Okay, I won't use that language again if you find it offensive. If you'd prefer, "apologist for the strategic errors of the democratic party" I can say that as well.
Anyway, I'm well aware of Newt Gingrich and his antics. I'm also well aware that Democrats had a majority in the house for nearly 50 straight years before he came along. Repu…
Okay, I won't use that language again if you find it offensive. If you'd prefer, "apologist for the strategic errors of the democratic party" I can say that as well.
Anyway, I'm well aware of Newt Gingrich and his antics. I'm also well aware that Democrats had a majority in the house for nearly 50 straight years before he came along. Republicans were convinced they were a permanent minority, until they weren't. Yet, I'm still told there was nothing that could have been done differently.
A House majority may enable the first step in passing a bill, but the real ability rests in the very cantankerous Senate whose will has generally been to either pigeonhole it in committee or invoke the filibuster if it gets to the floor. The latter has an interesting history.
"The filibuster as a legislative tool was accidentally created in 1806, when the Senate, at the urging of Vice President Aaron Burr a year before, eliminated the "previous question" motion, a rarely used rule that allowed the Senate to vote to move on from an issue being debated."
Filibuster, explained: What it is and how does it work in Co…
Okay, I misstated the exact number of years, which I have edited.
That said, I don't see what exactly your point is. I believe the Democrats made strategic errors for decades at a time if they actually cared about defending abortion rights. The fact that so many House Democrats were pro-life is only more evidence of that.
I think that abortion has been an issue that the Dems were happy they didn't have to touch with legislation on the federal level. Roe bailed them out. The Democratic coalition could be strongly pro-choice, but not have to hang their hat on a divisive law. And they didn't have to, until now. They had their cake and were eating it too, but the party's over.
Okay, I won't use that language again if you find it offensive. If you'd prefer, "apologist for the strategic errors of the democratic party" I can say that as well.
Anyway, I'm well aware of Newt Gingrich and his antics. I'm also well aware that Democrats had a majority in the house for nearly 50 straight years before he came along. Republicans were convinced they were a permanent minority, until they weren't. Yet, I'm still told there was nothing that could have been done differently.
A House majority may enable the first step in passing a bill, but the real ability rests in the very cantankerous Senate whose will has generally been to either pigeonhole it in committee or invoke the filibuster if it gets to the floor. The latter has an interesting history.
"The filibuster as a legislative tool was accidentally created in 1806, when the Senate, at the urging of Vice President Aaron Burr a year before, eliminated the "previous question" motion, a rarely used rule that allowed the Senate to vote to move on from an issue being debated."
Filibuster, explained: What it is and how does it work in Co…
usatoday.com
It was 44 years, and for more than half of that 44 years, a large chunk of of them were pro life.
Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision in which five of the seven justices were Republican appointees.
Even in Casey vs Planned Parenthood, decided in 1992, ALL FIVE justices in the 5-4 decision were Republican appointees.
It's almost like the 30 year transition of the south from Democratic to Republican took a while to manifest in the Supreme Court.
Okay, I misstated the exact number of years, which I have edited.
That said, I don't see what exactly your point is. I believe the Democrats made strategic errors for decades at a time if they actually cared about defending abortion rights. The fact that so many House Democrats were pro-life is only more evidence of that.
I think that abortion has been an issue that the Dems were happy they didn't have to touch with legislation on the federal level. Roe bailed them out. The Democratic coalition could be strongly pro-choice, but not have to hang their hat on a divisive law. And they didn't have to, until now. They had their cake and were eating it too, but the party's over.