563
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
563 points (95.6% liked)
Work Reform
17499 readers
1876 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They never, ever need a super majority. EVER.
That rule can be changed at any time by simple majority vote. That cloture rule is a parliamentary rule and is not law.
Don't be duped. Please look at what they call "the nuclear option."
There are over 180 exceptions to the super majority so far (last time I checked a few years ago).
(fun fact: the "nuclear option" was first called that by Trent Lott, a Republican, in the 2000s. Both parties immediately adopted the term because it scares the shit out of voters. What was it called before that? "the constitutional option").
Don't be a sucker. If they want to pass something, viola! It's an exception (like our budgets). If they don't want to pass something, but they want the voters to think that they do, "oh no, we need a super majority, super sorry we tried so hard!"
The solution is very simple. No other nation requires super majority votes for a reason.
No laws need to be changed.
You are thinking of filibuster, which I agree is just like you're saying.
However, they were talking about overriding the presidential veto, which is specifically defined in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution as needing a 2/3 majority in both houses. Not a simple majority. You also cannot adopt a rule that supersedes the Constitution.
Here's the specific paragraph that I copied from Wikipedia
I remember how the current congress led us to a government shutdown only to fold like lawn chairs in return for a pinky promise that was later broken. There are options that don't require overriding the president because congress has the power of the purse and the power to investigate.