• pjwestin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month 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
        9
        ·
        1 month 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.

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I mean, the fact that they only had any potential with the super majority is the problem. In 2001, the Senate Republicans just fired parliamentarian Robert Dove because they didn’t like the answers he was giving them. In 2010, Senate Democrats realized they only had four weeks to get their agenda through unimpeded, passed a single bill, and spent the rest of Obama’s presidency comprising with obstructionists. In 2021, Biden let immigration reform and a $15 minimum wage get killed by the parliamentarian despite his party begging him to ignore her. Now, in 2025, a literal fascist will be in the White House and his allies will control both houses of Congress; do you really think he’s going to care if someone in an advisory position gives a non-binding ruling saying he’s not allowed to do something? The fact that Democrats can’t get anything done without 60 Senate seats isn’t an excuse, it’s embarrassing.