BREAKING: Democrats Vote to Take Over Elections

Breaking news today to take over elections.

Take the power from the states talk about today live from Washington DC questions right now. 1-800-684-3110 June 6.

We talked about Eric Job Richard Road op-ed for the local newspaper in Charleston, West Virginia.

Job answered why I voted against the for the people that not only does he tell you why is it going to vote against the for the people act two weeks ago. We also says you get it you would not support getting rid of the filibuster makes it very clear that up. The title alone is why I voted against for the people act but if you just know enough about Job ancient history. You know to read it to even that title he's giving the door to Chuck Schumer and Democrats say this is what you need to do for me to vote for the for the people act, it was a way for him to come out look like he was opposing it and still carry that that card if he wants to use it but also to put on the table what does Job answered want to get them to 50 that were to break that all this why that is. Vote is today should be if you listen to is live. I this will be your for five hours from now is is with this Mozart would occur. The boat is going to fail. They they will not serve, it won't survive the filibuster, so there will be cloture.

The question is do they get to 50 and if they get to 50.

We talked a lot about what's in the for the people elect a white say I give us this out. What we believe is unconstitutional parts of this federal takeover of the election process with the Constitution. I lays out the processes but also clearly defines the role for the state's unique role for the states where it's not all uniform. It's not all exactly the same and the Constitution makes that clear. Doubt here's here's where we are, though today, there's the there's the piece of legislation she look it will Job answered vote to keep this alive on the legislative purpose forbid bits and changes to make the changes he wants but did second if they get to 50 I would write if they had been Washington DC because that if they get to 50 if they get their caucus together. This also opens the door to the filibuster debate one part which is the left of the party wants to do away with it in the Democrat party. Job answered it is been reported by the AP is floated just potentially even lowering the standard or returning to the rules you got to actually put four to stating filibuster were actually on the floor. The sinecure reading the phone book can affect your dream.

You mentioned the op-ed to Sen. mansion Road on June 6. It took in exactly 10 days to walk away from his position on the underlying bill before the people act adorned in that op-ed. It's literally in the same paragraph where he expresses opposition to the for the people act and opposition to the filibuster so it took them 10 days to walk away from what he wrote in the op-ed on the bill. How many days will it take him to walk away from the filibuster as you suggest, Jordan, he's really already be gone that walk away. The question is how fast will he continue in and how far will that walk away go will you support eliminating the filibuster all about. Altogether a will just be a significant watering down either way. Jordan it's can be very telling when he cast a vote today. He can say whatever he wants.

But if he votes to proceed to this bill. He is voting to proceed to the substance of S1.

The bill that just you know, 15, 16 days ago. He told his voters. He was against. That's what's on the floor. The United States Senate today Jordan what what unbelievable is what Job which is still for I he still for a bad dating early voting and how would you days that has to be at the state level federal takeover of redistricting voter ID which he would allow it would be a little less strict than the current legislation would allow for ego bills and other things to be all that they see a list of other items you can use for ID purposes. Automatic voter registration mandating no excuse availability in a different way to account provisional ballots based off where you if you were the wrong voting at district and precinct for talk about all that big issue is if they get to 50 is the legislation that is also the filibuster issue. What we can see there some document that all today. The challenges facing Americans or substantial time when our value freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades ACLJ has been on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms event remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times.

The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

You are already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us.

ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally like publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the worship ministry and what Obama care means to the prone life in many ways your membership abuse is empowering the right to life question free copy mission life today online ACLJ/focus on itself so it will be on Job answered first. Is this he reversed course it it up.

Estate is made clear what Job which is city.

What's changed in this legislation would by the way, would you actually look at the changes of the issues we really have serious problems with its other issues at side it's other poor. He wants that it thinks you what's taking out these he was at, but what he be voted yes on today is not that it's what he wrote the op-ed it said he would not vote for. Unless, so he's got to get that unless in the second second issue here is not just the for the people act the talk for people like AOC and others it well if if Senate Democrats don't change the rules and put that voting together we are going to.

We can't rely on elections to pass legislation. We can't rely on the people choosing to put us in power and power, enough of us to put our legislation through, we have to force it through with rule changes that second issue is going to be on the filibuster itself.

Job answered wrote the op-ed series opposed to getting rid of the filibuster, but now he's floating changing the filibuster rule to lower the threshold or potentially go back to the old rule of Abhishek stated he was standing filibuster.

This is a huge issue for both sides.

