12 ms·

It's time for legislators to legislate. Many of our current problems can be traced back to our legislature failing to do anything. They always rely on court rul

It's time for legislators to legislate. Many of our current problems can be traced back to our legislature failing to do anything. They always rely on court rulings or executive power. Usually because everyone is scared of losing their next election or their future role at a cable news organization. Even the people that do put forth legislation often poison pill it, so that it will never pass. So they'll never have to be held accountable if it fails or have their name on the vote count. I know it sounds counter intuitive, but I think getting rid of the line item veto has helped to cripple Congress even more. Because it used to absolved members and let them vote for something they didn't like, knowing it would not make it into law.

burkaman 6y ago
I agree that it's time to legislate, but this is not one of those cases where Congress caused a problem and is trying to use the court to clean it up. In this case, the courts completely invented an immunity precedent out of nothing, and now Congress will have to fix it. Just want to note that legislators are a little less at fault here than they normally are.
- partiallypro 6y ago
  I am aware that this was a legislating from the bench situation, but it is up to Congress to fix it. Waiting on the courts to get around to it will not be fast enough, or may never come.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    > legislating from the bench The most effective deterrent to "legislating from the bench" is to recall those Justices who did the legislating. Neither party will do this, though—enacting reforms through the courts is far more efficient than passing difficult legislation through the House, Senate, and the Presidency (all of which can anger voters). Much better to let the courts do it, and give brave speeches to the media about "judicial overreach" when required to appease voters. > Waiting on the courts to get around to it will not be fast enough, or may never come. The current situation is working well for everyone with the power to change it (see above).
    - mjburgess 6y ago
      In a common law system the role of the judiciary is to "legislate from the bench". I've never understood this peculiarly American objection.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - fennecfoxen 6y ago
        America's Constitution was designed from inception to have strict separations of responsibilities among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, such that they must work together to exercise power. This is meant to prevent any one individual or a party from becoming too powerful and thus endangering liberty. When they are not working together, they are meant to be powerless. Legislative power in particular was meant to be wielded by Congresspersons directly accountable to their constituents. Judges as legislators violate this separation, undermining not only key protections on democratic integrity, but the legitimacy of the whole scheme, through its avoidance of that direct democratic accountability. Note that excessive delegation from the legislature to the executive branch through agencies with rule-making power is also a separations-of-power concern, and there is special law around the procedures by which executive agency rule-making may take place. Another case is executive power being wielded by Congress: Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, argued this March and not yet decided, took on the problem that the head of the CFPB was not accountable to the President.
        mjburgess 6y ago
        In practice, there is no coherent "separation of power". Power is not some multivalent thing which can be exercised differently by different institutions. Power here is the ability of one group to direct/constrain the actions of another.. the judiciary, the executive and the legislature all exercise the same power. The only thing "separation" achieves is a system of mutual antagonism which functions (poorly) as a system of accountability. Here, congress at any point can redress "legislating from the bench" (ie., establishing legal precedent) by passing new law. If the judiciary ignores this law, then they can be removed from office. I cannot see any circumstance here where the legislature has issues new law in redress for a judicial ruling and then the judiciary has gone on to ignore it. What we're talking about here is when judges have simply "made up rules" where the law fails to provide answers. that is the role of the judiciary in a common law system! It's what provides for reasonable standards of individual freedom which adapt to the age. rather than havign everyone legislataed by an infinite number of rules est. in 1701
- loeg 6y ago
  Yes and no. Congress has had something like 40 years to write legislation contradicting the judicial construction and has failed to do so.
