We can't have Lame Duck GOP Senators voting on bills when clearly they no longer represent the voice of the people (which we know because elections take place this year). Lawmaking is far too important a matter to be legitimized by votes not four but six years ago. Surely we can expect them to obediently step aside and not carry out their Constitutional duties until the voters have a chance to confirm who they truly want to be doing them next year.
What do you say, Mitch?
79 view(s)
I would be really delighted if a majority of those 24 spots were replaced by someone rational.
Sounds logical, if thy don't want to live up to their responsibility to vote on a judicial appointment. They should resign, including the ones not up for re-election
+Heather Berson You'll like this one.
I could see this message backfiring… They'll call our bluff and not work.
Ugh – don't they know what the definition of lame duck is???
Lame Duck is period between result of General Election and the nomination of the new President. for clarity
+Jon Weber Well, it's not like they've been accomplishing much more than big, showy bills to drum up support in November …
+Heather Berson Philipp is technically correct. It's a bit more subjective of a thing, though — the idea is that, as a politician reaches the end of their term and isn't going to be running again, their influence tends to decrease (e.g., "We can ignore what he says because he won't be here in a few weeks / months"). Some folk, for example, consider all of a president's second term as being a lame duck period; others after the previous bi-annual election, still others in the last several months of the term, or even just in the period after the election but before the next swearing in.
+Dave Hill I see what you're saying, but I think that's ridiculous. With that "second term" definition you can say that, then, about a first term of a presidency too since who knows if there will be a second one. I learned that the definition is after a new President (or whatever) is elected, but before that new person is actually inaugurated. That actually makes a bit of sense. But come on – when Scalia died Obama had more than 11 months until the next prez is inaugurated. That is not close to lame duck, by any definition. And if it were, then that's a sad state for politics. What about representatives who only get two years? By that definition only half of their terms would be non-lame duck.
+Heather Berson That's the point being made by the joke at the front of this post. 😁
Well, the post talks about senators who have a 6 year term. At least that would only be 1/6 of their term (as opposed to the representatives where it would be 1/2).
But the argument made by GOP Senators goes beyond Lame Duckiness, but to the idea that we're so close to an election that the previous election no longer counts as representing the Voice of the People — specifically, that Obama's election to President (twice) is no longer valid in some abstract sense insofar as allowing him to nominate a new Justice.
If that's the case, then Senators who are even further from their last election should be even less "valid" in their Constitutional duties.
If I muddied the water by using the "Lame Duck" descriptor, my apologies.