Because if you get to 50 today that that vote occurs, even though the vote will fail. They had this will open the doors to a full full-fledged debate on whether not the filibuster stays or goes and at that.

That's a, it's not like they got the votes necessary for that today, but like you just walk through if you know the last 10 days Job where to go from the op-ed of why not voting for two out to it someone who was in the hallways of of his Capitol Hill office building this morning at taking questions from reporters and not answering. How is good about it so it's not so clear cut and then we get to. That's that. The secondary issue which I think he also wants to kind of course the debate on which would be the filibuster. This whole thing is a ruse. Jordan it's actors acting on a stage. It really is there playing the long game. In one sense, although I'm using the word long very loosely because it took Jake took center dimensional of 10 days to walk away from his opposition to the bill so it could be matter of not nearly another week or two where he changes his vote on the filibuster and Jordan and II really don't think I'm being unfair and that characterization is as you say of the bill. The center mansion has agreed to bring to the floor today on substance are not reading anything into this on substance.

It is S1 with about three pages of what amount to clerical errors added by the chairman of the Senate rules committee Amy clubbers are the underlying bill, S1 was 884 pages long.

This one is 887 pages long so they added things to it.

They did not remove the things that were most troubling, and then Jordan also on substance, I mean I agree with you that the game hears about filibuster, but on on substance here. Even if you look at Joe mansion slightly more than two pages of bullet points and even if you take them him at his word and give him every benefit of the doubt that is out there which I'm not sure that he deserves. At this point, but if you do that, Jordan.

The entire first half of his memo is bullet points that are the pillars of S1 being transferred into his proposal. So he's building on top of what S1 would do that is what he is asking Democrats to do and look that that they can almost say will were trying to reach a deal will we don't know what it is storming. We have these two pages of bullet points were center mansion is basically saying I support S1.

I just want to add some other things into it. So if they get to 50 today expect all of the attention in Washington DC to shift to a focus on when and how to change or eliminate the filibuster go back to jail because of Jessica two days ago, Jessica April 7. This is in the Washington Post by Job answered and op-ed quote the filibuster is a critical tool to protecting the input and our democratic form of government. That is why I've said it before, it will save again to remove any shred of doubt, there is no circumstance which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster so that updated April he was traced the point of that was to say, don't try to get me to be the guy says well they will go back to standing filibuster. It will take them from 60 to 55 go to Eddie and then it was as well. This is why you keep we we Senate from beginning as Joe mansion even when he wrote the op-ed it got our attention because of the way he wrote it set up exactly what were looking at today is not someone you can rely on is a thin read that you can rely on. If he represents the people of West Virginia which is a solidly red state. When Sullivan for President drunk that he should be doing what is people wanting to do is not doing that he did that on the April op-ed in the Washington Post and said it again after that.

There is no circumstance in zone and which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster and then is already shifted on that to and subsequent got conversations in which is then well may be the 55 Mb 50. Maybe I'll change it. This is not right. You gotta be consistent when you're in politics you need to say what you say, believe and believe in what you say and represent your people and I don't think the people of West Virginia sent someone in their weaken the filibuster and certainly with a voting for President from the voted for the way the accountability of government is today and that is the right and this is an important thing, the filibuster literally the filibuster is an important tool to stop legislation in the Senate the greatest legislative body in the world that ought not to proceed and you doing away with hundreds of years of history here and the Democrats use it.

Do they may sell. It's terrible. It's a horrible thing but they use it to just like the Republicans do and to lose it, and to do away with it is to undermine and not the fit as the fail to understand the historical significance of the filibuster that at the treat West what you look at all the set up that he's been going on through through the spring and then into the summer.

It's made the statements that look very definitive, but that you read into that what he's actually saying that he's always opening the door to doing what he might do today, which is one vote for something where he's gotten up and say why voting against it. Vote for it and then vote and then have the debate on his other op-ed which is change the filibuster rule and if most any of us did that in some decision in our life we would be embarrassed that that we were that note. Much of the flip-flop on it in the Senate filibuster rule.