  - burkaman 6y ago
    Again I agree, but the original formulation of qualified immunity seemed a little more reasonable, although it was still wrong in my opinion. The original decision: > A policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he has probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does. Although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, the same consideration would seem to require excusing him from liability for acting under a statute that he reasonably believed to be valid but that was later held unconstitutional, on its face or as applied. - https://www.leagle.com/decision/1967933386us5471842 https://www.leagle.com/decision/1967933386us5471842 I don't agree with this because ignorance of the law is not usually an excuse, but I imagine a majority of Congress might. However, the courts have gradually expanded "reasonably believed to be valid" to mean there must be "precisely factually on-point caselaw" determining the actions are unconstitutional. Sort of a frog in boiling water situation where a well-meaning member of Congress might not realize there was a problem until decades after the initial decision.
    - User23 6y ago
      > I don't agree with this because ignorance of the law is not usually an excuse I think that mens rea[1] should be more broadly required. Our current system is such that virtually everyone is breaking the law and only enforcement and prosecutorial discretion protects us. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
      - burkaman 6y ago
        This is a different issue, I think. Mens rea is about intent or "malice aforethought", but that doesn't mean you know what you're doing is illegal, it just means you are acting intentionally and not by mistake. See the different levels of mens rea in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Model_Penal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Model_Penal_Code It's about understanding the consequences of your actions, nothing to do with knowledge of the law. Currently, if an officer violates your rights on purpose, but there's no "precisely factually on-point caselaw" deciding what they did is unconstitutional, then they're immune from prosecution. They had mens rea, but it doesn't matter.
- zerocrates 6y ago
  Congress has no problem doing this kind of "fixing" of the Court's decisions when it so suits them: see the passage of RFRA in the wake of Employment Division v. Smith. There's probably no better time than right now to get the support needed to pass a law eliminating QI. While we're at it, we can pass a law to replace Bivens rather than have analogous civil rights cases involving federal agents subject to the courts' whims.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Except that the Senate leader has declared any such effort "dead on arrival".
  - setpatchaddress 6y ago
    There's no chance to fix systemic issues of any sort unless the Dems take the Senate. It wouldn't hurt to persuade Biden to make it part of his first-100-days package.
- m463 6y ago
  You know, congress has immunity too. I think the thinking is to allow them to pass laws that must be passed, but there would be no personal conflict of interest.
mnm1 6y ago
I don't know. The original law is pretty clear. The only reason this is an issue is due to the Supreme Court itself. What is Congress supposed to do? Pass another law that the Supreme Court will then willfully interpret ad its opposite? The fault is completely with the court on this one. They created the problem. They refuse to fix it. Fucking assholes.
thomascgalvin 6y ago
Unfortunately, the modern GOP's primary goal is to prevent legislation from passing. There are hundreds of bills sitting in the Senate that will never receive a hearing, much less a vote. The Courts invented qualified immunity, and the Courts should have done away with it, as well. Now, unfortunately, we will have to wait until we have the House, Senate, and Presidency controlled by the same party to fix what the Courts fucked up.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  > The Courts invented qualified immunity, and the Courts should have done away with it, as well. Herein lies the problem. The Courts aren't constitutionally permitted to invent much of anything.
  - wnevets 6y ago
    Citation needed. Case law has existed since the invention of America.
    - tobylane 6y ago
      It’s a major part of common law which was inherited from England. Pre-Revolution, even English court cases, can be persuasive in modern US courts because of this history.
    - lwheelock 6y ago
      I take their meaning as; The court’s role is to interpret the law in letter and spirit at the time at which it was enacted. It is not to invent legality or update definitions with modern social norms. The argument in dissent is that none of the members of either house or senate intended “sex” to include orientation or identity in 1964. Despite society having a different opinion on that today, redefining “sex” is not the courts prerogative.
