Not knowing US constitutional law, it seems to me the SCOTUS decision might mean that the Dems missed an opportunity when they had the house

That it’s a federal matter seems legally predictable/natural to me, and that it then falls to congress to enforce then also seems natural.

What am I missing on that?

Otherwise, what would the Dems have had to lose by passing an act when they had the house? The 14th was right there.

#uspol
@politics

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
52 points

When the dems had the house they had a faux majority in the Senate. Neither Manchin nor Sinema would have voted to abolish the filibuster and they had no path to 60 votes for anything against Trump.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

We’re in a world now where there’s no path to 60 votes ever again on any issue that isn’t “Killing dogs is bad.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

That position sounds anti-law enforcement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Literally would make most police actions illegal and there’s no way Uncle Joe would sign it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

“Killing dogs is bad.”

I mean, you just lost Mitt Romney’s vote with that one

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

And the Huckabee clan.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

When the dems had the house they had a faux majority in the Senate.

Democrats had a real majority. They found enough no votes to block stuff they ran on but never had any intention of passing. Exactly like they did with the public option.

Voters are expected to operate in perfect lockstep and vote for the worst candidates party leadership thinks it can get away with. When our elected officials break off and vote with their fucking donors, we don’t demand conformity with the party from them at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Your argument is a false dichotomy. You need 40 votes to block and 61 votes to pass anything (that’s not a budget reconciliation or judicial confirmations) in the Senate. That’s a difference of 11 states worth of Senators. Its a fucking nightmare, but its also a big part of what slowed Trump’s agenda.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Your argument is a false dichotomy. You need 40 votes to block and 61 votes to pass anything (that’s not a budget reconciliation or judicial confirmations) in the Senate.

They need only 50 to change the rules of the Senate, with which they could do away with the filibuster forever. If they wanted to.

They do not want to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You want there to be some grand conspiracy, but there isn’t. What’s crazy is how much smarter you think they are than they actually are

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

I want the party to have the same cohesion they demand from the voters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

This is really the issue. Republicans are kind of die-hard party voters in Congress. The Dems had a few turds in the punchbowl who wouldn’t do the right thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 463K

    Comments