More Than 200 Congressional Staffers Urge Pelosi and Schumer To Act on Climate (cnn.com) 261
In a rare move, more than 200 congressional staffers have sent a letter to Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, demanding they close the deal on a climate and clean energy package and warning that failure could doom younger generations. From a report: "We've crafted the legislation necessary to avert climate catastrophe. It's time for you to pass it," the staffers wrote in a letter, sent to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday evening. The letter, which staffers signed anonymously with initials, was shared first with CNN.
"Our country is nearing the end of a two-year window that represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pass transformative climate policy," the letter continues. "The silence on expansive climate justice policy on Capitol Hill this year has been deafening. We write to distance ourselves from your dangerous inaction." The staffers' grievances were delivered as Schumer negotiates with Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia on a Democrat-only package that is expected to address inflation, the cost of prescription drugs, energy and the climate crisis. The climate and energy portion has remained the largest sticking point in negotiations, as Manchin has publicly stated he wants to lower gas prices by increasing US energy production.
"Our country is nearing the end of a two-year window that represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pass transformative climate policy," the letter continues. "The silence on expansive climate justice policy on Capitol Hill this year has been deafening. We write to distance ourselves from your dangerous inaction." The staffers' grievances were delivered as Schumer negotiates with Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia on a Democrat-only package that is expected to address inflation, the cost of prescription drugs, energy and the climate crisis. The climate and energy portion has remained the largest sticking point in negotiations, as Manchin has publicly stated he wants to lower gas prices by increasing US energy production.
It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez, take the hint.
Break the bills up....into separate parts.
You likely CAN pass some of it now...and the ones that stick, haggle over those separately.
Part of govt, especially the US govt. is supposed to be compromise...where no one is truly happy, but you can still get something done that is moderate...
Re:It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:4, Informative)
Thats just how bills get done, I don't like it but thats not a party issue.
Filibuster is also a big cause of that. When you have 40-50 Senators who just will not vote for anything than all you have is twice a year reconociliation to pass with 50+1 so the impetus is to cram as much in there as possible.
Nuke the filibuster and that scenario becomes a lot more feasible for either party.
Re: (Score:2)
> Thats just how bills get done, I don't like it but thats not a party issue.
Indeed, it's common in democracies world over to get things done. It's sometimes called "horse trading" or you-scratch-my-back-and-ill-scratch-yours.
Yes, democracy is messy, but still better than the alternatives (to paraphrase Churchill).
Re:It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:5, Insightful)
OH man...no, do not nuke the filibuster.
Frankly, I wish they could/would codify it or make an amendment to enshrine it in almost unchangeable law.
I don't want EITHER party running roughshod if they only have a 1 member majority in both houses....
If it can't pass 60 votes in the senate, then, it needs to be compromised upon.
I know the Dems are bitching about it now, but look back not so long ago when they were in the minority party, and not by just 1 vote....they used the filibuster a LOT.
And if the red wave comes this fall, combined with a potential Rep. presidential win in '24...they really do NOT want the filibuster to go away.
Having it also makes it so that each time power switches, it isn't just on a whim that everything done previously can be undone in minutes.
And I think, given that there was recently some gun legislation passed for the first time, in like what...30 years with reps signing on, there is room for simple bills to get through even with the filibuster, outside of reconciliation.
If they could do that, they could pass other things, just make them reasonable .
Legislation is NOT supposed to be easy to get things through.
And certainly nothing radical if the populace hasn't overwhelmingly voted your party into office giving you essentially a mandate.
And last time around, there was no mandate given really....most people were voting against Trump, rather than for Biden and a more progressive agenda.
The US people are still largely centrist.
The congress critters are supposed to represent the constituents and should reflect this by trying to pass moderate legislation rather than huge, very $$$ bills that fundementally change how things are done in the US.
If they truly reflected their constituents, and compromised on single issues bills, they'd be getting some stuff passed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then sorry and honestly you can't both wish that bills would be broken up into smaller chunks and more things are brought up to vote and general fasting moving governance and oppose the main thing stoppng that from happening.
