8 ms·

This is the thing I hate about the congress: they can be as efficient or inefficient as they please and nothing seems to be able to affect them. Terrorist? Ne

This is the thing I hate about the congress: they can be as efficient or inefficient as they please and nothing seems to be able to affect them. Terrorist? New legislation comes to the floor immediately with the aim to curtail this liberty or that one. Not only that but everyone seems to actually show up, and there is enthusiasm about voting. New Supreme Court justice needed, the appointment of whom is literally the senate’s assigned job? Nah, we’re gonna drag our feet for months and months and months. And we are never going to actually get around to doing one of the few things that we are clearly assigned to do. And there will be no repercussions. I’ve never had a job in my life where I didn’t have a manager checking in at least every week or two to see what’s up. I’ve never had a job where I wouldn’t have been fired if I refused to do something for months. For congresspeople, there should be provisions that require them to do every assigned task in a very clear time frame; any who “selectively” do their jobs should be fired.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> I’ve never had a job in my life where I didn’t have a manager checking in at least every week or two to see what’s up. I’ve never had a job where I wouldn’t have been fired if I refused to do something for months. Members of Congress are accountable to the electorate of their district (or, for Senators, state.) If those people want their member of Congress to do something, they demonstrate that by holding them accountable if they fail to do it.
- delazeur 10y ago
  Yes, the real problem is that even though Congress is hated as a whole the individual members tend to be quite popular within their own states and districts.
hobs 10y ago
As far as I know the ability to drag your feet is one of the main powers of our elected officials if they disagree with the way things go; they can usually just do nothing until someone gets voted out of office or dies or the political winds change. Forcing action oftentimes can lead to shortsighted actions which have long term negative effects, I don't know if forcing the hands of people I generally disagree with would result in a better status quo for us all. eg In the supreme court example the republicans are playing political football with people that could have easily gotten confirmed under a republican president(a stupid game which does nothing but hurt the country), but how do you distinguish that from legit dragging your feet/filibustering political appointees that are actually bad for us all? The correct action in a democracy to those who refuse to do their jobs in public office is to vote out the people and replace them with people who will move forward, but as polls show people are generally happy with their representation and blame others for their problems.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > but how do you distinguish that from legit dragging your feet/filibustering political appointees that are actually bad for us all? I don't think you can. For every instance of "dragging your feet", you will find people who claim, loudly and sincerely, that it is preventing something that is "actually bad for us all". And you will find people who believe this claim. And for every instance of preventing something actually bad, you will find people who claim, loudly and sincerely, that it is merely foot dragging, and you will find people who believe this claim.
protomyth 10y ago
> New Supreme Court justice needed, the appointment of whom is literally the senate’s assigned job? No Senate in a Presidential election year will ever allow a vote on a Justice when the Senate and President are of different parties. It hasn't been done in the past, and it won't be done in the future. The Court is still doing business with 8, as it has in the past and probably will in the future.
- dtparr 10y ago
  Wasn't Anthony Kennedy confirmed in 88? Nominated by Reagan with a Democratic Senate? And Rehnquist in 72 (associate justice), nominated by Nixon, again, a Democratic senate?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Kennedy was actually going for a spot that started in 87 with the failed Bork nomination. Calling that an election year nomination is a bit of a stretch since they rejected the first candidate. In fact, he was sworn in on February 8, 1988. Rehnquist was confirmed on December 10, 1971 not in 1972. Let's also remember what that VP Biden (as a Senator in 1992) stated about Justices in an election year (no).
    - deciplex 10y ago
      > Let's also remember what that VP Biden (as a Senator in 1992) stated about Justices in an election year (no). Yes, let's try to remember, since you have apparently forgotten: > "Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself. >"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed. >"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. So, yeah. I mean, you can argue that he wasn't saying it in good faith, and that if a Justice had resigned or died and if Bush had taken Biden at his word to consider his nominee after the election, that when Bush lost the election and if he put forward a nominee at that point, that Biden would have gone back on his word (which, I'll remind, was a matter of public record not a private agreement or anything). You can make that argument, and since none of that actually happened and I can't peer into Biden's soul - there is not much I can say to refute it, such is the nature of pure supposition. But, Biden made that speech much closer to the election, and was speaking in hypotheticals as well. Summarizing his argument (which I happen to disagree with myself, btw) as being equivalent to what most GOP Senators are saying now where they are not going to consider any Obama nominee no matter what, ever (not to mention that they had plenty of time to do so before the "election season" for Senate office) rises well above mere disingenuousness - it is a straight-up lie and you either know it or you're a fool. Now, there are Senators in the GOP who are calling to consider Garland during the lame duck. Good for them, though it would be nice if they would say it a little louder. Also they are not, as far as I know, in the majority (in saying it - I have no doubt the Senate will move to confirm Garland if Hillary wins the election, though whether Garland withdraws his name at that point will be very interesting to see).
travmatt 10y ago
The inefficiency of congress is a feature, not a bug actually - inefficiency being the bulwark against populist overreaction. The senate's staggered elections are designed thusly so that all of the senate is never fully exposed to the short-term populism of the electorate as the house is.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I’ve never had a job in my life where I didn’t have a manager checking in at least every week or two to see what’s up. I’ve never had a job where I wouldn’t have been fired if I refused to do something for months. Members of Congress are accountable to the electorate of their district (or, for Senators, state.) If those people want their member of Congress to do something, they demonstrate that by holding them accountable if they fail to do it.

