4 ms·

This came up in another discussion a month or so ago, and I did some checking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31484169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?

This came up in another discussion a month or so ago, and I did some checking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31484169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31484169 In short, this is not true. There was a brief window where they might have had 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, but it's unlikely for a divisive partisan issue like this one. And they didn't have a 60% majority in the House anyway. To put it very bluntly, the lack of action we've seen from Democratic Party majorities in recent history is very likely because they knew they couldn't pass legislation over Republican opposition. Sure, you can frame it as 'they declined', but that's an uncharitable oversimplification.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> To put it very bluntly, the lack of action we've seen from Democratic Party majorities in recent history is very likely because they knew they couldn't pass legislation over Republican opposition. No, it’s because they couldn't pass it over Democratic opposition (whether it's actually one or two Senators, or whether those two are pretextual is a matter of debate.) Republican opposition isn't an excuse with a trifecta. (And, no, the filibuster doesn't change this, since it only takes a majority to change it.)
- Stevvo 4y ago
  Opposition in the Republican party was near 100%. Near 0% in the democrats. That's Republican opposition however you spin it.
- generj 4y ago
  But removing the filibuster wasn’t even in the tables or discussed half-way seriously when those majorities had power. It used to be the filibuster was rarely used and the Senate actually compromised to create legislation. There is effectively no chance the filibuster would have been removed to pass an abortion bill. It would have been political suicide. Even if it had, a federal abortion ban would have been passed the next time the GOP held a trifecta. Not opening Pandora’s box was a smart move.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > But removing the filibuster wasn’t even in the tables or discussed half-way seriously when those majorities had power. It was with the current majority, and explicitly rejected by key Democrats. > Even if it had, a federal abortion ban would have been passed the next time the GOP held a trifecta. It still will.
    - saxonww 4y ago
      I agree that the filibuster should have been on the table for removal. I think on paper it's ridiculous, and question the effectiveness of a governing body that needs it to function. Because I think this one probably does. With how divided we are today, and this issue in particular, I don't think you can rely on a 50%+1 majority to pass a law one way or the other. That is like a coin flip. It seems guaranteed to lead to chaos, as each new majority rushes to redress the 'mistakes' of the preceding Congress. And to be pedantic, the Democratic party does not have a current majority in the Senate. It's 50/48/2 Republican; Sanders and King caucus with the Democrats but King in particular is very centrist, endorsed the Republican Collins for her reelection bid, and votes with the Republicans most of the time. Maybe you think that is just nitpicking, but I wonder what you think about a 50/50 Senate depending on the VP to break ties. To remove the filibuster. To pass a nationwide abortion law. Come on.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > And to be pedantic, the Democratic party does not have a current majority in the Senate. It's 50/48/2 Republican; Sanders and King caucus with the Democrats but King in particular is very centrist, endorsed the Republican Collins for her reelection bid, and votes with the Republicans most of the time. Maybe you think that is just nitpicking No, I don't think it's nitpicking I think it is factually wrong (except that, yes, Sanders and King are Independents). Not only does King vote with the Dems on most important votes, he's not even the most centrist or least loyal to the caucus member of the Democratic Caucus; In the current session, on key issues, if the caucus fails to gather the majority it needs (which usually means there is no vote: Schumer is pretty consistent about that), it is usually Manchin (D-WV) and /or Sinema (D-AZ) — more often the former — that is the problem. (And both of them are to King’s right by both current session and career voting history.)
foobiekr 4y ago
The republicans manage to pass things without a supermajority.
Auracle 4y ago
They could have easily gotten a few moderate republicans if they moved to 15 or fewer weeks to move it inline with most of Europe. Plenty of Democrats wouldn’t have liked that but compromise is supposed to leave both sides unhappy, after all.
- saxonww 4y ago
  I doubt it, because those Republicans would risk being voted out of office. I think this issue is one where we can safely say one side is not interested in compromise. We had compromise with Roe, and they fought. We had compromise with Casey, and they still fought. We've now witnessed the culmination of a 30+ year campaign to place a particular style of justice on the supreme court, complete with abuse of process to manipulate nominations and nominees being misleading or (arguably) lying about this specific issue to get confirmed. None of this is indicative of a willingness to compromise, to me.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  A grand total of 0 republicans voted for the ACA. That's after almost a full year of compromise. It's plainly clear that any republican who voted for an Obama policy would've been voted out in their primary.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> To put it very bluntly, the lack of action we've seen from Democratic Party majorities in recent history is very likely because they knew they couldn't pass legislation over Republican opposition. No, it’s because they couldn't pass it over Democratic opposition (whether it's actually one or two Senators, or whether those two are pretextual is a matter of debate.) Republican opposition isn't an excuse with a trifecta. (And, no, the filibuster doesn't change this, since it only takes a majority to change it.)