If you both want the filibuster in place AND to have mor compromise and more movement on more legislation well then you need to start voting in congresspeople and Senators that are willing to do that.
We are more polarized than ever before. Right now we have 50 Senators who wouldn'
Re: (Score:2)
Right now we have 50 Senators who wouldn't vote to save literal babies on fire if a Democrat proposed it in the first place.
This isn't true, given that there have been bipartisan bills passed (which you didn't check for before posting).
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need the filibuster, we need to change the threshold to pass anything to require at least 60% or even 70% of the vote. Otherwise we have a winner takes all system that completely disenfranchises minority voters. It is perfectly acceptable when parties disagree for a stalemate to occur, it should be the most common outcome. The federal government is supposed to be the smallest piece of government, mostly dealing with foreign powers and handling commerce between the states and universal policy from t
Re: (Score:3)
We don't need the filibuster, we need to change the threshold to pass anything to require at least 60% or even 70% of the vote.
Maybe if you want nothing to ever pass again.
No, what needs to happen is for the senate to be abolished entirely. That will solve most issues.
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing how quickly both parties are willing to flip-flop on the topic of the filibuster, just as soon as it's not in their favor.
Re: (Score:2)
the takeaway is all parties are the same. It's not. Republicans had a simple majority about 4 years ago, and they did not nuke the filibuster.
Democrats have a simple majority today, and they did not nuke the filibuster. Tell me how the parties are different.
Re:It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:4, Informative)
Even if the filibuster didn't exist, the Democrats wouldn't have 51 votes to pass climate legislation given Joe Manchin's statements this week.
Re:It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is the two party system. It doesn't work anywhere. It doesn't deliver democratic outcomes.
Re:It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree but are we all voting to elect leaders who support ditching the first-past-the-post voting system? '
Until we change that it's 2 parties, 3rd parties simply cannot exist without a parliement style setup or changing to ranked choice or instant runoff voting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Call it whatever you want but congress and parliaments the world over are not built on Agile (thank god) but slow and sometimes grinding procedures and norms.
Theres a reason people don't watch Senate proceedings on CSPAN, because that shit is boring but thats all part of the checks and balances and nature of the system.
If we don't like it we can vote for people who want to change it. The filibuster has been changed 7 times in US history. The Supreme Court has changed size several time. This things aren't
Re:It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they don't really want it to pass, they want to have something to attack the opposition with when it fails. Most of this stuff would easily pass if offered as a standalone but they'd rather hold the country hostage to try to pass stuff that has no support.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:4, Interesting)
Manchin wants something. It is your job to find out what he wants and cut a deal.
Maybe Manchin can use his big boy words and let everyone know?
Re: It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:2)
I mean we all were there for the 6 months negotiating with Manchon on BBB then they had pared it down with him to 1.5T with his suggestions and he shot it down anyway.
Manchin is looking out for himself and that's his right to do I guess, his numbers are doing great but I can say it's been tried with him. If we want to get around him then we need more votes at this point.
Re: It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:2, Insightful)
Can we, for the love of God, stop crafting multi-trillion dollar spending bills?
The issue with Manchin is as Democrats negotiated with him on BBB, inflation took off and Democrats still want to spend $1.5T.
That one party fails to craft a bill that can attract a handful of politicians in the other party is the fault of the drafters. Remember ObamaCare (PPACA)? Democrats REFUSED Republican input, until Republicans shamed them into it, then President Obama sat there, stone-faced, and blurted out his now famous
Re: It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:5, Insightful)
Whose plan was the ACA based off of?
What were the Republican suggestions to ACA?
1.5T over 10 years and it did have funding sources and chances are the economic output would have offset its costs even if it was a defecit spend.