      - belltaco 6y ago
        >The argument in dissent is that none of the members of either house or senate intended “sex” to include orientation or identity in 1964. Despite society having a different opinion on that today, redefining “sex” is not the courts prerogative. I read the court's decision and the test they applied was "if this person's sex was the opposite would they not have been fired ? ". In both the cases of orientation and identity, the answer is a resounding yes. If someone that was gay was female, they wouldn't have been fired, same for a lesbian if she were a man. Also same for transgenders, if their sex was reversed, they would keep the job. I don't see how this is redefining "sex". The decision does not say that sex includes orientation or identity like you claim.
dantheman 6y ago
Here's the legislation that needs to pass: https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-...
- burkaman 6y ago
  Currently in a House committee: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7085 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7085
  - LurkersWillLurk 6y ago
    And it will be interesting to see if it will be put on the agenda by Chairman Nadler. But Pelosi's omnibus bill has a far weaker proposal in that it only eliminates QI for police officers.
    - burkaman 6y ago
      Even that weaker proposal can't pass until after the election: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-scott-police-reform-bill-qualified-immunity-face-the-nation/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-scott-police-reform-bill-qu...
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
"Here here: police!" "Don't look here: political dynasties and corrupt politicians"
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tssva 6y ago
The line item veto at the federal level only existed from 1996 to 1998 and was limited to certain budgetary items.
- hwillis 6y ago
  Before 1996 the last democratic president to be reelected was Teddy Roosevelt. Things have changed a lot since then, and congress is demonstrably far more polarized and unproductive.
  - lavezza 6y ago
    First, I think you mean FDR, not Teddy. Second, you have to be very specific in your definition of "reelected" to not include Truman ('48) or Johnson ('64).
  - tssva 6y ago
    I'm failing grasp what your point is suppose to be. The original poster lamented that the ending of the line item veto has had a significant impact on Congress's behavior during and after the line item veto. I pointed out that the line item veto only existed for 2 years and only applied to very specific budgetary matters. I maybe mistakenly thought my point would be self-evident, so let me clarify. I believe the OP's idea that the elimination of the line item veto has had a significant impact on the current state of congressional politics is incorrect because the line item veto was not in place or applied generally enough to have ever had much of any impact on congressional politics. Based upon that clarification is your point still relevant and if so can you explain it?
digsy 6y ago
>It's time for legislators to legislate. Many of our current problems can be traced back to our legislature failing to do anything. Congress has sent 300+ bills to the Senate and McConnell wont even debate them. Half the Legislature is doing something. The other half is stalling.
clairity 6y ago
> "I know it sounds counter intuitive, but I think getting rid of the line item veto has helped to cripple Congress even more." that's an issue, but the linchpin is the influence of money in politics along with a voting system that tends toward 2 parties. legislators spend much more time chasing dollars than considering legislation, and hewing to party lines than independent thought. 'politician' is too much of a career rather than a duty.
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
... the Line Item Veto was immediately challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional 2 years after it was enacted. And it should have been. Removing parts of a bill changes the bill, and executives already have too much power, much less giving them the power to legislate.
aaronbrethorst 6y ago
The Senate GOP has explicitly said that it treats qualified immunity as a poison pill. The only way legislators will legislate is if the GOP loses its Senate majority in November. https://www.axios.com/tim-scott-police-reform-bill-qualified-immunity-899fccfe-f517-4512-b890-bd19be0ffbfa.html https://www.axios.com/tim-scott-police-reform-bill-qualified...
ashtonkem 6y ago