Stevvo 4y ago
Opposition in the Republican party was near 100%. Near 0% in the democrats. That's Republican opposition however you spin it.
generj 4y ago
But removing the filibuster wasn’t even in the tables or discussed half-way seriously when those majorities had power. It used to be the filibuster was rarely used and the Senate actually compromised to create legislation. There is effectively no chance the filibuster would have been removed to pass an abortion bill. It would have been political suicide. Even if it had, a federal abortion ban would have been passed the next time the GOP held a trifecta. Not opening Pandora’s box was a smart move.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > But removing the filibuster wasn’t even in the tables or discussed half-way seriously when those majorities had power. It was with the current majority, and explicitly rejected by key Democrats. > Even if it had, a federal abortion ban would have been passed the next time the GOP held a trifecta. It still will.
  - saxonww 4y ago
    I agree that the filibuster should have been on the table for removal. I think on paper it's ridiculous, and question the effectiveness of a governing body that needs it to function. Because I think this one probably does. With how divided we are today, and this issue in particular, I don't think you can rely on a 50%+1 majority to pass a law one way or the other. That is like a coin flip. It seems guaranteed to lead to chaos, as each new majority rushes to redress the 'mistakes' of the preceding Congress. And to be pedantic, the Democratic party does not have a current majority in the Senate. It's 50/48/2 Republican; Sanders and King caucus with the Democrats but King in particular is very centrist, endorsed the Republican Collins for her reelection bid, and votes with the Republicans most of the time. Maybe you think that is just nitpicking, but I wonder what you think about a 50/50 Senate depending on the VP to break ties. To remove the filibuster. To pass a nationwide abortion law. Come on.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > And to be pedantic, the Democratic party does not have a current majority in the Senate. It's 50/48/2 Republican; Sanders and King caucus with the Democrats but King in particular is very centrist, endorsed the Republican Collins for her reelection bid, and votes with the Republicans most of the time. Maybe you think that is just nitpicking No, I don't think it's nitpicking I think it is factually wrong (except that, yes, Sanders and King are Independents). Not only does King vote with the Dems on most important votes, he's not even the most centrist or least loyal to the caucus member of the Democratic Caucus; In the current session, on key issues, if the caucus fails to gather the majority it needs (which usually means there is no vote: Schumer is pretty consistent about that), it is usually Manchin (D-WV) and /or Sinema (D-AZ) — more often the former — that is the problem. (And both of them are to King’s right by both current session and career voting history.)

foobiekr 4y ago

The republicans manage to pass things without a supermajority.

Auracle 4y ago

They could have easily gotten a few moderate republicans if they moved to 15 or fewer weeks to move it inline with most of Europe. Plenty of Democrats wouldn’t have liked that but compromise is supposed to leave both sides unhappy, after all.

saxonww 4y ago
I doubt it, because those Republicans would risk being voted out of office. I think this issue is one where we can safely say one side is not interested in compromise. We had compromise with Roe, and they fought. We had compromise with Casey, and they still fought. We've now witnessed the culmination of a 30+ year campaign to place a particular style of justice on the supreme court, complete with abuse of process to manipulate nominations and nominees being misleading or (arguably) lying about this specific issue to get confirmed. None of this is indicative of a willingness to compromise, to me.
colinmhayes 4y ago
A grand total of 0 republicans voted for the ACA. That's after almost a full year of compromise. It's plainly clear that any republican who voted for an Obama policy would've been voted out in their primary.