Lol, do you think history is only the last 4 years? They’ve had more than 50 years and multiple instances of having the supermajority. Has there been a 50 year filibuster?
How many times have the Democrats submitted a bill to modify RvW?
Keep making excuses for this abusive relationship we’ve had with the Dems. If things the majority of people actually wanted were passed, the Dems wouldn’t have anything to dangle in front of us and say, “hey, if you don’t vote for us, the other guy will take away these rights of yours that are in limbo.”
Excuses and bullshit is all they’ve had for decades. I’d say a century, but I’m trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Got to give credit where it’s due.
If you look at these two links, Roe V. Wade was decided January 22, 1973, since that time there have been two congresses where a super-majority with a filibuster proof 60+ votes in the senate and the house in 75 and 77. A Republican (Ford) was in the president’s office for one of those leaving a single time with Carter in 1977 when it would have been possible without altering the senate rules to codify the decision, assuming that the R’s would have objected as they have from the beginning. I guess you can take it up with Jimmy that it wasn’t pushed into law back when the SC had just made their stance clear a couple years prior.
The next most viable times would have been in 1993 with Clinton and and 2009 with Obama, and both of those would have needed to either amend the rules or convince some R’s to go for it. It seems you’re overestimating the power they’ve had since the matter was before the SC the first time, particularly when it had been seen as a settled matter for more than 2 decades before the earlier of those.
I’m well aware of these instances and they were included in my link. I’m saying that these are not a good justification for their inaction.
If it’s important to protect your citizens why not amend the rules? The Republicans have no issues with this tactic. The Democrats are toothless and complicit by not taking the necessary actions to properly represent their people.
Do you think their corporate sponsors accept these kinds of excuses?
Lol, do you think history is only the last 4 years? They’ve had more than 50 years and multiple instances of having the supermajority.
You also cited that they’ve purportedly had several instances where they could have passed it at will when there has been realistically 1 viable time just 4 years after the original SC ruling.
A brief history of one of the biggest obstructions and also notably important tools at the disposal of the Senate. Interestingly enough one of the few times that the rules on it where changed actually was at the behest of the Democrats to allow for placing judicial nominees without the Republicans getting in the way. Actively doing away with it or making significant modifications has been kicked around for a while but outright removing it would all but nullify any input by the minority party. By forcing a 60 vote barrier to things you set the table for either working with people of different stripes (not a bad idea, we did use to get a lot more done that way) or if you happen to be in a space to have those 60+ all yourself then you can consider that a free ticket and strong demonstration of the will of the voters.
Do you think their corporate sponsors accept these kinds of excuses?
I’m sure that they’re probably held to a higher standard of performance than their Republican counterparts who tend to come from poor states with low educational standards. The R’s can be bought off for a relative bargain price to be sure, so less pressure to get on the ball.
The point of my comments is that neither party represents the people, my focus is only on the Dem’s because they market themselves on that platform.
The only real difference between the parties besides that marketing is that the Dem’s make excuses when they can’t pass a popular (with the people) bill. They put the blame on the Republicans and do little to find a way to make it happen.
As someone affected by these bills, I really don’t care why they can’t do what we want, only that they aren’t doing it. As an elected official, if it’s not possible, they need to make it possible. I guarantee this is the standard they are held to by those who fund their campaigns.
I understand the reasons they give for not being able to pass certain bills, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t excuses. A government should be run by the people and for the people. When it’s not, you’re seeing the minority party actually controlling the majority party and it’s a matter of a power imbalance. D and R can and do work together when they want to, but neither of them does this for us.
I’m not disagreeing with you because I misunderstand how the US government works, it’s because I understand and disagree with how the government works. The system needs to be changed and the parties with the power to do so are not enacting meaningful change. The only way to change a system is through leveraging power and the only power the people have is numbers.
So why apologize for them? Why buy into their excuses and defend their actions?
I don’t so much look to defend the D party as it stands, but rather the functional operation of the nation. The D’s are a far broader scope than the R’s and frankly I’d have loved to see something like a Sanders/AOC ticket created for president, but that’s not happening soon.
The Republicans have long been the party of NO. For them, a government de-fanged and paralyzed is a perfectly good thing, it would let the rich and businesses pillage and plunder unchecked. Let them oppress whomever they wish and force arbitrary rules on vulnerable populations at local and state levels where party plays a much smaller role. Matters like Roe and Dobbs wouldn’t exist without pressures from national level lelft-ish parties.
The Democrats often as not get the short end of the stick on deals in an effort to get anything whatsoever done. The ACA was a fairly large accomplishment given the opposition in play seeking to protect the existing middlemen and preclude those damn poor people from taking care away from the rich. They often give up things in exchange for protecting some group, the ‘fine you can keep the 47 round clips on your guns, but you have to stop shooting migrants for fun’ sort of deals.
We would all likely be better off if the existing parties where shattered up and the entire system overhauled to provide a more proportional representation, however that’s not in the cards as things stand. The other potential problem there of course is that the R’s would likely end up with maybe 10% libertarian, 20% boring basic conservatives, and the remaining 70% insane swastika wearing nuts. The D’s on the other hand would end up with a dozen tiny slices of varied groups who all want some very specific thing with great fervor. Where that to happen then the larger few groups born out of the R’s would run rampant over society more than they already do.
