They never, ever need a super majority. EVER.
That rule can be changed at any time by majority vote. That 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 year or two ago).
(fun fact: the “nuclear option” was called that be 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 nuclear 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 they do, “oh no, super majority, super sorry we tried”)
BillyClark@piefed.social 15 hours ago
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
zbyte64@awful.systems 14 hours ago
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.