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

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍
    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
      35·
      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.

      • 👍Maximum Derek👍English
        62·
        9 months ago

        Remember this from 2 posts up

        Neither Manchin nor Sinema would have voted to abolish the filibuster

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
          44·
          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.