DId Obamacare implode? It still exists and it is enough of an improvement that Republicans talked about repealing it for years, came up with a dogshit plan that nobody liked that essentially was "repeal now, trust us we'll fix it later" and then Trumps plan was 2 weeks out for 4 years. It's not going away and repealing things like max out of pocket and covering preconditions are wildly popular and the idea of reoving them is political dead ends. What it actually needs is a Medicare buy in but no R is ever voting for that.
Show me the comprehensive Republican plan for healthcare and you might have a stronger leg to stand on.
Show me the comprehensive Republican plans for anything. The cloest we have had was the Infrastructure bill and Biden actually got it done and signed it.
There is far more to all this than what you are presenting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whose plan was the ACA based off of?
Nominally, it was based on what a Republican governor did in the deep-blue state of Massachusetts. However, across the U.S., and by a large majority, Republicans were opposed to this plan. And they were even more opposed to the Federal gov't enacting this plan for every state. There is a big difference between enacting this at the state-level as opposed to doing it at the federal level.
Re: It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure but isn't that in the very spirit of compromise? Conservative plan but adapted by Democrats?
- no public option
- retains the primarily private insurance framework
- retains insurance based off employment
- medicare expansion is block granted to the states, states administer and distribute it
The most "liberal" thing it did was the individual mandate but even that was fairly conservative with the fee to opt out being not that bad and it got shot down by the courts anyway
The most effective things were regulations as to how insurance operated. Covering all pre-existing conditions, maximum out of pocket expenditures, extending the age children could stay under parents plans. These particular things today are all wildly popular on each side of the aisle. I am old enough to remember in the 2000's when these things were all out of control problems, so much so we actually got the ACA passed.
What the ACA truly failed as was any real measure on controlling prices but the plan got that killed out of it (Medicare buy in) so here we are. To really go after costs we would have to bite the bullet and implement some type of universal system, most likely close to what the Swiss or Dutch or Germans have (which are all cheaper with generally better outcomes)
Health insurance is hard to do on a state level because states do not have the power to effect prices at the national level where it needs to be, insurance works most effectively the larger the pool of participants and states do not have the ability to defecit spend the way the federal government can to keep the system stable when it needs it. Having control over monetary policy is crucial and thats why countries with smaller populations than some US states can have more effective systems even though the US system should be able to leverage much more productive resources.
I would still counter with the question of where is the Republican healthcare plan? It can't just be "repeal the ACA", things were worse before it and people won't give up certain parts of it. Where do we go from here? There's a lot of parts of Medicare For All I don't like but at least its out there (HR 1976)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Show me the comprehensive Republican plans for anything.
I indeed find Republicans quick to complain about Dem plans and bills, but when asked to provide practical alternatives, they falter under scrutiny. In the end, it's not really about policies and specific plans, but about having "my kind of people" in charge. Perhaps that's true of both sides. People would rather fail under jerks they love instead of jerks they hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, great and compelling arguments.
Some things can work at the federal level but cannot work at the state level (like healthcare you silly goose). Your statement says nothing, actually less than nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, he is voting as his constituents would want him to vote?
Once they get to Washington, our representatives aren't supposed to forgot they represent the will of those who elected them...NOT what the Speaker or Senate lead dictates.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying anything counter to that, let's not make up positions to attack.
I'm just saying let's not act like people were not bending over backwards to court his vote.
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't the Dems STOP trying to package everything together in one huge mega bill package, that has parts often unrelated to each other , that has poison pills for so many different congressmen?
It's a slippery slope.
If they do that for this bill then they'll have to stop doing things like combining the "Protect the Children and Old People!" bill with the "More Power to the TSA" bill.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually I'd like to build upon this...I think it could be codified, that bills HAD to be single issue, just to avoid
Re: It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:2)
Sure but that's gonna be a procedure change or changes you'll need 60 votes to make in the first place.
It's just like people who want term limits but you have to vote people in who are going to vote for it. Bit of a catch22
Re: (Score:3)
Actually I'd like to build upon this...I think it could be codified, that bills HAD to be single issue, just to avoid this horse trading shit, that usually ends up with pork, and waste.
