Not knowing US constitutional law, it seems to me the SCOTUS decision might mean that the Dems missed an opportunity when they had the house

That it’s a federal matter seems legally predictable/natural to me, and that it then falls to congress to enforce then also seems natural.

What am I missing on that?

Otherwise, what would the Dems have had to lose by passing an act when they had the house? The 14th was right there.

#uspol
@politics

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    9 months ago

    When the dems had the house they had a faux majority in the Senate.

    Democrats had a real majority. They found enough no votes to block stuff they ran on but never had any intention of passing. Exactly like they did with the public option.

    Voters are expected to operate in perfect lockstep and vote for the worst candidates party leadership thinks it can get away with. When our elected officials break off and vote with their fucking donors, we don’t demand conformity with the party from them at all.

    • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
      7·
      9 months ago

      You want there to be some grand conspiracy, but there isn’t. What’s crazy is how much smarter you think they are than they actually are

        • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
          3·
          9 months ago

          Is this all because you’re butthurt Biden got the most votes in the '20 primaries?

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            9 months ago

            I’m talking about the party’s expectations of its voters versus its elected.

            You’re trying to divert to Biden because you can’t defend Senate Democrats’ reliance on the filibuster as an excuse when they break campaign promises.

            • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
              3·
              9 months ago

              What “expectations of its voters” are you talking about? We get to vote however we want

    • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
      4·
      9 months ago

      Your argument is a false dichotomy. You need 40 votes to block and 61 votes to pass anything (that’s not a budget reconciliation or judicial confirmations) in the Senate. That’s a difference of 11 states worth of Senators. Its a fucking nightmare, but its also a big part of what slowed Trump’s agenda.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        9 months ago

        Your argument is a false dichotomy. You need 40 votes to block and 61 votes to pass anything (that’s not a budget reconciliation or judicial confirmations) in the Senate.

        They need only 50 to change the rules of the Senate, with which they could do away with the filibuster forever. If they wanted to.

        They do not want to.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            9 months ago

            I sure do. Just enough Democrats considered the preservation of the Jim Crow Filibuster to be a greater priority than protecting Roe. Or democracy itself.

            There are always just enough.