Lol, do you think history is only the last 4 years? They’ve had more than 50 years and multiple instances of having the supermajority. Has there been a 50 year filibuster?
How many times have the Democrats submitted a bill to modify RvW?
Here’s the answer: “we never really felt it was necessary.”
Keep making excuses for this abusive relationship we’ve had with the Dems. If things the majority of people actually wanted were passed, the Dems wouldn’t have anything to dangle in front of us and say, “hey, if you don’t vote for us, the other guy will take away these rights of yours that are in limbo.”
Excuses and bullshit is all they’ve had for decades. I’d say a century, but I’m trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Got to give credit where it’s due.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
If you look at these two links, Roe V. Wade was decided January 22, 1973, since that time there have been two congresses where a super-majority with a filibuster proof 60+ votes in the senate and the house in 75 and 77. A Republican (Ford) was in the president’s office for one of those leaving a single time with Carter in 1977 when it would have been possible without altering the senate rules to codify the decision, assuming that the R’s would have objected as they have from the beginning. I guess you can take it up with Jimmy that it wasn’t pushed into law back when the SC had just made their stance clear a couple years prior.
The next most viable times would have been in 1993 with Clinton and and 2009 with Obama, and both of those would have needed to either amend the rules or convince some R’s to go for it. It seems you’re overestimating the power they’ve had since the matter was before the SC the first time, particularly when it had been seen as a settled matter for more than 2 decades before the earlier of those.
I’m well aware of these instances and they were included in my link. I’m saying that these are not a good justification for their inaction.
If it’s important to protect your citizens why not amend the rules? The Republicans have no issues with this tactic. The Democrats are toothless and complicit by not taking the necessary actions to properly represent their people.
Do you think their corporate sponsors accept these kinds of excuses?
You also cited that they’ve purportedly had several instances where they could have passed it at will when there has been realistically 1 viable time just 4 years after the original SC ruling.
https://www.history.com/topics/us-government-and-politics/history-of-the-filibuster
A brief history of one of the biggest obstructions and also notably important tools at the disposal of the Senate. Interestingly enough one of the few times that the rules on it where changed actually was at the behest of the Democrats to allow for placing judicial nominees without the Republicans getting in the way. Actively doing away with it or making significant modifications has been kicked around for a while but outright removing it would all but nullify any input by the minority party. By forcing a 60 vote barrier to things you set the table for either working with people of different stripes (not a bad idea, we did use to get a lot more done that way) or if you happen to be in a space to have those 60+ all yourself then you can consider that a free ticket and strong demonstration of the will of the voters.
I’m sure that they’re probably held to a higher standard of performance than their Republican counterparts who tend to come from poor states with low educational standards. The R’s can be bought off for a relative bargain price to be sure, so less pressure to get on the ball.
The point of my comments is that neither party represents the people, my focus is only on the Dem’s because they market themselves on that platform.
The only real difference between the parties besides that marketing is that the Dem’s make excuses when they can’t pass a popular (with the people) bill. They put the blame on the Republicans and do little to find a way to make it happen.
As someone affected by these bills, I really don’t care why they can’t do what we want, only that they aren’t doing it. As an elected official, if it’s not possible, they need to make it possible. I guarantee this is the standard they are held to by those who fund their campaigns.
I understand the reasons they give for not being able to pass certain bills, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t excuses. A government should be run by the people and for the people. When it’s not, you’re seeing the minority party actually controlling the majority party and it’s a matter of a power imbalance. D and R can and do work together when they want to, but neither of them does this for us.
I’m not disagreeing with you because I misunderstand how the US government works, it’s because I understand and disagree with how the government works. The system needs to be changed and the parties with the power to do so are not enacting meaningful change. The only way to change a system is through leveraging power and the only power the people have is numbers.
So why apologize for them? Why buy into their excuses and defend their actions?
I don’t so much look to defend the D party as it stands, but rather the functional operation of the nation. The D’s are a far broader scope than the R’s and frankly I’d have loved to see something like a Sanders/AOC ticket created for president, but that’s not happening soon.
The Republicans have long been the party of NO. For them, a government de-fanged and paralyzed is a perfectly good thing, it would let the rich and businesses pillage and plunder unchecked. Let them oppress whomever they wish and force arbitrary rules on vulnerable populations at local and state levels where party plays a much smaller role. Matters like Roe and Dobbs wouldn’t exist without pressures from national level lelft-ish parties.
The Democrats often as not get the short end of the stick on deals in an effort to get anything whatsoever done. The ACA was a fairly large accomplishment given the opposition in play seeking to protect the existing middlemen and preclude those damn poor people from taking care away from the rich. They often give up things in exchange for protecting some group, the ‘fine you can keep the 47 round clips on your guns, but you have to stop shooting migrants for fun’ sort of deals.
We would all likely be better off if the existing parties where shattered up and the entire system overhauled to provide a more proportional representation, however that’s not in the cards as things stand. The other potential problem there of course is that the R’s would likely end up with maybe 10% libertarian, 20% boring basic conservatives, and the remaining 70% insane swastika wearing nuts. The D’s on the other hand would end up with a dozen tiny slices of varied groups who all want some very specific thing with great fervor. Where that to happen then the larger few groups born out of the R’s would run rampant over society more than they already do.