IIRC, 43 states already have that process (law?). I'd loooove for Congress to be this way too. Then we'd find out who really believes in and cares for what. But we'll never see that as they're too chicken to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Within the two parties you have factions. They should really be independent parties, but for that to be viable it will need electoral reform that makes coalitions viable.
This stuff is just a symptom of that problem.
Re:It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't the Dems STOP trying to package everything together in one huge mega bill package, that has parts often unrelated to each other , that has poison pills for so many different congressmen?
Because politics stopped caring about actually getting shit done for the populace a long time ago. These days it's just a big popularity contest where the winners enter the elite class, allowing them access to legal insider trading and money-for-legislation deals from lobbyists.
Have you never wondered how politicians seem to make better investment decisions than wallstreet fund managers?
Have you never found it odd how many bills are proposed nearly verbatim to the text that was generated by lobbyist groups and 'think tanks'?
Have you never looked into what 'dark money' actually is, how it anonymizes sources and skirts legal campaign donation limits?
At some point, it just turns into one big grift. The political sides don't really mean anything anymore, they just define the talking points for the political tennis match. Making reasonable legislation that actually passes removes a useful topic from the list of campaign talking points -- better to submit unpassable bills on the topic so that you can use its failure as motivation for your base to keep electing you, so that you can keep 'fighting the good fight for them'. They don't typically have the time to read how bullshit your bill actually was anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, his constituency works and depends a lot upon fossil fuels, and he IS there to represent them!
With that in mind, if they pushed legislation to promote renewable and safer energy, rather than try to put the fossil fuel industry out of business, they likely would get his vote.
Besides, with the world situation currently....pushing for the US to go hard to be fossil
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the part in the Guardian article that states that "Manchin favors cutting the program with the largest emissions reductions", the program for "Clean Electricity Performance Program + clean energy tax credits"?
Is it
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't the Dems STOP trying to package everything together in one huge mega bill package, that has parts often unrelated to each other , that has poison pills for so many different congressmen? Geez, take the hint.
Both parties do this; it's the way things are done. Otherwise, they would have to "debate" and vote on a thousand individual bills -- through both chambers, which would probably be more of a nightmare. Also, this way gives congressional cowards/partisans more cover. But... I agree with you that I'd prefer smaller, more focused, bills. If for nothing else, increased transparency and individual accountability.
Re: It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:2)
Because they know it won't work, but it makes it look like they are doing something
Re:It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you retarded?
If I agree to the parts I want. What leverage do you have to get me to agree with the parts I don't want?
You already gave me everything I wanted for nothing...
I think he's saying "pass the bills that everyone wants, rather than holding them hostage." I will agree that gives up leverage, but "compromise" is "you give up something and I give up something" instead of "here's what both of us want, but unless you give me this other thing I want as well, then no one gets anything."
Last year was a shit show of both parties saying "we should spend more money on fixing roads and bridges" and then one side saying "yes, but let's also spend a trillion more on social issues, and if you won't spend that money then the roads and bridges can remain shit, oh and this is all your fault."
What you're proposing is to let the minority of government make the laws.
I will note that without Manchin and Sinema on board with legislation, there are, at most, 48 "yes" votes in the Senate. The last I checked, 48/100 was not a majority.
You will note I am not advocating for "pass the Republican agenda or nothing gets done." While I hold the opinion that gridlock in government tends to be good for the average American, this is certainly not always true, and I agree wholeheartedly that there are many things that our Congress has been lax in addressing for decades and the people so doing should be both ashamed of themselves and voted out of office. But "politics is the art of the possible." If you want things done, and don't focus on doing the things that everyone agrees with first, you have no room to complain when those things go undone.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, by definition, compromise means neither
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like with HillaryCare where Bill said that if it didn't pass exactly as written, he'd veto it? That kind of compromise?
