075260418?s=20

Murkowski and/or Collins might vote for the bill, but no other Republican will.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I can't wait to see:

1 - which Democrats, if any, vote against it

2 - which Republicans vote for it.

Predictions, anyone?

I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if Romney voted for it. I think Collins, Murkowski, Portman, and Toomey are pretty likely. Why? Do you have some stringent opposition to it?

Didn’t Collins say she was ~concerned~ recently, after being basically the only Senate Republican to vote for it last time?

[Kingpoleon]

If the Senate doesn’t manage to pass this, with 70% support in polls, Democrats should run on it for the next four years.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If the Senate doesn’t manage to pass this, with 70% support in polls, Democrats should run on it for the next four years.

If the Senate doesn’t manage to pass this Democrats need to come for everyone’s head who opposed removing the filibuster.

[Kingpoleon]

If the Senate doesn’t manage to pass this Democrats need to come for everyone’s head who opposed removing the filibuster.

I don’t know about that. I think Manchin voting against it is almost certainly electorally beneficial for Democrats.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If the Senate doesn’t manage to pass this Democrats need to come for everyone’s head who opposed removing the filibuster.

I don’t know about that. I think Manchin voting against it is almost certainly electorally beneficial for Democrats.

And I know it’s almost certainly materially harmful for LGBT people.

[Hermit For Peace]

I am reminded that the Equal Rights Amendment has never been added to the Constitution yet.

I don't see people burning down doors to get that one passed.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

I am reminded that the Equal Rights Amendment has never been added to the Constitution yet.

I don't see people burning down doors to get that one passed.

Gender is also already a federally protected status. Sexual orientation and gender identity isn’t.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I am reminded that the Equal Rights Amendment has never been added to the Constitution yet.

I don't see people burning down doors to get that one passed.

Gender is also already a federally protected status. Sexual orientation and gender identity isn’t.

This, plus people are trying to get it passed as we speak (arguing that the deadline doesn’t count because it’s in the preamble and not the text itself).

[Kingpoleon]

And I know it’s almost certainly materially harmful for LGBT people.

The lesson from Trump, sadly, is that politicians are right: it is politically better to prioritize winning elections than it is to prioritize moral advancement as fast as possible.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

And I know it’s almost certainly materially harmful for LGBT people.

The lesson from Trump, sadly, is that politicians are right: it is politically better to prioritize winning elections than it is to prioritize moral advancement as fast as possible.

What’s the point of winning elections if you’re not going to fulfill your promises? What’s the point of gaining political capital if not to spend it (on an overwhelmingly popular proposal!)?

And by the way, if Manchin still has a chance of being reelected in 2024, this will not be what sinks him.

[Kingpoleon]

What’s the point of winning elections if you’re not going to fulfill your promises? What’s the point of gaining political capital if not to spend it (on an overwhelmingly popular proposal!)?

And by the way, if Manchin still has a chance of being reelected in 2024, this will not be what sinks him.

Removing the filibuster in order to do so may decrease Democratic popularity. Running an entire midterm campaign against Republican opposition to basic anti-discrimination laws may be a winning strategy for Democrats, and is thus far their best hope of retaining control of Congress.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If the Senate doesn’t manage to pass this, with 70% support in polls, Democrats should run on it for the next four years.

If the Senate doesn’t manage to pass this Democrats need to come for everyone’s head who opposed removing the filibuster.

The filibuster doesn't even matter if Manchin opposes the act on the merits (as he did last congress).

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I can't wait to see:

1 - which Democrats, if any, vote against it

2 - which Republicans vote for it.

Predictions, anyone?

I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if Romney voted for it. I think Collins, Murkowski, Portman, and Toomey are pretty likely. Why? Do you have some stringent opposition to it?

Collins has already said she won't: https://www.washingtonblade.com/2021/02/23/sen-collins-wont-co-sponsor-equality-act-laments-revision-not-made/

I expect the others you mentioned to follow her lead.

[SteveRogers]

What’s the point of winning elections if you’re not going to fulfill your promises? What’s the point of gaining political capital if not to spend it (on an overwhelmingly popular proposal!)?

And by the way, if Manchin still has a chance of being reelected in 2024, this will not be what sinks him.

Removing the filibuster in order to do so may decrease Democratic popularity. Running an entire midterm campaign against Republican opposition to basic anti-discrimination laws may be a winning strategy for Democrats, and is thus far their best hope of retaining control of Congress.

Retaining control of Congress to what end though? Controlling Congress means very little if you don’t pass policy while you have it. Furthermore, is there any evidence that voters care at all even a little bit about the filibuster? My big takeaway from the last 12 years or so of politics is that the average voter absolutely does not care how the sausage gets made in Washington.

[Kingpoleon]

Retaining control of Congress to what end though? Controlling Congress means very little if you don’t pass policy while you have it. Furthermore, is there any evidence that voters care at all even a little bit about the filibuster? My big takeaway from the last 12 years or so of politics is that the average voter absolutely does not care how the sausage gets made in Washington.

Presumably not just to pass the Equality Act, but also action on a variety of other things which require more than 50 Senators and a Vice President in order to pass.

[MarkD]

I can't wait to see:

1 - which Democrats, if any, vote against it

2 - which Republicans vote for it.

Predictions, anyone?

I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if Romney voted for it. I think Collins, Murkowski, Portman, and Toomey are pretty likely. Why? Do you have some stringent opposition to it?

Absolutely not. I very much want it to become law. These kinds of good laws should be made by legislatures, not by courts.