It doesn't have the weight of of legislation or the Constitution. It is a Senate rule. But the purpose of the filibuster rule is so that when major changes in American major pieces of legislation come before this deliberative body that it it ensures that there has to be bipartisanship at all major things that simply cannot be a simple majority vote, nothing is consequential is what they're proposing in this and Epley named inaptly named her for the people act nothing that major should be done on a partyline vote that that the filibuster is designed to address that very kind of thing. And yet they're willing to do that into the Constitution itself. In my opinion. I've never seen a more dangerous and horrible piece of proposed legislation, then this bill that's coming before the Senate. It is, in fact, in my opinion a constitutional crisis in the making is a violation of article 1 section for the Constitution and what it amounts to Jordan is a desperate attempt by the Democrats to remain in power and is a hostile takeover of our free and fair elections in this country and again nothing this consequential should ever be done on a strict partyline vote. That's what they're proposing in if they get their way. That's what will happen. This is what I want to hear from you folks. 164 3110.

If you are talk to us on and that's 1-800-684-3110 about heaters to competing issues here. You have to understand is that and then using this save the legislative vehicle to accomplish both. What is the federal takeover of elections. This is a dream of the Democrats and they know they don't have the votes to get there under the current rules of the Senate, but they need to show that they could get their vote. If they were to give Joe mansion to be the 50th vote today that the demonstrates it with the vice President who sits is present Senate to come in the 51st vote. If they can get through cloture to get past the filibuster rule 60 vote threshold on cloture and nowhere near that.

So they do, they start wheeling and dealing on well babysitter 60 Lincoln 55 or do away with altogether or if you want to have a filibuster. That's okay, but it's actually based on the votes on cloture. It's really based on you actually sitting and not yielding your tieback so those 24 hour sessions that you see not on TV before with the standing filibuster.

So this is all again you could think short-term I think that they realize this might be in the past. What's Parties are doing this and say well you think about the current Senate I made such a slim margin if we get rid of this.

They take back power. While there's no way were to stop it either legislation. This happened to Democrats. This is bird Democrats of the past judicial nominees with a civil everything but the Supreme Court don't know for the filibuster in the Republican civil when they got power that directly filibuster its record of these so here that to solicit the precedent for that.

If you do this you are your what they are really tell you is this why you gotta bounce these two issues. This legislation to them is so important they think they basically put the sin they can't lose the election. It will not lose races to win more races go to bed at Ashley. If the federal government is in control of the election process. So is that worse the bigger risk of long-term, potentially powered Republicans in the opposition party make it easier for them to put for legislation, but is such a big takeover of the process that it's worth taking that risk and I think a lot of Democrats initiate. It might be we can execute this federal takeover of elections through its might be worth risking filibuster right back only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life.

We created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership of the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy mission in life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans is time and are now free to sort constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now ACLJ on the front lines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress. In the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms and then remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times.

The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you and not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God where you can learn more about our life changing become a member today ACLJ and great question came in and we talked at this throughout this process is that lead up to this vote with Karen on Facebook so she said you could tell he met his unconstitutional provisions. We believe in this law the for the people acted what is I would point first is the starting point is the Constitution itself is article 1 is right there in section 4 it says elections and right at the beginning of that. It's is the time, place and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be subscribers a prescribed each state by the legislature thereof by the state legislature.

So even even the role of the states. In deciding the type Lisa Biddeford said it and how selections is given to the states is not given to the student in the house. It's not given to Congress determined that I sit there that's just a starting point because as a second question came in through and on Facebook.

It would this affect the electoral college at all. It's on its face that I change the electoral college, but they are changing. I would like to change redistricting which does change those numbers so she's right. It actually gets at at the bigger issue to which is how redistricting is done after we take a census and figure out you know who who loses C2 gate seat and that also have as a distributed throughout the state to join indirectly, it affects all of that. I mean if you look at the mechanics of how an election work.

Everything from how voters are registered to how they go to the polls to win. They go to the polls to how those votes are tabulated to what they have to show when they go into a polling place to demonstrate they are in fact a legal vote or all of those mechanisms would move to the federal government Jordan. So of course indirectly, they would have an impact on the electoral college. I think this is an egregious violation of that promise inside.

Article 1, section 4 to give the time, manner in place of authority to the states to determine how elections go it's going to impact all of those things. In turn, I don't think you have to look any farther than Stacy Abrams to do to illustrate this point. She's of course been a a huge proponent of moving the authority to the federal government and now now here's what she saying she sang with Sen. mansion is putting forward are some basic building blocks that we need to ensure that democracy is accessible and Jordan. Some have said that the fact that there will be some of the picture identification inside a mansion proposal which I don't know if there will be, or not, but if there is they have said that makes it acceptable that Jordan, if you move the authority to determine what kind of voter ID is acceptable and what can be put in its place. That is of course going to move in only one direction going forward. So yeah they might use it as a red herring to say, look, we like this particular standard of voter ID but Jordan, if it is the federal government setting that standard and in the process.