Re: It's not up to Pelosi and Schumer (Score:2, Informative)
No, he means when republicans shut down government repeatedly to force Clinton to balance the budget and reform welfare, which led to Democrats cheering Clinton for balancing the budget and - it's claimed - Clinton generated a surplus.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't remember if that was before or after the republicans took over congress...?
I believe after that happened, they did do some big legislature like welfare reform?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, a LOT of what has been put forth by the democrats, in these recent LARGE bills that contain everything under the sun...contain a LOT that Republican's constituents would NOT want them to vote for, you know?
I mean, the US citizens each representative and senator is supposed to
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, Manchin has is money in coal companies, he doesn't give a fuck about climate because he doesn't understand the Earth is heating up.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yup, Manchin has is money in coal companies, he doesn't give a fuck about climate because he doesn't understand the Earth is heating up.
I'm sure he understands, but just doesn't care. He's not going to be around to deal with the consequences. Besides, he lives on a $700k yacht / houseboat [motorbiscuit.com] docked in DC, so rising sea level is a good thing for him...
Why are we letting the 50 Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Manchin has vetoed this already.
There are a zillion things you could put in any bill to get the support of Manchin and at least 10-20 Republicans, if not more. School choice, tax cuts, partial-birth abortion ban (or even a born-alive act), gun permit reciprocity, literally anything an R state government has passed as meat for the base would be plenty to peal off a filibuster-proof number of squish Republicans.
Obviously these are not things Democrats would like to have in a bill, but you would think if they really, truly, honestly believe
We are already doom (Score:2)
Now make the prices of everything go down. If you ain't doing that, you ain't helping, so why should I care?
Those same 200 staffers... (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean? They act every day! (Score:3, Insightful)
I would argue that all congress does anymore is act, so problem solved. Now if you want action...
However we are coming soon to a point where we have to decide why we are trying to act on climate. Supposedly it's to protect people, yet actions taken supposedly to protect the climate and thus people, will in the end kill millions (as we are seeing unfold with Sri Lanka trying organic fertilizer).
It could be the case that we have to pull back on what is hurting people, and try other paths to address the climate concerns.
Buy nVidia stock! (Score:4, Interesting)
Pelosi just disclosed a $5million investment in nVidia and today she's pitching a $50BILLION chip subsidy bill.
Re: (Score:2)
She will make some stock moves (Score:4, Informative)
She will make some stock moves and get right insider on it.
For anyone not aware, she is a huge crook who basically trades on non-material non-public insider information, usually on things she also has a conflict-of-interest due to directly legislating or interfering with the companies stocks she purchases.
She is so crooked and obvious, dedicated groups track her stock trades and provide a list of things to buy if you want to mirror the trades she makes. For being in office and being untrained, she has one hell of a predictive mindset and rather high performing portfolio.
Seriously, if you arent following her trades you are an idiot.
Re:She will make some stock moves (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of Congress have their fingers in money-pies, why focus on just Pelosi? Our entire political system is plutocrat shaped.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because she is far and away the most egregious. She's made something like $40 million in profit from her insider trading during the past 15 years that would be highly illegal for you and me...
Re:She will make some stock moves (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree some of the laws are fuzzy, but you have not demonstrated she is the only or primary abuser of grey areas, only claimed it. This is Slashdot, linkit or stinkit.
And the more important issue is whatever avenues she exploited are still in place even if she died today. The problems are bigger than her. Your narrow focus makes you appear to be obsessed or biased.
Re: (Score:2)
Because she is far and away the most egregious. She's made something like $40 million in profit from her insider trading during the past 15 years that would be highly illegal for you and me...
As if Trump and Barr would have missed the change to "lock her up!"
Re:She will make some stock moves (Score:5, Insightful)
We can all rightfully bag on Pelosi but who is going to do anything about it?
As much as we like to doomer out and say "they're all the same" it sure isn't true in every case:
S.3494 - Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act [congress.gov]
14 co-sponsors, all Democrats, and while that is still an inuratingly small amount I have my doubt's we'll see support or a similar proposal from the other side of the aisle.
