4 ms·

We do have a simple method, in amending the Constitution, but that’s been incredibly difficult to do for pretty much the entire history of the United States. Fo

We do have a simple method, in amending the Constitution, but that’s been incredibly difficult to do for pretty much the entire history of the United States. For an issue like this one, it’s basically impossible. The true simple solution would have been to codify the right to an abortion in federal law, as candidate Obama promised to do but President Obama failed to even attempt. Recently I’ve been introduced to the hypothetical that maybe the Democrats didn’t really want to do that because fear mongering about Republicans overturning Roe was such an effective fundraising tool. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case.

anotherman554 4y ago
Your hypothetical doesn't make much sense to me because it assumes Obama had more power than he did- Obama wasn't elected king of America. You need 60 votes in the senate to pass anything unless you eliminate the filibuster (the so called nuclear option). Obama had 60 Democrats exactly which means if even a single Democrat was willing to vote against a federal right to abortion law Obama couldn't have done it.
- swearwolf 4y ago
  Democrats controlled the House and Senate from 2009 to 2011. They could have passed it then without even needing to eliminate the filibuster. But they didn’t even try.
  - saxonww 4y ago
    This is true but also not quite. First, they only had 59% of the House, not enough to overcome filibuster. Second, they did have 60% in the Senate, but only for a few months in 2009, and it's not obvious that it was an "overcome filibuster on federal abortion laws" 60%. 2009 was the year Al Franken won a Senate seat in Minnesota after a recount and a Minnesota Supreme Court case, so he wasn't seated until late April. A couple of months later, Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by an interim appointee; Scott Brown, a Republican, won the special election to replace him that winter. They also had Arlen Specter - a Republican - caucusing with them to make that 60. He was a "pro-choice but personally opposed" legislator and may not have voted with the Democrats on this issue. So yeah, they didn't try. But I think it's very likely they didn't try because they felt strongly that they would not be successful.
  - acjacobson 4y ago
    They had 60 Senate seats but not 60 votes. For every vote you still need 60 votes to prevent a filibuster regardless of whether your party has the majority of seats. This is why the public option (and single payer) was killed in the ACA. They didn't have the 60 votes to override a filibuster (Lieberman was, I believe, the main holdout)

anotherman554 4y ago

Your hypothetical doesn't make much sense to me because it assumes Obama had more power than he did- Obama wasn't elected king of America. You need 60 votes in the senate to pass anything unless you eliminate the filibuster (the so called nuclear option). Obama had 60 Democrats exactly which means if even a single Democrat was willing to vote against a federal right to abortion law Obama couldn't have done it.

swearwolf 4y ago
Democrats controlled the House and Senate from 2009 to 2011. They could have passed it then without even needing to eliminate the filibuster. But they didn’t even try.
- saxonww 4y ago
  This is true but also not quite. First, they only had 59% of the House, not enough to overcome filibuster. Second, they did have 60% in the Senate, but only for a few months in 2009, and it's not obvious that it was an "overcome filibuster on federal abortion laws" 60%. 2009 was the year Al Franken won a Senate seat in Minnesota after a recount and a Minnesota Supreme Court case, so he wasn't seated until late April. A couple of months later, Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by an interim appointee; Scott Brown, a Republican, won the special election to replace him that winter. They also had Arlen Specter - a Republican - caucusing with them to make that 60. He was a "pro-choice but personally opposed" legislator and may not have voted with the Democrats on this issue. So yeah, they didn't try. But I think it's very likely they didn't try because they felt strongly that they would not be successful.
- acjacobson 4y ago
  They had 60 Senate seats but not 60 votes. For every vote you still need 60 votes to prevent a filibuster regardless of whether your party has the majority of seats. This is why the public option (and single payer) was killed in the ACA. They didn't have the 60 votes to override a filibuster (Lieberman was, I believe, the main holdout)