The need to shift responsibility for legislating back to the legislature is one of the conservative ideals that I strongly agree with, even though I sit on the left hand side of the spectrum. Currently our system depends on legislating in the executive (EOs & regulatory bodies like the FDA given the power of law) and in the legislature. To my eye this has been an utter disaster; as it has both decoupled the legislating process from voting, and crippled the one deliberative body that citizens have some control over.
- sitkack 6y ago
  Just because someone from a political ideology says something you agree with doesn't mean for an instant you agree with their ideology! Wanting effective representative legislators and legislation should be a quality of all citizens. I think having non-effective legislators and having a powerful executive and judicial branch is an effective method to remove citizen control of government. It is on purpose.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    > Just because someone from a political ideology says something you agree with doesn't mean for an instant you agree with their ideology! I’m aware of this, I’m just disclosing my own general stance for rhetorical effect. > It is on purpose I don’t think we got here on purpose; I think we got here on accident. History is just too full of random turns and twists caused by external events and opposing parties for there to often be a grand plan to anything; dumb luck explains a lot of things. Now that we’re here, I do believe that the lack of any effective solutions is probably deliberate. The current people in power gain far too much from the status quo to actually offer up meaningful reforms.
    - sitkack 6y ago
      I am aware, but we need to be able to say the truth without caveats and without saying everything that those we disagree with is incorrect.
  - NotSammyHagar 6y ago
danaris 6y ago
So vote Democrat. One party has been trying to legislate—whether you happen to agree with their legislative priorities or not—and the other party has been absolutely wrecking the established rules and customs of the Senate to avoid legislating. We all know which is which. So if you genuinely want legislators to do their damn jobs, spread the word to everyone you know to vote out the Republican do-nothings this fall.
- nothal 6y ago
  I don't know this is wholely true. Democrats and Republicans have been breaking rules of order for the last 20 or so years it seems, alternating based on who's in control.
  - danaris 6y ago
    You can throw that "both-sides-ism" right out the window, just like the Republicans threw all rules of procedure and decency. It's nothing but false balance at this point. Yes, Democrats might have occasionally pushed things a bit in previous Congresses, but I know for a fact that you cannot point to anything Democrats have ever done that's as egregious as Republicans actively colluding to a) prevent a sitting President from being allowed to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice to the bench, or b) prevent any legislation the opposing party proposes from being brought to the floor in any way, shape, or form for years, purely for political gain.
    - zests 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appoin...
      - hhw 6y ago
        A philibuster is nowhere near the same level of obstruction as refusing to call a vote at all. It also hasn't been used to anywhere near the same frequency.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
m0zg 6y ago
Many of our problems can also be traced back directly to this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsq30E6OSVU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsq30E6OSVU. Who just clinched the democratic nomination for president of the United States.
veeralpatel979 6y ago
What's unfortunate is that a lot of bills are not even brought up in the Senate or the House for a vote after the other house passes them, often with overwhelming bipartisan support. This effectively grants the Senate majority leader and House speaker veto power over any legislation. Even if the rest of the body supports the bill, the leader of the house can just kill it by refusing to bring it up for a vote. I'm not sure whether this practice happens because the leader of the bodies don't want it to pass, or there's not enough floor time to bring it up, or if these bills are ultimately tucked into an omnibus package and passed into law that way. The good news is that if people and their legislators truly care about this issue, they can demand that leaders allow votes as a condition for their support. The system is bad right now, but it can be changed.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Why would they? If your state senator is a high ranking representative like the Senate Majority Leader, you like that your state has more power. Because of the way the Senate is structured with two representatives per state regardless of the population, that gives the less populous flyover states and the “Bible Belt” way more power than their population would entitle they to.

