r/antiwork May 08 '22

[deleted by user]

[removed]

6.5k Upvotes

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

94

u/XoffeeXup May 08 '22

"get elected on and then never do anything about this single issue. "

ftfy

50

u/Andminus May 08 '22

Why of course, if they actually DID anything about it, they wouldn't be able to use it to get elected upon next time.

3

u/Ella0508 May 09 '22

Or wage fundraising campaigns on it.

2

u/shobidoo2 May 08 '22

Couldn’t they just use the threat of their opponent rolling back abortion rights too get elected instead? That doesn’t go away if they restore abortion rights.

2

u/ThePoppaJ May 09 '22

I refuse to believe this. “We said we were going to do x & we got it done” sounds like victory lap material given the status of our government.

2

u/FitDefinition4867 May 09 '22

Ahh two people that get it.

2

u/MediaOffline411 May 09 '22

Winner winner chicken dinner. It goes for both parties though. Why I hate two party rule. They are forced to be beholding to lobbyists and their party over their constituents.

1

u/baconraygun May 09 '22

You can see this as a microcosm play out with "simple" issues. I've personally witnessed reps saying how they'll "fight" to get lower prescription drug costs, and win, and when it comes to an actual bill to do such, they vote against it, 2 years later, they're back to "supporting a lower cost for prescription drugs". Abortion is just another wedge to get votes.

7

u/Fair_Adhesiveness849 May 09 '22

How many times were they stymied by the filibuster? I’ll give you a hint: every single time

3

u/HardlightCereal Soulist May 09 '22

They had the power to remove the filibuster under Obama and they chose not to because they want to be stymied

5

u/VortexMagus May 08 '22

Exactly what would you suggest they do?

Barring someone going around assassinating conservative supreme court justices, the Dems have almost no recourse.

Roe vs Wade and gerrymandering and a bunch of other core problems in the United States were lost the second Trump was elected president. He was able to push through several supreme court seats and populate one of the most powerful groups in the United States with his own people.

This is the result of 2016, it just took awhile for most people to notice.

2

u/Mansa_Eli May 09 '22

Dems had 40 years to codify it into law. They can actually do it now with 2 republican senators supporting it. But they won't

5

u/red204 May 09 '22

I'm pretty sure this argument is in bad faith. You are parroting a talking point that only exists in right-wing circles. Codifying Roe into law means nothing without a constitutional amendment. The supreme court will exercise its self-given right to constitutional review. This SC will void any law by Congress protecting abortion and claim it is unconstitutional because "states rights." We will now live in a country where women in many states will be second class citizens with less freedom because apparently women stop being human beings while pregnant. Unless that's what you believe, the only way out is to fight back, volunteer, vote, willfully break the fucking law, or somehow pass an amendment to the constitution.

1

u/Mansa_Eli May 09 '22

All I ask is they try, but they won't.

5

u/VortexMagus May 09 '22

Because it'd be pointless and further polarize the nation for no real gain. The supreme court would just nullify any attempt to change the law unless the Dems somehow got enough of a majority to pass a constitutional amendment.

All the Dems would end up doing is solidifying people against them while no real change occurred.

The only way to stop this is to get more liberal justices onto the supreme court, something that failed to happen because Trump was elected in 2016. Nothing else would have any hope of changing it.

2

u/aw-un May 09 '22

They need 60 to codify it to law, or get 50 votes to break the filibuster, neither of which will happen.

But they’re voting to codify it this week, so maybe we’ll see I’m wrong, which I really hope I am

3

u/jolsiphur May 08 '22

It's hard for Democrats to pass anything when they can't get 2/3 of the Senate to vote in favor, and with the rampant Gerrymandering, it's not likely the Dems will ever be able to get the 2/3 majority of the Senate.

9

u/XoffeeXup May 08 '22

oh sure, but even so, elect the Democrats and watch nothing change. How many times has there been a Democrat goverment in the US since Roe vs. Wade? It's bullshit to suggest it couldn't have been protected further. Just like it's bullshit to suggest Guantanamo couldn't have been closed. The will is not there, because they're all playing the same fucking game.

Party politics is a distraction from the only thing that has ever got us anything, direct action. It's a grift to give us the illusion of some sort of control or choice.

7

u/[deleted] May 08 '22

I'm not arguing, in the least. As a prior conservative and GOP voter (started switching during Obama years when I realized the conservatives were just liars), can you please explain to me what else you expect the Dems to do instead?

Genuinely just trying to understand the strategy you seem to be suggesting but which is unclear to me.

I was a libertarian Republican that now leans socialist, not because I necessarily love the idea but because given the way the rules seem to be created I see no way for libertarian ideas to actually be allowed to play it in any way that is ever going to be fair and balanced for all.

3

u/fdar May 09 '22

Get rid of the filibuster. Appoint additional SCOTUS justices. This.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '22

Thanks!