It eviscerates all of the other state laws will look it's only to be an election cycle or two before all voter ID is watered down to effectively nothing so it's even cut up with mansard in the hallway of his capital office. We got that out for you and ticklish because he actually talks about in this well if Stacy Abrams supports that you remove it in the right direction. That tells you everything right there. This is not some moderate Democrat. This is a guy who plays what word what's made a few changes for head is better for West Virginia.

He thinks he can sell to constituents back home, but this is in line with the the mainstream think you where the Democrat party is identical us you've course, it was still waiting on the way of saying no, no, I gotta make sure the scene time understanding the working Obama cannot. You have basically Stacy much for he literally the way he just says the ideas he's already set up.

I think by calling it voting rights bill voting against this mean aunties out and see starting to employees putting in people like Stacy Abrams who was a Democrat, activist, organizer who took advantage of Georgia laws and got Georgia to keep these consent decrees are basically allowed voter heart harvesting things that weren't allowed before Georges got back and change the rules to fit so that they are taking measure. That way if he's pointing to her as the gold standard in this these are a yes vote yeah I mean that's laughable to point to Stacy Abrams as someone who can bring you together as someone who is going to be conservative or is going to be constitutional in her approach is ridiculous. As you said, she forced through the voter harvesting ID of the mass registration. The mail imbalance for no excuse whatsoever. A consent degree and decree that the state of Georgia just fell into because they were still scared to litigate it.

That's what it was the state of Georgia and the Atty. Gen. were too scared to litigate the case and so they caved in, and this consent degree with the mail-in ballots and voters she's the person and Obama that you're leaning again on in order to determine what which way you can invoke.

I don't think it's going to be one that's going to be constitutional.

So instead of calling this the for the people lag is really the against the people I when you get down to it, certainly against the states and therefore against what the Constitution says that this again when I listen to that and I just always assumed from where he's thinking of the seas to me by calling it a voting rights bill using that kind of language instead of for the people act is pretty tough when you when you set up. It's a voting rights bill to say… About vote against the voting rights bill so he's arty using the rhetoric he starts it is using the debt you still have the key names to the left, but also to the right of where he's taking the info from if if if if is being advised by Stacy Abrams in that world of politics.

This is the takeover were talking about and and they are he's just playing a game to his own constituency what people off his back. That's what we been audit the whole time is when we read the op-ed we said none of this is a guy who's was to have it both ways. And now it yet.

This is had a judgment day on that.

I think you hear that rhetoric in the hallway something significant would have to happen for him to somehow now vote no hundred percent Jordan he's gonna be ASME that that conversation did you boys first time I've heard in Jordan it tells me hundred percent he's gonna be a yes on this vote today and we need to be very clear in advance of this vote. What he is voting yes on because that answer that he gave what was disingenuous at best or not being kind because he's trying to say that he's gonna be voting on a compromise. Look, let's say that he and Sen. mansion come to some sort of deal on a compromise. I'm very likely to oppose a lot of what is in that compromise, but here here's the truth. Jordan that's not what is going on today, even if they come up with a deal.

It's not like they're gonna drop that a new piece of legislation and vote on that. At 530 today know he is taking a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the substance of S-1 the for the people at it. If Joe mansion vote yesterday.

That is what he's going to be voting yes on and if you were being honest about this if they reached a deal. There would be a way to take a vote on that compromise deal you would put an end piece of legislation and you would put it on the floor of the Senate and you would take a vote I don't know if it would pass or not. We've got to be very clear Jordan when he vote yesterday as I am now convinced that he is going to do. He won't be voting yes on any compromise or any deal he will be voting yes on the substance of S1 which they have renumbered as S.

2093. It won't be on a compromise package. This is this again folks at significantly got a second half hour coming up will replay that set out because I think that's out weight the word to use. The people he invokes tells you so much about where Joe mansion's head is right now where his staff said is what he's who he's getting input from pressure from it and never thought we'd never bought it from beginning this whole idea that he was a no vote no on the filibuster changes but you always Healy said to feel like he was he got something out of it he somehow is that is not what they're voting on. He would be voting on legislation unchanged legislation. He said he would never vote for these plating now it looks like the vote yes on that for decades ACLJ been on the frontlines protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member.

Thank you. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ live from Washington DC.

