McConnell files an interesting brief and I like it.

[NWRatCon]

Everything Mitch McConnell does is for selfish ^nefarious reasons.

 

[brianpatrick]

It's not about the number of times they miss a vote. I'll leave that issue up to the people who voted for that politician.

My contention is that making it easy for politicians to just not show up by allowing someone else to cast their vote (proxy voting) is not how it should be.

How come?

 

[NWRatCon]

How come?

Because someone is in favor of it.

 

[Radical Red Radish]

What creeps me out is how easy it is for businesses to essentially write the rules for their industries. I own a government contracting company and it's terrifying how the government gets screwed because politicians are eager to use their authority in the interest of what are effectively their private clients instead of the public.

Case in point is the design of woodworking saws. Lumber companies usually mill logs using giant circular saws with an average of a one inch kerf. Hand lumber milling saws use a one sixteenth inch kerf. That means that hand lumber milling produces about half again as much lumber per log as Big Timber gets out of that same log. Also, why is it that the design of saws has come to a screeching halt since about 1903?

The truth is that better technology exists, but those in American government who are trying to replace the Constitution with a king want to punish people for making tangible products. If nobody understands how a person's work is useful, we will all lose respect for each other. It all goes downhill from there.

Yet for some unknown reason (follow the money) the feds give big tax breaks to lumber companies for using massively inefficient equipment and finding creative names for glued-up sawdust.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

If I was more confident in how the government handles its own cybersecurity, I would suggest being able to vote online. With today's technology, you don't need to be -in- the building to conduct normal business. It's great for optics, and it would be a pain in the butt for C-SPAN to cover, don't get me wrong, and would lead to less transparency than now.

However, since the statements about Hillary's email server, both for and against, I'm not sure much has changed in Congress that shows me they know anything about cybersecurity. For instance, I seem to remember some comment about how if the server was under physical security, it couldn't be hacked. Then there was prior to Hillary's scandal, which was Ted Stevens' "the internet is a series of tubes." To paraphrase Buzz Lightyear, "I don't believe Congress has ever attended IT School."

While the executive branch definitely does show signs of learning on the job, remember this is the same executive branch/Department of Justice that at one point said that backdoors should be in every application ever. If Congress/the Executive Branch ever shows knowledge about cybersecurity, this would be a valid method to explore. But right now, Congress casting votes online should be strictly prohibited.

 

[Citizen]

If a Representative or a Senator can't bother to show up and vote, they have no business being in Congress.

I think that all depends on the circumstances

 

[Radical Red Radish]

Legislators have an implicit legal obligation to show up and vote. If they can't do that, they are abstaining, period.

 

[mrjurrs]

The Senate chameon has again altered his exterior color to blend in with his surroundings ( now he looks like he's sitting on Pelosi's tree limb) and indeed the brief defends an important principle. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...S&cvid=32f088ebecff41ef9add5ab20801541e&ei=20

"... Mitch McConnell is defending Congress’ ability to permit voting by “proxy” when members are absent, a practice adopted by House Democrats at the height of the COVID pandemic despite intense opposition from Republicans. In a brief filed Friday in ftederal court — authored by former Attorney General William Barr — McConnell says that despite his personal opposition to proxy voting, the House and Senate have total constitutional authority to determine the way they conduct business.

“Despite his fierce opposition to proxy voting, Senator McConnell believes it critical that courts nevertheless respect each house of Congress’ power to ‘determine the rules of its proceedings,’” Barr wrote on McConnell’s behalf.

McConnell’s position puts him at odds with the vast majority of House Republicans, who spent years fighting a losing battle in court to overturn the practice, which was initiated in 2020 by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The House GOP leader at the time, Kevin McCarthy, sued to block the practice but was dealt defeats by two federal courts before the Supreme Court declined to take up the issue.

However, in February, a federal district court judge in Texas ruled that the House’s use of proxy voting violated the Constitution, contending that it requires a majority of members to be physically present to conduct business. The ruling, if upheld by appellate courts, threatens to unravel large and complicated legislative packages adopted with decisive votes cast by absent members."

I absolutely agree with him and Pelosi. SCOTUS has no business deciding how the legislative branch ought to conduct its business or what constitutes a legitimate 'vote' for the US Senate or US House. Those institutions can decide those matters in their own rules consistent with their own past practices, or they may adopt new rules and new practices. For example, the US House in its infinite wisdom, decided to put in an electronic voting system in 1973 following the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41862/2 It turns out that the LRA was one very very important reform of past practices that Congress had been using for decades to hide the Committee work on which the institutions depended to avoid transparency. https://congressionalresearch.org/LRA.html

Knowing McConnell, it does not escape his notice, that the 2024 election map, dramatically favored Republican control of the US Senate and for the new majority to function effectively, it is in a Republican Majority Senate's interest that proxy voting be allowed to establish a quorum and to advance the movement of legislation because the majority controls the legislative calender and decides whether to schedule a vote when Republican Congressman X is in town, and when Democrat Senator Y is convulescing post heart surgery.

Still I do believe that SCOTUS has already meddled far too much in the internal affairs of the executive and legislative branches and the process questions that each properly decides on their own.

In general, the more options for voting the better. But I know I'm getting screwed in some fashion if I'm on the same side as McTurtle.

 

[weaver2]

Legislators have an implicit legal obligation to show up and vote. If they can't do that, they are abstaining, period.

Agree! Congress is supposed to be a collaborative effort; working together to reach an understanding of the issue and the electorate, coming to agreement, compromising, starting over, if needed, offering something new. In person is the best way to conduct the nations business. And for those new at the job, in person is the best way to learn those skills. Doing thing electronically allows each person ignore others and remain in a bubble of one's own position. That's no way to run a country.

Mitch the Lich insisted on personal presence in the past no matter how sick the person was. He can just get his sorry ass into Congress if he wants his vote to count.

 

[OlNate]

If a Representative or a Senator can't bother to show up and vote, they have no business being in Congress.

Interesting. So your opinion is that if a representative or a senator has some kind of personal issue or crisis that prevents them from showing up one a vote day, all the people they represent should lose their voice?

Did you think this one through, or is this just partisan knee jerk?

 

[Napoleon]

I agree with ruling. A body of unelected proxies is not Congress.

 

[NWRatCon]

Interesting. So your opinion is that if a representative or a senator has some kind of personal issue or crisis that prevents them from showing up one a vote day, all the people they represent should lose their voice?

Did you think this one through, or is this just partisan knee jerk?

Some people just want to prevent legislation from happening.

 

[OlNate]

Some people just want to prevent legislation from happening.

I'm not even sure if it was that deep, the response appeared more Pavlovian.

 

[Radical Red Radish]

Interesting. So your opinion is that if a representative or a senator has some kind of personal issue or crisis that prevents them from showing up one a vote day, all the people they represent should lose their voice?

Did you think this one through, or is this just partisan knee jerk?

This one is the result of experience with parliamentary procedure in bad neighborhoods where it was us versus the charismatic personality cults and we had to make decisions quickly. There is such a thing as a quorum, but as a rule, if you are elected, you show up, or we decide without you.

 

[bomberfox]

Makes a lot of sense. Proxy voting could allow much more interaction from a representative’s own state so they dont need to live in DC