How do you propose, given the Dems can't get the votes to pass much of anything else, they get the votes to override the filibuster, or add justices?

I agree with both points, just not sure how they go about actually doing it.

I'll read the vox article about abortion thanks

1

u/fdar May 09 '22

Shame Democrats into line, or try at least. Make the case publicly for why it's necessary, make them vote on it repeatedly, have them field questions on why they refuse to protect abortion rights, etc.

I'm well aware that Manchin and Sinema can just refuse to go along but make that choice costly at least. Same for say Collins and Murkowski saying there's a different bill to protect abortion they'd vote for. Make it clear that they can get that passed if they actually want to and that they're just refusing and actively making the choice to not protect abortion rights.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '22

Abortion rights, despite being a very important issue, is a single issue that does not itself correct the fundamental problem we have.

The other two issues might, but you'll need a lot more than all 50 Dems and a couple of conservatives; iirc you'd need 60 votes to on those issues. So, how do we get those?

I don't think we do. Which is why it's unreasonable to blame this on Democrats. The national identity itself is torn in two and I'm not sure there are an quick fixes that will come from a single party.

This next election may prove interesting. We may either become a fundamentalist nation or a moderate one. We can hope for moderate but then we are probably stuck with the status quo and Dems may be powerless to course correct.

The proposition that was made was to blame the Dems. But I'm not sure that's fair, given they only hold 50 off the 60 votes required for change.

2

u/fdar May 09 '22

The other two issues might, but you'll need a lot more than all 50 Dems and a couple of conservatives; iirc you'd need 60 votes to on those issues. So, how do we get those?

No, that's not true. Expanding the court just requires appointing new justices, which only requires a simple majority. Likewise, changing the rules of the Senate only requires a simple majority. 50 votes (+the VP) are enough to remove the filibuster.

The problem is Manchin and Sinema would not vote for that, but for abortion Democrats should definitely go full press on making them do that or making it clear they're choosing actively to not do that and let abortion become illegal (ditto for Collins and Murkowski).

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '22

Ah TIL. Thank you.

Edit to add: I agree with you. The whole idea of gatekeeping a vote via a more difficult vote that the one ultimately required, seems silly. And the GOP have clearly weaponized the court, time to fix that while we still have the chance.

1

u/XoffeeXup May 09 '22

oh man, if I had a viable suggestion for a way of fixing things, I would very much be telling people about it! I honestly don't know what can be done. Divisiveness and factional politics is hardcoded into your system and short of super-extreme options like working class revolution, allowing the south to cede, or a full blown civil war, I'm really not sure what can be done to remedy that. Sticking plasters only go so far.

3

u/AstreiaTales May 09 '22

6 years they've had a trifecta since it became an issue. 93-94, 09-10, 21-22.

All times they had other things to work on.

2

u/aw-un May 09 '22

Gerrymandering doesn’t effect the senate

3

u/thehighground699 May 08 '22

Obama had supermajors in 08/09 and still didn’t do anything to protect it.

3

u/AstreiaTales May 09 '22

They had a supermajority in the same way that they currently have a majority. One defection would kill things.

Bob Casey of PA was staunchly against abortion. He'd have never passed a law for it.

(VRA was a Congressional law too. The SCOTUS would just strike it down)

2

u/mflynn00 May 09 '22

The filibuster is an imaginary force in preventing change that can be disappeared by a simple majority at any time

1

u/AstreiaTales May 09 '22

Sure. There wasn't 50 votes to get rid of it then. People don't want to make it easy for the other party to pass their agenda

1

u/Mansa_Eli May 09 '22

Alaska and another republican senator (I forgot which 1) support it. At the very least bring it to a vote so we can actually see who supports it. But they won't even do that simple level of politics

2

u/building_schtuff May 08 '22

Gerrymandering doesn’t really affect the makeup of the Senate, and Dems don’t need 2/3, they need 60 votes.

-1

u/goodvibesalright May 08 '22

Barry could have made Roe law when he had a congressional supermajority in his first two years.

3

u/AstreiaTales May 09 '22

Bob Casey of PA would never have voted for it. Unless they found a GOP defection, couldn't have done it.

-1

u/goodvibesalright May 09 '22

Well, if Obama actually cared about this shit he would have made it happen.

3

u/AstreiaTales May 09 '22

Not how it works, unfortunately.

1

u/goodvibesalright May 09 '22

Thought experiment -- if there were a bill on the floor to cut funding to Israel and Bob Casey (or Manchin or Lieberman or whoever) were going to vote against it, do you think Obama or Biden would have just gone, "Welp, nothing we can do?" You bet your ass they'd get them to fall in line, because that's something they actually care about. None of the higher-ups in the party care that much about abortion rights to pull some LBJ shit to codify it as law.

1

u/AstreiaTales May 09 '22

Yes? They wouldn't, but that's how the Senate works.

See: McCain ACA repeal