Re: (Score:3)
You described every member of congress. Singling out Pelosi is just partisan stupidity. She's not even the best at it, other members of congress rate far better at insider trading than she does.
Um... with the exception of Bernie Sanders (Score:3)
The entire SW is about to run out of water but I get more scary stories about Mexicans than stories about what running out of water means. Meanwhile cattle ranchers in Texas just sent their herd to market months early due to drought an
Re: (Score:2)
I equally throw shit at everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Rand Paul is such an asshole that his neighbor beat him up over grass clippings. https://www.newsweek.com/sen-r... [newsweek.com]
Legislation sprints (Score:2)
expected to address inflation, the cost of prescription drugs, energy and the climate crisis. The climate and energy portion has remained the largest sticking point in negotiations
It would be nice if they wrote bills that contained only one major issue so the nuances were easier to debate and understand.
200 anonymous staffers (Score:3)
From the article: "The letter, which staffers signed anonymously with initials, was shared first with CNN."
This is what passes for news on CNN
Re: (Score:2)
This is what passes for news on CNN
News: Newly received or recent information.
So yeah it passes as news on CNN. If you feel like you don't want information then you can go to Fox News, and if you feel like your information shouldn't be newly received then Slashdot.
Not gonna happen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So,
Rural Illinois is red, but Chicago is deeply blue. Georgia is deeply red, but Atlanta isn't. Texas is super deep red, but Houston and Austin are the opposite. How do these places split?
I'm fine with the seesawing. That's feature of democracy. As frustrati
Re: (Score:2)
Geographically, most of California is red and only the coast is blue. Of course, that's where the biggest cities are and most of the population so that the state ends up being Navy Blue.
Re: (Score:2)
There's absolutely no way the US could split along red/blue lines into two countries. The blue areas are islands, and the resulting red country would be literal swiss cheese, with very few people, little infrastructure, manufacturing or tech, and more land than they know what to do with.
Like it or not, the two sides are almost certainly stuck with each other. Better to make it work and acc
self-important politico larvae (Score:4, Insightful)
these folks are not elected to anything but believe that their association with those that are makes them somehow more qualified to know these things; not that being elected makes one qualified, but at least they have constituency offering some legitimacy
telling us they would know what's 'necessary' is so full of self-important grandiosity that if standing in front of me, I'd puke on them
folks that believe the world would fall apart without their lofty guidance are just the kind of bullshitters set for politics; the only change they envision is the day they can be the ones with some real aggrandization powers
Re: (Score:2)
these folks are not elected to anything but believe that their association with those that are makes them somehow more qualified to know these things; not that being elected makes one qualified, but at least they have constituency offering some legitimacy
Yes, the staffers that every congress person hires to research shit and know about things and who probably went to school to do exactly what they're doing are speaking out. You can make up whatever you want but congressional staffers probably know alot more about most issues then any of our congress people.
in other news (Score:5, Funny)
...the sorts of eager-beaver 1%er children who go to Ivy League schools and are well-connected enough (or willing to debase themselves enough) to get sweet congressional-staffer jobs are ALSO "super concerned about climate change!"
LOL, news at 11.
I need to find better numbers (Score:2)
In 2000 [wikipedia.org]:
In the year 2000, there were approximately 11,692 personal staff, 2,492 committee staff, 274 leadership staff, 5,034 institutional staff, and 3,500 GAO employees, 747 CRS employees, and 232 CBO employees.
Assuming that Congress has only grown fatter with staff, this letter endorsed by 200 staffers is statistically insignificant.
Emulate the EU, Kill Nuclear and go all in on Coal (Score:3, Insightful)
Putin must be laughing his ass off.
Oooh, staffers! (Score:2)
For Context... (Score:2)
For context, there are over 10,402 staffers working within Congress. Thus, just under 2% of the staffers felt compelled to initial a letter.
