4 ms·

Obama would have happily signed a pro-price transparently bill Really? Then why didn't his Democrat colleagues in full, filibuster-proof control of the House a

• Someone1234 8y ago
  Obama never had a congress that was filibuster-proof. The 110th, 111th, 112th, or 113th congress weren't. The 110th was the most favorable but wasn't filibuster proof, least of all under the filibuster rules of the time. Plus the poster I was responding to specifically made claims about the Republican's policies and what they claimed the Republicans had tried. If the Republicans don't bring up legislation the Democrats cannot be blamed for not voting for it (or Obama for not signing it).
  • somecontext 8y ago
    The 110th Congress was during the presidency of George W. Bush. During the 111th Congress, from the appointment of Al Franken until the death of Ted Kennedy, as well as during the term of his appointed successor Paul G. Kirk, the Democratic party held 58 seats in the Senate and caucused together with 2 more senators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress "gave the Senate Democratic caucus sixty votes, enough to defeat a filibuster in a party-line vote." https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.h... "providing Democrats with something they had long hoped for: 60 votes, and thus at least the symbolic ability to overcome filibusters."