burkaman 6y ago

I agree that it's time to legislate, but this is not one of those cases where Congress caused a problem and is trying to use the court to clean it up. In this case, the courts completely invented an immunity precedent out of nothing, and now Congress will have to fix it. Just want to note that legislators are a little less at fault here than they normally are.

partiallypro 6y ago
I am aware that this was a legislating from the bench situation, but it is up to Congress to fix it. Waiting on the courts to get around to it will not be fast enough, or may never come.
- erichocean 6y ago
  > legislating from the bench The most effective deterrent to "legislating from the bench" is to recall those Justices who did the legislating. Neither party will do this, though—enacting reforms through the courts is far more efficient than passing difficult legislation through the House, Senate, and the Presidency (all of which can anger voters). Much better to let the courts do it, and give brave speeches to the media about "judicial overreach" when required to appease voters. > Waiting on the courts to get around to it will not be fast enough, or may never come. The current situation is working well for everyone with the power to change it (see above).
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    In a common law system the role of the judiciary is to "legislate from the bench". I've never understood this peculiarly American objection.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      America's Constitution was designed from inception to have strict separations of responsibilities among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, such that they must work together to exercise power. This is meant to prevent any one individual or a party from becoming too powerful and thus endangering liberty. When they are not working together, they are meant to be powerless. Legislative power in particular was meant to be wielded by Congresspersons directly accountable to their constituents. Judges as legislators violate this separation, undermining not only key protections on democratic integrity, but the legitimacy of the whole scheme, through its avoidance of that direct democratic accountability. Note that excessive delegation from the legislature to the executive branch through agencies with rule-making power is also a separations-of-power concern, and there is special law around the procedures by which executive agency rule-making may take place. Another case is executive power being wielded by Congress: Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, argued this March and not yet decided, took on the problem that the head of the CFPB was not accountable to the President.
      - mjburgess 6y ago
        In practice, there is no coherent "separation of power". Power is not some multivalent thing which can be exercised differently by different institutions. Power here is the ability of one group to direct/constrain the actions of another.. the judiciary, the executive and the legislature all exercise the same power. The only thing "separation" achieves is a system of mutual antagonism which functions (poorly) as a system of accountability. Here, congress at any point can redress "legislating from the bench" (ie., establishing legal precedent) by passing new law. If the judiciary ignores this law, then they can be removed from office. I cannot see any circumstance here where the legislature has issues new law in redress for a judicial ruling and then the judiciary has gone on to ignore it. What we're talking about here is when judges have simply "made up rules" where the law fails to provide answers. that is the role of the judiciary in a common law system! It's what provides for reasonable standards of individual freedom which adapt to the age. rather than havign everyone legislataed by an infinite number of rules est. in 1701
loeg 6y ago
Yes and no. Congress has had something like 40 years to write legislation contradicting the judicial construction and has failed to do so.
- burkaman 6y ago
  Again I agree, but the original formulation of qualified immunity seemed a little more reasonable, although it was still wrong in my opinion. The original decision: > A policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he has probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does. Although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, the same consideration would seem to require excusing him from liability for acting under a statute that he reasonably believed to be valid but that was later held unconstitutional, on its face or as applied. - https://www.leagle.com/decision/1967933386us5471842 https://www.leagle.com/decision/1967933386us5471842 I don't agree with this because ignorance of the law is not usually an excuse, but I imagine a majority of Congress might. However, the courts have gradually expanded "reasonably believed to be valid" to mean there must be "precisely factually on-point caselaw" determining the actions are unconstitutional. Sort of a frog in boiling water situation where a well-meaning member of Congress might not realize there was a problem until decades after the initial decision.
  - User23 6y ago
    > I don't agree with this because ignorance of the law is not usually an excuse I think that mens rea[1] should be more broadly required. Our current system is such that virtually everyone is breaking the law and only enforcement and prosecutorial discretion protects us. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
    - burkaman 6y ago
      This is a different issue, I think. Mens rea is about intent or "malice aforethought", but that doesn't mean you know what you're doing is illegal, it just means you are acting intentionally and not by mistake. See the different levels of mens rea in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Model_Penal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Model_Penal_Code It's about understanding the consequences of your actions, nothing to do with knowledge of the law. Currently, if an officer violates your rights on purpose, but there's no "precisely factually on-point caselaw" deciding what they did is unconstitutional, then they're immune from prosecution. They had mens rea, but it doesn't matter.
zerocrates 6y ago
Congress has no problem doing this kind of "fixing" of the Court's decisions when it so suits them: see the passage of RFRA in the wake of Employment Division v. Smith. There's probably no better time than right now to get the support needed to pass a law eliminating QI. While we're at it, we can pass a law to replace Bivens rather than have analogous civil rights cases involving federal agents subject to the courts' whims.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Except that the Senate leader has declared any such effort "dead on arrival".
- setpatchaddress 6y ago
  There's no chance to fix systemic issues of any sort unless the Dems take the Senate. It wouldn't hurt to persuade Biden to make it part of his first-100-days package.
m463 6y ago
You know, congress has immunity too. I think the thinking is to allow them to pass laws that must be passed, but there would be no personal conflict of interest.

mnm1 6y ago

I don't know. The original law is pretty clear. The only reason this is an issue is due to the Supreme Court itself. What is Congress supposed to do? Pass another law that the Supreme Court will then willfully interpret ad its opposite? The fault is completely with the court on this one. They created the problem. They refuse to fix it. Fucking assholes.

thomascgalvin 6y ago

Unfortunately, the modern GOP's primary goal is to prevent legislation from passing. There are hundreds of bills sitting in the Senate that will never receive a hearing, much less a vote. The Courts invented qualified immunity, and the Courts should have done away with it, as well. Now, unfortunately, we will have to wait until we have the House, Senate, and Presidency controlled by the same party to fix what the Courts fucked up.