Major vote happening later today would wash DC down you could focus one on the actual legislation itself.

It's horrible for the people act this idea of bases. A federal takeover Congressional takeover of the election process which is was is clearly at these powers the structure the tightly submitted the idea of hell are we going to have early voting. How long are we going to have what the requirements for absentee was that with the voter ID requirement that's that done by the states. Article 1 of the Constitution that it whether you like voter ID or not. That is a get it that there's there's certain the planning of these election at that time, place and manner in the Constitution is not given to Congress to figure out.

It's given to state legislatures to figure out answer that.

That's a get. That's a legislative issue. It's not going to get enough votes to actually get to Joe Biden's desk today.

Okay so that's that's where you can focus on yes it will, it will fail and that it will not be able to overcome cloture vote which right now requires 60 votes to the big issue is that vote do they get to 50 do they get there they get Joe mansion is a Democrat from West Virginia who said he would never vote for this said he would never vote to change the filibuster because if they do yes think they get big they want advance that there legislation to show the unified.

But second, they get to force the debate on filibuster change and we've Artie heard that Joe mansion is gone from say he's opposed to doing anything that would weaken the filibuster to weakening the filibuster from take it from the 60 vote threshold to 50 50 threshold or go back to the steady filibuster. So he's already got say he would do anything to weaken it to say that is open to wiki. He also said he would never vote for this legislation, which by the way, has none of his changes. It retakes at vote today, he would be voting to pass a law that has none of his changes that it is a bit but don't know major switch so I want you all understand that you give or take your phone calls 100 684 31 two that's 1-800-684-3110. I want to play it again right now for you because this is Joe mansion talking to seated on the move in Capitol Hill. Take a listen mansion are you going to support course it was still waiting on the save as final and no no no I got to make sure the time understanding the working person. Obama cannot save when we break all that down Washington DC that Washington talk that's going on there.

He's he's Artie change the name of the legislation to voting rights bill which, if you would start putting it that way comes much more difficult to vote against it. A few hours he's employees invoking the names of pretty it up against mainstream but on the left side of politics inside the Democratic Party Stacy Abrams to see the sky. The gold standard of bit of of going in and try to maximize the law to the partisan purposes, but he did all that again he chooses. Here he tries to sound folksy. He's not invoking these of these regularly made it to me. He just said yes I would vote yes and up in a pre-probably open to the idea filibuster for that. I just feel that in the tone. That's where he's going and this is crazy.Jordan, first of all, he pretends he doesn't know what bill he's being asked about when that's the only bill in the series. It's just ridiculous. The look I'm holding in my hands.

The first few pages of the bill that's in a be voted on tonight and the last three pages a test.

2093 were not waiting on the final version no matter what Sen. mansion says he can negotiate whatever he wants and put a new piece of legislation when he goes to the well of the Senate tonight. He is going to be voting to proceed to, not whatever final bill he's talking about. He's really voting on S1 which is now renamed retitled S. 2093. He's gonna cast a vote in favor no matter what he tells his constituents.

That's what is on the floor the Senate tonight right folks, we come back it will continue to break this down for you and your calls 100-684-3110. Your comments as well Facebook you two pairs of challenges facing Americans or substantial time in our value freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades.

ACLJ on the frontlines injecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms then remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member.

Thank you. Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you personally. Publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the ministry and what Obama care means to as many ways your membership is powering the right question free copy mission life today online ACLJ/so hard to get to it. ACLJ was the targeting of organ of organizations, grassroots organization started by Americans will follow the rules of the game, but want to be active in the game want to be the process and we represent all those tea party groups and conservative groups in this this day I wonder what provision we talked on the air before but if it's still there.

Joe Bates would be voting for this to is well. It actually gives cover to the IRS and IRS bureaucrats so they become the lowest letter provision is that if the cover so that they can look at political motivations.

They can determine whether groups we talked about this example of another group basing this on freight may not be as widespread right now and certainly that this would protect the tax-exempt division of the IRS law would actually protect them from being accused of being of taking politically motivated positions because they would actually be encouraged to take politically motivated decisions pretty astonishing and brazen Jordan and me back when we defended the tea party groups from the targeting that took place not just that was imagining it to place the IRS is now admitted this they were targeting conservatives based on their viewpoint they were using what is called a be on the lookout list for looked to look for keywords. Keywords like patriot Jordan or tea party lies if that was somehow not allowed under the statute, which of course it was they were using those key phrases to target conservatives based on their viewpoint when we took that case to court. It was a very long process torn but we want a couple of things. First of all we want to consent decree that mandated that the IRS not engage in these activities.

