Kasz216 said:
To start with, I'm not a republican. Aside from which they had 60 members in the democratic caucus in the senate in 2009. They just couldn't even get IT to agree on just about anything Obama wanted done. They had on their side, 58 democrats, but one guy who is an out and out socalist (IE more left then the democrats,.) and the other would of still been a registered democrat had it not been for the fact that the democrats activly kicked him out of the party but he still won back his seat and caucused with them. As for the house. Super Majority isn't really a term talked about in the House of Represenatives as far as I know. There are no filibusters there. So in 2009, they had a supermajority and could get a vote on anything they wanted. They spend basically all their time on that Healthcare bill to get a 60-39 vote... because it took FOREVER to reign in more fiscally conservative demcorats. A bill so popular that in 2010 house of representative members were running ads about how they DIDN'T vote for it.
|
First, I never called you a republican, but implied that you're a Republican apologist. I am sure even your libertarian leaning (?) self will see that is the role you are playing in this discussion.
As for supermajority during the 111th Congress, check it again. The Democrats did not have a super majority in the senate in 2009, with the exception of during the summer break when the chamber was not in session and at the very end of the year, when indeed they pushed hard to be able to get through a health care bill. Which they did. The work done was not to secure the 60 votes in the senate by the way, it was to secure enough votes in the House.
Also, a super majority is most certainly relevant to the House of Representatives, there are several votes that requires a super majority in the House, most relevant to this line of the discussion is that a supermajority is needed in both houses to override a presidential veto for example.