The two top Republicans who will serve as Senate Majority Leader if they win the Senate in the upcoming election have talked about how they would block Kamala Harris’ agenda, including her potential Supreme Court nominee. .
South Dakota Sen. John Thune told CNN’s Manu Raju that there is no abortion proposal that could get 60 votes in the Senate if Kamala Harris wins the presidency and Republicans control the Senate. In response to a question about whether there was a possibility that she would tolerate Harris’ top senators, she said: Court nominees will be finalized in the future, but Thune said it depends on who they are.
Separately, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told Raju: “I’m not going to plan on voting for a radical candidate with wild eyes. I know she wants to nominate. ” he said.
clock:
NEW: “I’m not going to schedule a vote for a wild-eyed radical candidate. I know she wants to be nominated.” @mkrajunew report of @SenJohnThune and @JohnCornyn This could be a stumbling block for Harris’ presidential candidacy. https://t.co/5RHjVGkE12 #internal politics pic.twitter.com/nIAPOb9IbR
— Inside Politics (@InsidePolitics) September 29, 2024
Raju asked, “Would you put a national abortion ban on the floor for the majority leader?”
Mr. Thune responded that there is *no* abortion proposal that can get 60 votes: I don’t think there is *an* abortion proposal that can get 60 votes on the floor of the United States.
Raju: Do you think you’re allowing Harris’ Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed?
THUNE: Well, obviously it depends on who’s in charge, and that’s the advantage of Senate Republicans.
Thune said he has no intention of changing the filibuster on any issue.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the other majority leader candidate, also said he didn’t think the abortion ban would get 60 votes and said he would absolutely keep the filibuster in place.
When Raju asked if he would approve Harris’ Supreme Court nominee, Sen. Cornyn said, “I think it depends on who the president nominates,” adding, “I think it depends on who the president nominates.” I don’t have any plans,” he said. He’s a radical candidate with wild eyes, and I know she’d love to nominate him. ”
Harris is a former prosecutor and attorney general who has been endorsed by many former Republican officials and former Mr. Trump. The idea that she would nominate a “wild-eyed radical” to the Supreme Court is laughable because she is an administration official. Mr. Cornyn’s comments may best translate into a regular address to voters, as he would not plan to vote for someone who defends basic personal liberties like abortion care. It’s strange that Republican leadership sees fundamental freedoms as radical, but long-established deprivations of liberty as conservative (this is not traditional conservatism) ).
Mr. Thune is staging an insurrection to boost Republican Senate candidates.
Since 2009, Republicans have been dedicated to pushing the country over the fiscal cliff and thwarting Democratic presidents to the point of shutting down the government if they fail to understand some of their radical policies.
The Senate used its power to deny a vote to then-President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Mr. Garland was respected by both sides. Mr. Garland would have been the perfect Supreme Court justice. He believes in the rule of law and precedent, unlike the three justices Donald Trump has put on the court, and unlike the naturally conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who directly opposes rampant corruption. He has a moderate temperament that he values.
In that context, the way Cornyn and Thune responded to the anti-abortion issue is a way to avoid being held accountable by their base for not committing to passing anti-abortion legislation. The aim was to expand the issue to include all policies related to abortion. But it also leaves room to suggest that abortion protections may not be codified if Republicans win the Senate.
The majority of Americans want Roe’s protections restored. The Republican abortion ban is killing women, leaving others infertile and experiencing needless fear and pain akin to medical torture. Republicans have vowed to continue condoning the deaths of women and girls under Republican rule if they win the Senate. It’s worth stopping here and asking ourselves how they define “pro-life” and why the lives of women and girls are not included in that definition.
The Republican Party’s promise to continue abusing its power to thwart the will of the people is an attack on the foundations of freedom and democracy on which our country depends. It has become a radicalized party, with sensible Republicans alienated and extremist voices amplified, which is in direct contradiction to the current Democratic Party.