linuxftw 6y ago
> The Courts invented qualified immunity, and the Courts should have done away with it, as well. Herein lies the problem. The Courts aren't constitutionally permitted to invent much of anything.
- wnevets 6y ago
  Citation needed. Case law has existed since the invention of America.
  - tobylane 6y ago
    It’s a major part of common law which was inherited from England. Pre-Revolution, even English court cases, can be persuasive in modern US courts because of this history.
  - lwheelock 6y ago
    I take their meaning as; The court’s role is to interpret the law in letter and spirit at the time at which it was enacted. It is not to invent legality or update definitions with modern social norms. The argument in dissent is that none of the members of either house or senate intended “sex” to include orientation or identity in 1964. Despite society having a different opinion on that today, redefining “sex” is not the courts prerogative.
    - belltaco 6y ago
      >The argument in dissent is that none of the members of either house or senate intended “sex” to include orientation or identity in 1964. Despite society having a different opinion on that today, redefining “sex” is not the courts prerogative. I read the court's decision and the test they applied was "if this person's sex was the opposite would they not have been fired ? ". In both the cases of orientation and identity, the answer is a resounding yes. If someone that was gay was female, they wouldn't have been fired, same for a lesbian if she were a man. Also same for transgenders, if their sex was reversed, they would keep the job. I don't see how this is redefining "sex". The decision does not say that sex includes orientation or identity like you claim.

dantheman 6y ago

Here's the legislation that needs to pass: https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-...

burkaman 6y ago
Currently in a House committee: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7085 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7085
- LurkersWillLurk 6y ago
  And it will be interesting to see if it will be put on the agenda by Chairman Nadler. But Pelosi's omnibus bill has a far weaker proposal in that it only eliminates QI for police officers.
  - burkaman 6y ago
    Even that weaker proposal can't pass until after the election: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-scott-police-reform-bill-qualified-immunity-face-the-nation/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-scott-police-reform-bill-qu...

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

"Here here: police!" "Don't look here: political dynasties and corrupt politicians"

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tssva 6y ago

The line item veto at the federal level only existed from 1996 to 1998 and was limited to certain budgetary items.

hwillis 6y ago
Before 1996 the last democratic president to be reelected was Teddy Roosevelt. Things have changed a lot since then, and congress is demonstrably far more polarized and unproductive.
- lavezza 6y ago
  First, I think you mean FDR, not Teddy. Second, you have to be very specific in your definition of "reelected" to not include Truman ('48) or Johnson ('64).
- tssva 6y ago
  I'm failing grasp what your point is suppose to be. The original poster lamented that the ending of the line item veto has had a significant impact on Congress's behavior during and after the line item veto. I pointed out that the line item veto only existed for 2 years and only applied to very specific budgetary matters. I maybe mistakenly thought my point would be self-evident, so let me clarify. I believe the OP's idea that the elimination of the line item veto has had a significant impact on the current state of congressional politics is incorrect because the line item veto was not in place or applied generally enough to have ever had much of any impact on congressional politics. Based upon that clarification is your point still relevant and if so can you explain it?

digsy 6y ago

>It's time for legislators to legislate. Many of our current problems can be traced back to our legislature failing to do anything. Congress has sent 300+ bills to the Senate and McConnell wont even debate them. Half the Legislature is doing something. The other half is stalling.

clairity 6y ago

> "I know it sounds counter intuitive, but I think getting rid of the line item veto has helped to cripple Congress even more." that's an issue, but the linchpin is the influence of money in politics along with a voting system that tends toward 2 parties. legislators spend much more time chasing dollars than considering legislation, and hewing to party lines than independent thought. 'politician' is too much of a career rather than a duty.

