Which would have done fuck all as soon as a cycle came around where Republicans had control of Congress and the White House. Reversing a Supreme Court decision, OTOH, took decades of planning to line up just the right justices at just the right time.
Ooh, I remember this one when some other snot tried claiming the could have so many times, the answer is 1 (one) time between 77 & 79 when Carter was president just 4 years after the original scouts ruling.
Other than that, there hasn’t been a 60 vote Democrat super majority in the Senate since.
I don’t think it’s relevant to compare abortion pre 2000 to post.
hahaha, wow.
Anyway, here ya go:
@russelldobular
[Image, image to text below]
Screenshot:
History of Democrats Refusing To Codify Roe v Wade when they could have:
Jimmy Carter: Supermajority 1977-1979, Majority 79-81
Bill Clinton: Full Majority 1993-1995
Barack Obama: Supermajority for 72 days, Majority from 2009-2011.
(plus independents who agreed to vote for the Freedom of Choice Act Obama promised to codify “first thing” after winning the election. But, Obama quickly said after winning, it’s not his “highest legislative priority.”)
Joe Biden: Full Majority 2021-2023
When Democrats say “we didn’t have enough votes” and then fundraise for anti-abortion dems over pro-choice dems, they are telling you they don’t support choice.
edit suggesting the edit Carter or Clinton era is appropriate comparison to the appetite for, or viability of abortion legislation today, as relates to the supreme court ruling and what should be done now is silly.
So did they have the votes or not? Looks like not.
Edit edit just having dems in seats is not a vote, automatically. To be clear, I acknowledge your points about supermajority, and move no goalposts as my original reply said “support”.
Last edit: I edited several times to clarify. I understand if you are already replying and don’t see em.
You can continue helping the duopoly fundraise with these culture war and identity politics talking points, but I don’t like to keep my head in the sand when I already when down the rabbit holes.
Tell me precisely - and realistically - how you propose to deal with the fact that FPTP, gerrymandering, and the electoral and sociological-geographic distribution of the American populace literally makes the bar higher for Democratic presidential candidates (rural (predominantly conservative) areas have a more meaningful impact on the national result in a statistically-provable sense), and moreover that voting third party increases the total votes cast while generally sapping support for the only nationally-viable not-fascist party we have on the ballot today.
No pie-in-the-sky “the people will rise up” idiocy or what have you. Give me a real, pragmatic answer that could conceivably work in THIS election, THIS November.
I mean trying to deploy a “gotcha” on democrats as a monolith doesn’t make sense when just achieving supermajority does nothing to guarantee either an appetite, or a true ability to pass a given legislation.
I agree with your message that it should be codified into law. I believe the appetite for roe law has never been higher, or more viable as legislation.
I don’t know what you mean by talking points, youre the one who showed up with a poster board lol.
Further, if I’m helping the duopoly by talking about getting roe passed, then so be it. Roe isn’t a “culture war” topic. It’s a human dignity and bodily autonomy topic.
I see it as just another culture war and identity politics talking point so as to divide the working class.
I am more for focusing on the class war, and we start that by stopping ourselves from falling for the duopoly talking points and excuses by being their apologetics.
The working class needs bodily autonomy, or what else do they have?
I acknowledge the stain on the soul of the democratic party, but I also acknowledge that if roe becomes durable law in my lifetime, a Democrat will do it.
“crumbs”, such as reproductive rights?
I suggest checking out how many times Roe v. Wade could have been codified by the Democrats over the past couple of decades.
Caution: you may not like what you learn in that rabbit hole as well, though.
Which would have done fuck all as soon as a cycle came around where Republicans had control of Congress and the White House. Reversing a Supreme Court decision, OTOH, took decades of planning to line up just the right justices at just the right time.
I don’t think it’s relevant to compare abortion pre 2000 to post.
So with that caveat, when was there congressional support? Enough votes in both the house and Senate? With president ready to sign?
Ooh, I remember this one when some other snot tried claiming the could have so many times, the answer is 1 (one) time between 77 & 79 when Carter was president just 4 years after the original scouts ruling.
Other than that, there hasn’t been a 60 vote Democrat super majority in the Senate since.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/
hahaha, wow.
Anyway, here ya go:
@russelldobular
[Image, image to text below]
Screenshot:
Source: https://lemmy.world/post/18990596
edit suggesting the edit Carter or Clinton era is appropriate comparison to the appetite for, or viability of abortion legislation today, as relates to the supreme court ruling and what should be done now is silly.
So did they have the votes or not? Looks like not.
Edit edit just having dems in seats is not a vote, automatically. To be clear, I acknowledge your points about supermajority, and move no goalposts as my original reply said “support”.
Last edit: I edited several times to clarify. I understand if you are already replying and don’t see em.
You can continue helping the duopoly fundraise with these culture war and identity politics talking points, but I don’t like to keep my head in the sand when I already when down the rabbit holes.
Tell me precisely - and realistically - how you propose to deal with the fact that FPTP, gerrymandering, and the electoral and sociological-geographic distribution of the American populace literally makes the bar higher for Democratic presidential candidates (rural (predominantly conservative) areas have a more meaningful impact on the national result in a statistically-provable sense), and moreover that voting third party increases the total votes cast while generally sapping support for the only nationally-viable not-fascist party we have on the ballot today.
No pie-in-the-sky “the people will rise up” idiocy or what have you. Give me a real, pragmatic answer that could conceivably work in THIS election, THIS November.
Uh, alright.
I mean trying to deploy a “gotcha” on democrats as a monolith doesn’t make sense when just achieving supermajority does nothing to guarantee either an appetite, or a true ability to pass a given legislation.
I agree with your message that it should be codified into law. I believe the appetite for roe law has never been higher, or more viable as legislation.
I don’t know what you mean by talking points, youre the one who showed up with a poster board lol.
Further, if I’m helping the duopoly by talking about getting roe passed, then so be it. Roe isn’t a “culture war” topic. It’s a human dignity and bodily autonomy topic.
I see it as just another culture war and identity politics talking point so as to divide the working class.
I am more for focusing on the class war, and we start that by stopping ourselves from falling for the duopoly talking points and excuses by being their apologetics.
The working class needs bodily autonomy, or what else do they have?
I acknowledge the stain on the soul of the democratic party, but I also acknowledge that if roe becomes durable law in my lifetime, a Democrat will do it.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
Read and digest both, then explain how your list stacks up to ‘multiple opportunities’.
deleted by creator