We also accomplish through the statutory process a change in statute a change in law it was signed in the trumpet.

It bites the current Pres. Trump in 2018 that prohibited the IRS from doing this this bill that's going to be on the floor. The United States Senate enter and I think we also need to make this point.

This bill has already passed the House of Representatives to the bill that passed the House of Representatives as HR one, and will be on the floor tonight. The substance of S1, now named as 2093 during it would repeal that statutory rule that was passed in 2018.

We call it the Lois Lerner rule because it was in response to the actions taken by Lois Lerner, but either way, however you want to call it that piece of statute that piece of US law would be repealed by this law and again we talk a lot about Sen. mansion, but it's nowhere in his list of proposals for compromise. So guess what is still in the bill when he votes on it tonight. It's a repeal of that Lois Lerner rule and would say to the IRS.

Go ahead free game open season. You can target conservatives again yeah I would say I would go the phones I dominated New Jersey online what he done.

Welcome to secular you're the March 2 my quick 20 overturned by public place can always this is be legislation, it would not set a constitutional limit. So you go through the normal process will not even talk about. Though this is not getting there any of this is not going to have the votes to become law anywhere close tonight. The only where this this could have a chance of becoming law is if they get the 50 votes. I think they have by Joe mansion. If the other 49 and 49 are in line, which is that really been a lot of talk about them not be within the second issue which is harder heard for the decline but it gets the two having the discussion is doing away with the filibuster and that opens up a legislative floodgate where dipping a partisan politics you have. These laws change every couple years. Yeah, I think there's no doubt that Joe mansion is about yes not do need to stop playing games with him and him playing games with us and with the public, making beds, saying one thing and then talking to reporters and saying something else.

Joe mansion is going to vote yes to prevent the advancement of this legislation into a debate that's not that's not debatable. In my view, that's gonna happen is going to do that and the question that the caller asses can it be changed to subsequent legislation. Yes, it can subsequent legislatures.

New sentence new houses a representative with different majorities can change legislation, but we need to face the fact the reality right now is that we are at a crossroads in our political Republic procedures right now and it's a very important crossroads. The Senate is the stopgap. The Senate is the place where legislation stops and the reason bipartisanship that is made this country what it is and they needs to take place.

Sen. mansion is violating that rule in my view by date flip-flopping all over and what he is doing but think what you said any two and we now have the op-ed by Sen. from Arizona sooner said about who is also place have the Joe mansion rose more of a moderate, politically, is also bit up up publicly opposed to the idea of changing the filibuster. Here's what I think it is right to fans right that Joe mansion is a guess on this boat right now. That happens later today there already. Now having the debate over the filibuster. They've already got this legislative vehicle to get the to the filibuster debate now. Sitters cinema has come out. Then, in a Washington Post op-ed we say that we have more to lose the gate by ending the filibuster that she supports retaining the 60 vote threshold for the filibuster to go to this point, which is, yes we we know that that is the harder asked for the but there's also like the definition of what it what filibuster is is easy.

That's why look at this op-ed. Haven't had the chance is just pieces of it just came out, but it's how it how is she defining the word filibuster because it also Inc. it becomes depend on who you ask, in Washington about what filibuster is and you definitely put your finger on it, Jordan, and actually the list of Democrat senators who are going to try to straddle dispenses action quite a bit longer and Joe mansion and Kiersten cinema get the most Inc., but also people like Jackie Rose and Maggie Hassan John Hicken Luber and then maybe some old bulls to you know someone like Patrick lay here Diane Feinstein a lot of them will want to say we like the customs and institutions of the Senate, we have some concerns about eliminating or reforming the filibuster of a Jordan.

You talked about a lot of different ways that can be watered down or it could be changed.

I think maybe the one that might that they might make an appeal to this large group on both the left and right of the Democratic caucus to say just cannot hold your hold hands and everybody jump together might be one of well if were going to address issues of fundamental structure or of fundamental civil rights of gonna talk about voting election certain issues.

Jordan shouldn't be subject to a super majority threshold if were protecting the rights of the minority or for making sure that people have access to the ballots that something that we should reform the use of the filibuster for not just think whether it's later in this term.

