Everything Mitch McConnell does is forselfish^nefarious reasons.
How come?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.
Because someone is in favor of it.How come?
I think that all depends on the circumstancesIf a Representative or a Senator can't bother to show up and vote, they have no business being in Congress.
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.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.
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.Legislators have an implicit legal obligation to show up and vote. If they can't do that, they are abstaining, period.
If a Representative or a Senator can't bother to show up and vote, they have no business being in Congress.
Some people just want to prevent legislation from happening.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.
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.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?