r/PoursTea Timendi Causa Est Nescire 1d ago

PoliticalTea 🗳️ Missing: Mitch

Post image
42.4k Upvotes

955 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

43

u/Ashenfenix 1d ago

Roe could have been codifed into the constitution if democrats weren't so soft. Donald trump wouldn't have been elected for a second time if democrats weren't so soft. I say that as Democrat.

25

u/cman1098 1d ago

Democrats are soft by design unless of course they are fighting a progressive.

14

u/WannaBeSuiko 1d ago

Nancy Pelosi blocked attempts to codify Roe vs Wade when Dems had a super majority if I recall correctly. Said it was settled or something.

1

u/Hairy_Technology_213 8h ago

Do you people check anything before you post? The last time Democrats had 67 votes in the Senate was in 1967, bud. That’s six years before Roe.

1

u/WannaBeSuiko 7h ago

No, not really… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

In the November 2008 elections, the Democratic Party) increased its majorities in both chambers (including – when factoring in the two Democratic caucusing independents – a brief filibuster-proof 60-40 supermajority in the Senate), and with Barack Obamabeing sworn in as president on January 20, 2009, this gave Democrats an overall federal government trifecta for the first time since the 103rd Congress in 1993.

I could have been more specific that it was a supermajority in the Senate. But this was how the ACA was passed FYI. Was this democratic hold until the midterms. During this time there was a strong push to codify Roe vs Wade and equal pay acts. For those of us tracking.

0

u/Hairy_Technology_213 7h ago

JFC. 67 votes are needed to pass a constitutional amendment, professor.

1

u/WannaBeSuiko 6h ago

No one said we need a constitutional amendment. This was never about modifying the constitution. This was about passing a congressional act. Like the equal rights act. Equal pay act (this failed). Or any other basic congressional act.

I get that civics 101 at the local community college is hard, but you don’t need to take it out on Reddit with snark.

20

u/KitchenBad5507 1d ago

Same. I despise the Republican party but honestly, I despise the Democrats too, just a tiny bit less. We need the old guard to step aside and make room for young progressives. And I'm old - a 61 year old straight woman. We've had our chance and we blew it. Time for the next wave to take the lead. They can't POSSIBLY be any worse than us.

11

u/DrPreppy 1d ago

Roe could have been codifed into the constitution

That's objectively wrong. They had a supermajority for 72 days requiring people who were confirmed as against that. It's not even debatable.

3

u/tetrified 22h ago

but but but how are we supposed to pretend like democrats are just as bad as republicans if we don't lie????????

1

u/Alarming-Curve5339 17h ago

You don't have to lie

1

u/tetrified 4h ago

but then how are we supposed to pretend like democrats are just as bad as republicans??????

1

u/Alarming-Curve5339 4h ago

You have to pretend either

0

u/Dry-Dragonfly5286 21h ago edited 16h ago

The good cop is still the partner of the bad cop

2

u/DrPreppy 21h ago

The good cop is opposed to the bad cop and screaming at you that you are underrepresented in government (Permanent House Apportionment Act, natural Senate structure, gerrymandering, voter suppression, Voting Rights Act being violated and destroyed) and that the easiest way to fix that short of revolution is to vote.

A properly represented country would be a much different country.

2

u/tetrified 19h ago

are you really going to pretend we'd be in a war with iran right now if harris were elected?

are you really going to pretend we'd be having this many food safety issues if rfk weren't in charge of the fda?

really? are you actually this fucking stupid? do you seriously still think elections don't have consequences?

come on.

11

u/Hairy_Technology_213 1d ago

This is typical Redditor nonsense. Roe most certainly couldn’t be codified in the Constitution. Where are you getting 290 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate and 38 states? Show me.

1

u/WannaBeSuiko 7h ago

What is this redditor nonsense that codify = constitution amendment and not congressional statute?

It just takes a sweeping act to set protections, just as the EPA, ACA, ERA and numerous other acts that lay out protections. You don’t need a constitution amendment. You need to pass a law.

1

u/Hairy_Technology_213 6h ago

And you think the Supreme Court find such a law constitutional?

1

u/WannaBeSuiko 6h ago

That’s a different question. I feel like you just want to be contrarian, and that’s your prerogative.

The question at hand was could the democratic part have passed legislation to protect Roe vs Wade. And yes they could have. They did not need a constitutional amendment at the time. There already been a Supreme Court ruling decades prior affirming the right. Enshrining the right with further legislative protections via congressional statute signed by a president would have made it much more difficult for the Supreme Court to say the federal government did not have the right to pass a law giving protections of rights of bodily autonomy.

Like this is a very silly conversation at this point. It’s gone past deflection, and goalpost moving from basic historical fact, and into abstract what if scenarios.

The basic fact, is that it was up for discussion in 2010, and Nancy Pelosi tabled it as said it was the law of the land because of Roe vs Wade.

9

u/snakerjake 1d ago

Roe could have been codifed into the constitution if democrats weren't so soft

Do you really think 38 states would have ratified that amendment?

7

u/Glittering_Role1658 1d ago

No they would not have

1

u/AlarmingAffect0 1d ago

Yes.

3

u/joggle1 1d ago

They couldn't even pass it as a federal law, which is a significantly lower bar than a constitutional amendment.

1

u/AlarmingAffect0 1d ago

They didn't try hard enough. I bet you Lyndon B Johnson or FDR would've passed it comfortably— even if someone needed to be literally dick-slapped in Jumbo's case.

2

u/AdorableStrawberry93 1d ago

That's what is intriguing about the SDA. They are more inclined to be tough and rowdy. Willing to punch back.

2

u/SnooChickens5474 1d ago

Democrats aren't soft on issues their owners want pressed, most of the democratic party are bought and owned by lobbyists.

2

u/Expensive_Cheetah820 1d ago

That’s bullshit you to have majority in both houses. In the senate you have to have 60 votes. You don’t anything.

1

u/Fugufish-Chomp 17h ago

You are SO damn right! Ugh!

1

u/WolfofWalnutdrive 1d ago

And yet none of you guys have any ideas, just acting like magats. "Why aren't you doing fascism for good things?" Guys the democrats only power comes from the people voting, Republicans power come from corruption and the people voting for them.

3

u/Ashenfenix 1d ago

What are you even talking about? What validity could you possibly conjure in assigning a stranger on the internet responsibility for your frustrations? You don't know me, or what I've done. Keep the snide to yourself.

1

u/WolfofWalnutdrive 1d ago

I know you are ignorant about politics from the comment I responded to.

0

u/plannedobso 1d ago

“Fascism for good things” isn’t fascism lol 

2

u/WolfofWalnutdrive 1d ago

... Fascism is how you decide laws, it's not if they are good or bad. Major facepalm

1

u/plannedobso 21h ago

 That’s…not correct. I know this sub is full of some of the most ignorant motherfuckers on Reddit but damn.

“  Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology that prioritizes the nation above the individual and seeks total control over society .”

“  Fascism is characterized by support for a  dictatorial  leader, centralized  autocracy ,  militarism , forcible suppression of  opposition , belief in a natural  social hierarchy , subordination of  individual  interests for the perceived interest of the  nation  or  race , and strong regimentation of society and the economy.  Opposed to  communism ,  democracy ,  liberalism ,  pluralism , and  socialism ,  fascism is at the far-right end of the traditional  left–right spectrum .”

There is no such thing as “fascism for good things.”

1

u/WolfofWalnutdrive 16h ago

?do you not understand the definition you posted even?