Or maybe it's right after the 22 elections. Depending on how those pan out. I think they will come back to the senators who are trying to have it both ways and say listen, we understand your concerns, but those evil Republicans had just pushed us too far. I know you don't want to do it but you have to do it. So Jordan Kiersten cinema can write whatever she wants. But look what's look back at what Joe mansion wrote on June 6. It what is it today, June 22, and already he's walked away from that.

So this is not a stake in the sand, that cannot be moved. Gabby this all excites saying that we shouldn't have changed the filibuster, but that in her same op-ed.

She says we need to have the debate so it's that we have a debate people's minds change that. That's the Kelly definition of it so you go down the slide. This is this is where there this is where they want to go and if you get put off by just what's in the legislation you not focusing on the big game. The bigger game, which is the federal takeover elections plus the end of the filibuster. This the party that started that process under Harry Reid and it's a bit down this road before. It's bit them when it comes to Supreme Court nominees, and certainly the courts in federal court nominees, but if they see that this legislative this legislation would be so important impactful for other Democrats in the future elections. It may be worth giving up the filibuster for so they having opposed to it. I'll never do this, but we should have a full debate on it because as Dan said in that full debate will get to blame the Republicans how horrible they are the worst.

There's a reason why rather do this to try to prevent people. It's like Joe mansion instead of calling it yellow SR one or before the people elect call get the voting rights bill that's key that is already putting it partisan terms because anybody who opposes voting rights. Let's a bad person right those Republicans are bad. That idea they fear is is just try to again redefine what this debate is about, which is the proper role of Congress, the proper role of the states. Why, you could have a you won't have full uniformity is less the states choose to do that that they can have differences based on the size their state size and population, where people are a demographics etc. they think it's a kind of this figure that out because they were that the at the state level they got were a bit the egg that is how our founding fathers attended this debate so I really do think that the log a play here like us to focus all the time on this is unconstitutional and it's certainly worthwhile to go through this legislation, but it's the vehicle to a the filibuster.

They're all played right into that debate as well. Final say become double take your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110 here competent on Facebook a periscope on YouTube as well and will get to those us and we come back 1-800-684-3110 acres. Also check out ACLJ.org. Fans have new piece on this box to all of the legislation.

Again, you want to check it out. Just Posted this morning right before went on air ACLJ.org] only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stay in the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold mission will show you how you are personally publication includes all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the ministry. What Obama care means many ways your membership is empowering the right question mission life today online/challenges facing Americans is no constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line we could not do more work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ Idaho on line 3 kit welcome to secular euros a year walked the last election we were screaming deal for the American people on board with everything that went wrong in the last election. These issues about because of call.

This was never let's revive people why seats were rapidly quickly changing their rules and sometimes not see how those rules and how that could impact election was coded so you had this massive expansion of mail-in voting where ballots were just being sent out live ballots will be called… Requests for ballots, but actual live ballots were being sent out so we also, there were problems.

States within a number of states have taken action so that the problems of the last election don't sully the next election cycle that we don't have those issues of people that doubt whether they should or should they doubt the integrity of the election, the protection of the integrity election. This would this this would this would actually put into legislative stowed all of the problems we saw in the last election cycle because states quickly acted to either allow localities to change rules, but again it was states who did it was that the federal government that is because states are the ones who have been given this power was not the federal government came and said you need to do voting this way or have devoted this this way they did assert that they had the power that would make permanent in federal law.

Many of the worst problems that we saw about the 2020 elections and you like you said, many of those changes were enacted in a rushed manner. This would not only make them permanent, but wouldn't move to the federal government to Washington DC. The authority for exactly how those mechanics will work. I would submit to you during that I actually think in the wake of this election. We have seen why it is so important to have decentralized elections anywhere, regardless what you think about the 2020 elections. I think there were a lot of changes that were made in a rushed fashion.

But every state or not, every state during the Lotta states went back and took a careful look at how the elections when in their stains or do we need to assure them up. Do we need to make sure that the people of our state have more confidence have more ability to ensure that elections are not tainted or tampered with, and many of them have taken action Jordan.

Look, I think that ability to decentralize elections is going to be fundamental if we can have confidence in our elections and I would also submit to you. If these changes are looked at carefully and over a long period of time. I think you will have a scenario where were states choose to do elections a little bit different and I actually think that's a good thing because it does not mean the same thing to live in Montana as it does to live in Manhattan or in San Francisco, and I think state should have the ability to look at their population to look at how their people live and say working to provide access to the polls in a way that matches our population join if you do that from Washington DC in a one-size-fits-all manner.