delazeur 10y ago
Yes, the real problem is that even though Congress is hated as a whole the individual members tend to be quite popular within their own states and districts.

hobs 10y ago

As far as I know the ability to drag your feet is one of the main powers of our elected officials if they disagree with the way things go; they can usually just do nothing until someone gets voted out of office or dies or the political winds change. Forcing action oftentimes can lead to shortsighted actions which have long term negative effects, I don't know if forcing the hands of people I generally disagree with would result in a better status quo for us all. eg In the supreme court example the republicans are playing political football with people that could have easily gotten confirmed under a republican president(a stupid game which does nothing but hurt the country), but how do you distinguish that from legit dragging your feet/filibustering political appointees that are actually bad for us all? The correct action in a democracy to those who refuse to do their jobs in public office is to vote out the people and replace them with people who will move forward, but as polls show people are generally happy with their representation and blame others for their problems.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> but how do you distinguish that from legit dragging your feet/filibustering political appointees that are actually bad for us all? I don't think you can. For every instance of "dragging your feet", you will find people who claim, loudly and sincerely, that it is preventing something that is "actually bad for us all". And you will find people who believe this claim. And for every instance of preventing something actually bad, you will find people who claim, loudly and sincerely, that it is merely foot dragging, and you will find people who believe this claim.

protomyth 10y ago

> New Supreme Court justice needed, the appointment of whom is literally the senate’s assigned job? No Senate in a Presidential election year will ever allow a vote on a Justice when the Senate and President are of different parties. It hasn't been done in the past, and it won't be done in the future. The Court is still doing business with 8, as it has in the past and probably will in the future.

dtparr 10y ago
Wasn't Anthony Kennedy confirmed in 88? Nominated by Reagan with a Democratic Senate? And Rehnquist in 72 (associate justice), nominated by Nixon, again, a Democratic senate?
- protomyth 10y ago
  Kennedy was actually going for a spot that started in 87 with the failed Bork nomination. Calling that an election year nomination is a bit of a stretch since they rejected the first candidate. In fact, he was sworn in on February 8, 1988. Rehnquist was confirmed on December 10, 1971 not in 1972. Let's also remember what that VP Biden (as a Senator in 1992) stated about Justices in an election year (no).
  - deciplex 10y ago
    > Let's also remember what that VP Biden (as a Senator in 1992) stated about Justices in an election year (no). Yes, let's try to remember, since you have apparently forgotten: > "Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself. >"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed. >"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. So, yeah. I mean, you can argue that he wasn't saying it in good faith, and that if a Justice had resigned or died and if Bush had taken Biden at his word to consider his nominee after the election, that when Bush lost the election and if he put forward a nominee at that point, that Biden would have gone back on his word (which, I'll remind, was a matter of public record not a private agreement or anything). You can make that argument, and since none of that actually happened and I can't peer into Biden's soul - there is not much I can say to refute it, such is the nature of pure supposition. But, Biden made that speech much closer to the election, and was speaking in hypotheticals as well. Summarizing his argument (which I happen to disagree with myself, btw) as being equivalent to what most GOP Senators are saying now where they are not going to consider any Obama nominee no matter what, ever (not to mention that they had plenty of time to do so before the "election season" for Senate office) rises well above mere disingenuousness - it is a straight-up lie and you either know it or you're a fool. Now, there are Senators in the GOP who are calling to consider Garland during the lame duck. Good for them, though it would be nice if they would say it a little louder. Also they are not, as far as I know, in the majority (in saying it - I have no doubt the Senate will move to confirm Garland if Hillary wins the election, though whether Garland withdraws his name at that point will be very interesting to see).

travmatt 10y ago

The inefficiency of congress is a feature, not a bug actually - inefficiency being the bulwark against populist overreaction. The senate's staggered elections are designed thusly so that all of the senate is never fully exposed to the short-term populism of the electorate as the house is.