Obama era super majority lasted about 4 months, I believe. Unsure why you’re asking or what that has to do with the CRA being passed with bipartisan support versus the ACA being passed by Democrats or the mass protests motivating political action before CRA.

Oh you did reply again.

You don’t seem to know what bad faith questions are. There are clear and arguable answers to my question. I was honestly curious if you had others I didn’t know about. Instead you focused on the CRA (which had bipartisan support and forced by mass activist).

Medicare & Medicaid (1965) was essentially Democrat passed legislation without civil unrest motivations. Also has been a contentious issue for Republicans and conservatives since. Similarities between it and ACA are obvious.

Wagner Act of 1935 was also Democrat initiative that not only Republicans fought against but had seen decades of labor uprisings against during Republican control which used Federal intervention to break strikes.
Did they have to pass that? Probably but they did it quickly after super majority.

Furthermore to point out the dishonesty of majestic, trying to change the premise of conversation to where Democrats successfully defeated Republican legislation to repeal gains is obviously not what I asked. Doomed legislation is only brought to the floor performatively.

“Of their own volition” also implies during social and economic booms. The great depression and civil rights era are obviously going to be muddied for any legislation to be seen as proactive.

Happy to give the benefit of the doubt here with SS but civil rights act is clearly not criteria met.

If you wanted to discuss where this question could be bad faith:

* Slam dunks are usually bipartisan.
* Democratic party is old and didn’t always mean liberal.
* Republicans voting against implies needing super majority to break filibuster with current Republican party politics which is rare.

I retract what I said about ADA because it was essentially unanimous bipartisan. Meaningful veterans benefits are the same case despite take almost 20 years of yoyoing legislation post Hoover (R) sicking the military with lethal force on protesting WW1 veterans during the great depression.

Social Security act was also mostly Democratic passed legislation. Townsend did a great job of pointing out there was no default pension system during the great depression. Of course, he was a socialist that got smeared up and down as a communist and nobody in his party helped.

Oh? How’s that? I asked a nuanced but simple question and was met with rudeness. I clarified I wasn’t here for that and was then intentionally mischaracterized. I called out dishonesty in the argument and left.

If you’d like to contribute honestly,
I’m still open to conversation.

I’m not going to humor your obtuse goal post move between the pressure of civil rights protests forcing the Civil Rights act to pass (which saw most resistance from southern democrats) and the super majority passing of the ACA.

My premise was straight forward. No deceit, just honest inquiry. Byeee

Not at all what I did. I asked for your input to what they did of their own volition. I can think of examples but they’re few and far between like the ACA or the ADA. You brought up segregation which doesn’t fit the bill and don’t like me pointing out the obvious so you became rude and dismissive.

If you’re just going to be rude at the expense of any actual productive dialogue, I misjudged you and no longer have interest.

I am familiar with the history of segregation and how recent it was and how long it took and by what measures it took to force democrats to pass legislation.

Civil rights act was momentous but was definitely something politicians and their parties at the time were brought through kicking and screaming from labor and economic pressures. Not something I consider of their own volition.

Sorry to butt in but what did the democratic party do of their own volition that made lives demonstrably better? I can think of a few things where hands were held to the fire or the supreme court ruled favorably with their backing but it’s possible I’m just misinformed.