It will never work as well. Erica Texas might want hair caucused secularly on the air in particular called Jordan.

I really appreciate that honor to be on the show okay on the go and get my point project. My question earlier you said something about it may not have the boat. I'm just I need some clarification do they have the boat to go forward with so they will do the current rules of the city.

They did not have the votes to get to 64 threshold River date you first had to clear that threshold the filibuster.

If you will the 60 vote cloture threshold to then have the vote edited.

When you get past the threshold utility 51.

So what they are trying to demonstrate tonight is that they have the 50+ the vice President so if it what if if not for the filibuster.

Andy this would become law. This would be Joe Biden's desk.

So now let's have the debate on getting rid of the filibuster. That is, that this, what would you ask Eric to have the vote for the bill tonight, in a sense if they get that Job it's about which were all kind of agreement they got at this point they have the 50 votes they do have the votes they want Andy so they got the bigger debate that's true that's exactly right.

And I think Joe mansion will cave in and vote yes denied on proceeding with it will with the legislation and I and I think ultimately he's gonna vote in favor of this bill. Ultimately, I don't care what kind of compromises, but then he is going to do it. He is a flip-flop person. He is not to be trusted. He is not someone that you can rely upon to do what he says he's going to do because he changes his mind so much regardless of the fact that estate is staunchly red staunchly conservative. I think that ultimately is good about yes denied and is ultimately going to vote yes for the bill. That's what I think Scott Oklahoma. I'd like to a Scott welcome to secular euros a year also.

Do I've got a question on HR one half those likelihood. The report will return and I thought they would irritate or make a decision on the states to follow lawsuit part of the ball did not elicit where legal organization ACL tape the courts of the play/resort request this with you because that's what this is a battle that you do not want to have a court it's very piecemeal. We'll be talking all these different provisions. You have to go provision by provision by provision and I did not say that you could be successful. Scott what our position is that a lot of this is unconstitutional. The paragraph as a whole. So if you look at the entirety but you have to piece by piece the West. That's not where we want to go.

I am battle, we certainly can be prepared to do that first. It's do we would have to go there and at and I think it's it's the bigger issue of where would we be going to the Lotta legislation. If there's a filibuster. Yeah, bad legislation needs to be stopped. You know in the House of Representatives and the Senate unit. We do not want to go to court yet.

You're right that is that is something that is last resort. You know the other thing about this. This is not a voting rights bill.

This is taking away the voting rights of states and their citizens within the parameters of things like civil rights law to administer their own elections, those for Joe mansion to call it a voting rights bill is completely misleading, as is the criticism of the states that if it had been enacted new new voting legislation.

There been so many lies told by people like Stacy Abrams and the President. For example, about George's law, which expanded voting. It increased voting. It did not restrict voting.

You look at George's lower Texas law compared to the home state of Delaware with the present is from its much more expansive in these other state checks you have the right to vote, so there's so much mischaracterization going on in one of those is that somehow this is a voting rights bill you fan out what part of this that I think is kind of sum it up everybody with only about a minute and half left is that working to see this vote, we all believe they got the 50 votes that will fail. So what happens next. To get them to that filibuster debate this is this is the vehicle to get there if they get the 50 votes. What would what would happen next. Well, I think they if they wanted to legislate Jordan.

They would have to turn their attention to Kiersten Cinema and and Joe mansion and try to convince them that some parliamentarian move again.

We talked about maybe maybe only reform the filibuster for certain types of legislation but this is that type of legislation, they would have to convince them of the other thing Jordan it's something that you been alluding to this whole show that maybe they don't they don't want to legislate. Maybe they're playing a game with the American people.

Maybe they want to make this political.

Maybe they wanted to make about attacks on Republicans either way. Jordan there in a shift of that policy. After today, when I think the vote will be 50-50 on cloture on the motion to proceed or not to legislate as a result of this, I think this is probably a good place to leave you from Washington DC. Here's what Joni Aaron said about this effort Jordan. She said they're trying to change the rules in order to fundamentally change the country.

I think that's what's on the floor the Senate today, change the rules change the country. So what were just seeing is the beginning of this debate in the day of the first success, which is just keeping their party together to think of the second debate on any the filibuster labels elsewhere. Voting rights legislation and that we can pass this takeover that they are all open to it. Really, watching carefully to cut ACLJ that are defensive. Please share with your family?

ACLJ on the frontline protecting your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

If you're already a member. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