Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Is Congress that subservient?

Randy Weivoda
@RandyWeivoda
Join to bookmark22likesJoin to like148comments

I saw part of a speech by Kamala Harris, talking about abortion. According to the VP, if Donald Trump is elected, Congress will pass a bill outlawing abortion coast-to-coast, which Trump will sign. But if Harris is elected, Congress will pass a law mandating abortion access in all 50 states, which she will sign. Does she really think that Congress passes whatever legislation the president wants?

I can see a Congress pushing or not pushing a piece of legislation, depending on who the president is. For instance, let us say that the majority of Congress wants to shut down all oil drilling in Alaska. If Trump is the president, they would be wasting their time, as he would surely veto it. If Biden or Harris is president, a presidential signature is likely, so the members would try to pass it if they had the votes to get it past a Senate filibuster. But the same Congress that would vote for a nationwide abortion ban if they thought they would get the president's signature, would not pass a bill that does the opposite, just because the president would sign that one. Everyone on this website already knows this, but any voters who were hoping they would hear less ridiculous BS from Harris than they have heard from Biden or Trump is in for disappointment.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (148)

  • Full Size Tabby@FullSizeTabby

    The Left has been insisting since the Obama days (egged on by Obama) that Congress not passing a law that the president wants is a legitimate basis for the president to issue a dictatorial decree executive order to accomplish the purpose of the law the president wants.

  • She@She

    She's only been the "nominee" for a few days, but I am already sick of the wall-to-wall "abortion" topic. Someone asked Elizabeth Warren what Kamala Harris's biggest achievement during her VeePee-ship has been, and Warren actually said it was that Harris "was the first sitting Vice President to visit an abortion mill." (TBC, that's a paraphrase. Liz didn't actually use the term "abortion mill," but you get the idea.)

    How sad that a very great many people on the Left cannot look at a girl-person (assuming they can find and identify one), even an infant, without immediately going to the "I hope she can have an abortion whenever she wants one" trope. There's never any "I hope she has a wonderful and happy childhood," or "I hope she can excel at whatever she chooses to do," or "I hope she can achieve her dreams, whether as a wife and mother or as a successful career woman."

    I never hear any of them saying "I hope she is loved."

    No. It's "abortion" yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Abortion forever.

    Ugh. Is it possible people will get as tired of this as I already am? I hope so.

  • Clarendon@Mackinder

    Short answer. The Dobbs decision said that abortion is no longer a federal issue. Congress can pass laws protecting or outlawing abortion, and they are all invalid going forward.

Scroll for later comments
+143 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 148 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.