• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 days ago

      They could have protected Roe. They had opportunity to do so. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

      They could have passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and curtailed some of Republicans’ attempts at election fuckery. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

      Coulda codified Obergefell, nope. Coasted. Coulda raised the minimum wage. Coasted.

      Not to mention actually accelerating under power toward the same destination with Gaza and the border.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        32 days ago

        They could have protected Roe. They had opportunity to do so. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

        They had a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency for like 70 days. Why wouldn’t SCOTUS have overturned their law when they struck Roe? Matters of health and wellness tend to be the purview of the states. Where does Congress get the power? Interstate Commerce Clause?

        They could have passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and curtailed some of Republicans’ attempts at election fuckery. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

        And SCOTUS wouldn’t gut it just like they already gutted the voting rights act already? They didn’t have 60 votes in the Senate, so how were they getting it through the Senate…you know, where it failed?

        Coulda codified Obergefell, nope. Coasted. Coulda raised the minimum wage. Coasted.

        No they couldn’t. None of these things would get through a Republican controlled house, nor would they have 60 votes for cloture in the Senate.

        This is what bothers me constantly. The Dems try to do things, Republicans block them, and then idiots say the Dems don’t do anything. Republicans currently control the house and the Dems don’t have 60 votes in the Senate. They only have a majority due to Independents caucusing with them. There are not the votes to remove the filibuster.

        Congress only has the powers expressly given to them, all others are the purview of the states. It is ludicrous to think SCOTUS doesn’t overturn these laws that could have been passed in Congress.

        Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the “times, places, and manner of holding elections”. Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election laws.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 day ago

          They had a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency for like 70 days.

          During which time the sun was in their eyes and the dog ate their homework. They could have killed the filibuster forever with only 50 votes. If they had wanted to protect Roe.

          Where does Congress get the power?

          If they don’t have the power, they shouldn’t have run on it. They shouldn’t have lied and said they did. Or they weren’t lying and you’re just making excuses.

          The rest of your comment is just your devotion to this one “they don’t have 60” excuse. If the Jim Crow Filibuster is more important to Democrats than all the shit they won’t do for their voters, then the only reason we give them majorities is to slow the slide into fascism. Not to reverse it. That would, as you are delighted to point out, require 60 votes. And when they have the opportunity to slow the train, well shucky dern, that lil’ ol’ filibuster is there to save them from having to do jack shit.

          We gave them the seats needed to do this. If you don’t demand lockstep from those we elect, don’t you dare demand it from voters.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 day ago

            The rest of your comment is just your devotion to this one “they don’t have 60” excuse.

            You vehemently refuse to understand how Congress works, yet you steadfastly blame the party not responsible. There is literally no point in talking to you.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 day ago

              You vehemently refuse to understand how Congress works

              50 is enough to end the filibuster forever. You don’t want it to happen.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                123 hours ago

                Since 2012, the Democrats haven’t held more than 48 seats in the Senate. Again, you’re uninformed. In fact, so much so that you’re a Dunning Kruger wet dream.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  123 hours ago

                  When you take into account those that caucus with Democrats and vote with them more reliably than actual registered party members, there are 50 seats. Your excuses are shit, and you know it.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    122 hours ago

                    When you take into account those that caucus with Democrats…

                    So it’s the Democrats fault that people who aren’t Democrats don’t support eliminating the filibuster? And you think my comments are shit? Look inward, you’re ignorant of the facts yet absolutely certain you’re right. That’s pathetic.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness
      link
      fedilink
      42 days ago

      I mean they’ve been ignoring their constituents and instead pandering to Republicans while supporting their pet country’s genocide even as it leads the Middle East closer to another large scale war. There’s only one answer at the end of the democrats’ right wing shift and that’s fascism.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 days ago

        Dems haven’t shifted right. They advocate and vote for rights for LGBTQ, worker’s rights, and a myriad of other causes. The Democrats attempt to pass favorable laws, they are blocked procedurally by the Republicans, and then idiots say that the Democrats don’t do anything. It’s a tired refrain.

        I would love to see Democrats take a harder line against Israel, but if they had how would this election season be going?? How much money has AIPAC spent? Does it make sense to take a hard line against Israel, and then lose the presidential election, lose the house, and lose the Senate? What do you think happens in Israel and Palestine with a republican supermajority and control of the White House?

        Take time to understand situations before commenting on them. The Democrats largely haven’t had the ability to pass laws through the house and the Senate without the Republicans obstructing it. Only for about 70 days in the last few decades.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness
          link
          fedilink
          32 days ago

          I admittedly don’t keep up with the nitty gritty of American politics, but Harris is campaigning on fracking and Republican-style border control. If this doesn’t sound like a rightward shift I don’t know what is.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 day ago

            No, you don’t understand! It hasn’t become politically expedient to throw trans people under the bus yet like Democrats did with the undocumented! As long as there is at least one vulnerable population they haven’t yet chucked under the wheels for the sheer joy of hearing the thumping sounds, they’re the good party!