MisterBastahrd 6y ago

... the Line Item Veto was immediately challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional 2 years after it was enacted. And it should have been. Removing parts of a bill changes the bill, and executives already have too much power, much less giving them the power to legislate.

aaronbrethorst 6y ago

The Senate GOP has explicitly said that it treats qualified immunity as a poison pill. The only way legislators will legislate is if the GOP loses its Senate majority in November. https://www.axios.com/tim-scott-police-reform-bill-qualified-immunity-899fccfe-f517-4512-b890-bd19be0ffbfa.html https://www.axios.com/tim-scott-police-reform-bill-qualified...

ashtonkem 6y ago

The need to shift responsibility for legislating back to the legislature is one of the conservative ideals that I strongly agree with, even though I sit on the left hand side of the spectrum. Currently our system depends on legislating in the executive (EOs & regulatory bodies like the FDA given the power of law) and in the legislature. To my eye this has been an utter disaster; as it has both decoupled the legislating process from voting, and crippled the one deliberative body that citizens have some control over.

sitkack 6y ago
Just because someone from a political ideology says something you agree with doesn't mean for an instant you agree with their ideology! Wanting effective representative legislators and legislation should be a quality of all citizens. I think having non-effective legislators and having a powerful executive and judicial branch is an effective method to remove citizen control of government. It is on purpose.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  > Just because someone from a political ideology says something you agree with doesn't mean for an instant you agree with their ideology! I’m aware of this, I’m just disclosing my own general stance for rhetorical effect. > It is on purpose I don’t think we got here on purpose; I think we got here on accident. History is just too full of random turns and twists caused by external events and opposing parties for there to often be a grand plan to anything; dumb luck explains a lot of things. Now that we’re here, I do believe that the lack of any effective solutions is probably deliberate. The current people in power gain far too much from the status quo to actually offer up meaningful reforms.
  - sitkack 6y ago
    I am aware, but we need to be able to say the truth without caveats and without saying everything that those we disagree with is incorrect.
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago

danaris 6y ago

So vote Democrat. One party has been trying to legislate—whether you happen to agree with their legislative priorities or not—and the other party has been absolutely wrecking the established rules and customs of the Senate to avoid legislating. We all know which is which. So if you genuinely want legislators to do their damn jobs, spread the word to everyone you know to vote out the Republican do-nothings this fall.

nothal 6y ago
I don't know this is wholely true. Democrats and Republicans have been breaking rules of order for the last 20 or so years it seems, alternating based on who's in control.
- danaris 6y ago
  You can throw that "both-sides-ism" right out the window, just like the Republicans threw all rules of procedure and decency. It's nothing but false balance at this point. Yes, Democrats might have occasionally pushed things a bit in previous Congresses, but I know for a fact that you cannot point to anything Democrats have ever done that's as egregious as Republicans actively colluding to a) prevent a sitting President from being allowed to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice to the bench, or b) prevent any legislation the opposing party proposes from being brought to the floor in any way, shape, or form for years, purely for political gain.
  - zests 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appoin...
    - hhw 6y ago
      A philibuster is nowhere near the same level of obstruction as refusing to call a vote at all. It also hasn't been used to anywhere near the same frequency.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

m0zg 6y ago

Many of our problems can also be traced back directly to this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsq30E6OSVU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsq30E6OSVU. Who just clinched the democratic nomination for president of the United States.

veeralpatel979 6y ago

What's unfortunate is that a lot of bills are not even brought up in the Senate or the House for a vote after the other house passes them, often with overwhelming bipartisan support. This effectively grants the Senate majority leader and House speaker veto power over any legislation. Even if the rest of the body supports the bill, the leader of the house can just kill it by refusing to bring it up for a vote. I'm not sure whether this practice happens because the leader of the bodies don't want it to pass, or there's not enough floor time to bring it up, or if these bills are ultimately tucked into an omnibus package and passed into law that way. The good news is that if people and their legislators truly care about this issue, they can demand that leaders allow votes as a condition for their support. The system is bad right now, but it can be changed.

scarface74 6y ago
Why would they? If your state senator is a high ranking representative like the Senate Majority Leader, you like that your state has more power. Because of the way the Senate is structured with two representatives per state regardless of the population, that gives the less populous flyover states and the “Bible Belt” way more power than their population would entitle they to.