3 ms·
> The fake minerals are friezium and stralium, apparent references to Christopher Friez and David Straley, attorneys for North American Coal who were closely in
by ctoth 9mo ago
> The fake minerals are friezium and stralium, apparent references to Christopher Friez and David Straley, attorneys for North American Coal who were closely involved in drafting the bill and its amendments.
> “It would be kind of embarrassing for the rest of the country to look at us and say ‘Really? Do you guys even know what you’re doing?’”
> Anderson said the amendments were prepared by a group of attorneys and legislators, including representatives from the coal industry.
So that is not embarrassing? You aren't embarrassed that ... you were clearly not doing your jobs, but just letting industry mark up the bill... And then didn't even read it?
Any embarrassment there? Any?
Bueller? Bueller?
- ctoth 9mo agoIf I don't clearly read the code Claude commits under my name I have done a bad. And yet. Making rules that will affect everybody? HAHAHAHAHA LGTM SHIPIT!
- jfengel 9mo agoWhy should they be embarrassed? They got the law that they wanted passed. Not a single one will lose an election over this. Even if a challenger brings it up, they have a very grateful industry behind them (and now with even more money to throw at elections). If there is any embarrassment to be felt, it would be on the part of their constituents, who voted for this legislature and came out behind because of it. But I strongly suspect that they will re-elect the incumbents.
- zdragnar 9mo agoYou've literally described most state legislators and federal Congress. The Affordable Care Act was 906 pages long (nevermind the accompanying 11,000 some odd pages of regulations typically quoted). You can bet very few Congress critters actually read all 906 pages. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the year is part of the name) was over 5,500 pages long. Definitely none of the people in Congress bothered reading any of it- there wouldn't have been time to do so.
- GuestFAUniverse 9mo agoI'm sick of such nonsene. Laws should be limited in volume. Comments to the law: feel free to explain the intentions, to improve the wording in future revisions.
- cogman10 9mo agoAt the federal level, I think it's somewhat forgivable. They generally have a fair number of staffers working for them who are the ones that ultimately digest the bills. State level, though, is unacceptable. It's unusual for a state rep to have any sort of staff which means it is completely on them to read and digest a bill before passing it. The much bigger issue is that we have corporate and advocacy group sponsored bills at both the state and federal levels. That simply should not be a thing. Several very red or very blue state ultimately work as incubators for these bills and they simply adopt them as is.
- phil21 9mo agoThis is the standard way of lawmaking, as far as I'm aware. A lobbyist presents a bill to a congressional sponsor, and the congress critter more or less forwards it to committee for vote. Perhaps a staffer or two skim it and suggest edits. Exceedingly few bills are actually initially drafted by elected lawmakers.
- cogman10 9mo agoAt the federal level, AFAIK most bills are ultimately drafted by staffers. Lawmakers very rarely draft the bill, they mostly just signal their intent and let the staffers pound out the details. Not saying there aren't a lot of lobby sponsored bills, but I believe volume wise the staffers are making most of the bills.