• pjwestin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    They had the super majority at the start of that term. They couldn’t have pushed something as complicated as the ACA through, but they could have moved on something small like affirming Roe. Besides, the Republicans always find a way to ram through legislation without a super majority (and I’d suspect we’re about to see them abolish it entirely), but the Democrats never do.

    For example, when the Senate parliamentarian tells the Democrats that they can’t pass a $15 minimum wage through a simple majority, the Democrats give up. When the parliamentarian tells the Republicans they can’t do something, they ignore them, and one time, they just flat our fired the guy.

    You can argue about whether the Republicans are being unethical or underhanded, but at the end of the day, they achieve things, and the Democrats don’t. The Democrats will tell you that they need 60 votes to do anything and that the parliamentarian won’t allow them to pass non-budgetary items without one, but Senate filibuster rules can be changed, and the Parliamentarian has no real authority. Playing by the rules while your opponent cheats isn’t noble, it’s stupid.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The super majority at the start was those 4 weeks when Dems had any potential. When you get a time machine, go back and tell them to do Roe instead. Don’t listen when they absolutely disbelieve Roe is at risk. We all thought Roe was safe back then.

      • finderscult@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        No, we didn’t. No one in the last 50 years thought roe was safe. Every single dem presidential candidate in that time campaigned on codifying roe.