They should speak up. We should act more aggressively against climate change. But this is not news.
Pointless political theatre (Score:2)
Anything they pass will get outright repealed or otherwise undone after the midterm elections and/or when Trump gets reelected in 2024.
Re: (Score:2)
So... 2000 hundred staffers (Score:3)
Think they have more influence than the people who elected them?
Do I have that right?
Not that it shouldn't be done, but THAT is pretty arrogant. Considering the environemnt, not terribly surprising I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
both have shown a willingness too. The problem is 50 Republicans blocking everything.
50 Republicans can't block anything. Kamala Harris is the tiebreaking vote
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how it works with the filibuster. Anything short of 60 is the same as zero.
Yeah it is. (Score:3)
It's why they're probably going to win in the mid terms. Obstruction is an effective political strategy. Making Americans suffer is good politics. They blame the party that holds the Whitehouse. It's political terrorism. Not sure why we're all OK with it, especially since we're on the receiving end of that strategy. It's like the French cheering on Rommel.
Re:Pointless. (Score:5, Informative)
Anything that gets passed (unlikely anyway) will be appealed until it's in front of a heavily agenda driven, ultra partisan, super majority SCOTUS.
The court is there to decide what is and is not constitutional. That's their job.
Apparently you liked the decisions from prior courts, like Citizens United and Kelo vs New London.
And you don't like the ones from the current court which declare that the power to make laws belongs to the elected representatives.
That's a good question (Score:2)
I'm not sure I want to let it go, but I'm not sure I want to keep it either. At the very least the court was packed with partisans, and it needs to be expanded so we can unpack it.
Re: (Score:3)
it wasn't always the case that it was. Judicial review (basically a veto on any law they don't like) isn't in the constitution...
I'm not sure I want to let it go, but I'm not sure I want to keep it either. At the very least the court was packed with partisans, and it needs to be expanded so we can unpack it.
Everyone who doesn't like a decision says "The court is packed with partisans". You were fine when the balance was more to your liking, now you aren't.
As for expanding it, go ahead. And then the next administration will do it too.
Remember, the makeup of this court is the direct result of Harry Reid doing away with the judicial filibuster.
He was warned what would happen and went ahead anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
They've already demonstrated that is not what they're there to do. Directly lying to congress under oath.
Re: (Score:2)
They've already demonstrated that is not what they're there to do. Directly lying to congress under oath.
Also untrue. They all say they give great respect to prior decisions but are not bound by them.
Re:Pointless. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Supreme Court had been a joke to me forever - way before Kelo, which was egregious (and that land is still undeveloped), but at least they were a joke that followed their own rules regarding precedent. With the current group of talibangelicals running the show, they no longer even pretend to follow the law or the Constitution.
You can't read the text of the decisions and come away thinking that they aren't following the Constitution. WRT the Dobbs decision, the basis was that the earlier court overstepped their bounds in the Roe V Wade decision. The matter is now back in the hands of your elected representatives. Of course they are useless which is why pro-choice proponents were relying on the Court to create laws instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised how many haven't read the decision. It's simple to follow, and except for the references to earlier cases ( where I assume it says what they say) you can follow their logic fairly easily.
I'm not surprised. I've found that most people who are staunchly in favor of the Roe V Wade decision have never read that one either.
Re: (Score:3)
And you don't like the ones from the current court which declare that the power to make laws belongs to the elected representatives.
This has to be the most dishonest fuckery I've ever head. On behalf of all the women in the USA go fuck yourself with whatever gardening tool you find has the most painful end.
How typical for a man to decide he can speak "On behalf of all the women in the USA".
Be sure to tell them what to think and what it means to be a woman too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess: Cutting carbon emissions is the single, and only way to deal with global warming. No alternative will even be considered, let alone funded.
If I am correct, it's every man for himself.
Re: (Score:2)
You limited imagination is doom for us all.
Re: (Score:2)
Either that or you're being pathetically over he top
Re: (Score:2)