this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
573 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18967 readers
3716 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley on Thursday called the Senate “the most privileged nursing home in the country.”

In response to a question about Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) apparently freezing up on Wednesday while taking questions in Covington, Ky., Haley said on Fox News that the Kentucky senator has “done some great things, and he deserves credit,” but emphasized that “you have to know when to leave.”

““No one should feel good about seeing that any more than we should feel good about seeing Dianne Feinstein, any more than we should feel good about a lot of what’s happening or seeing Joe Biden’s decline,” Haley said. “What I will say is, right now, the Senate is the most privileged nursing home in the country.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Benching Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are her motive for starters, and there are a lot more that are only a few years younger: this isn't about age nearly as much as it's about freeing influence and power from a handful of titans on the D side.

It's also about pushing the Senate closer to R control, and making it easier to target Dianne Feinstein by removing any whataboutery involving Mitch McConnell. In his own right, Mitch McConnell is also an albatross to many in his own party, so for them this is two birds with one stone.

But either way, the problem with putting in absolute age limits is that the longer you're in Congress (either house) the more power you accrue, and when you're good anyway this gives you the potential to be spectacularly good, and to push through legislation for average Americans that would not be accomplished otherwise, like Ted Kennedy did for Obamacare.

Another example would be Elizabeth Warren, who created the CFPB, which gives average consumers much more leverage than the usual thoughts and prayers when dealing with big banks. Because she had the seniority and committee assignments she had for as long as she did, she was able to force this through and keep it alive despite MASSIVE pressure from big banks (big donors on both sides) to shoot it down or kneecap its power in any way they could think of. And that's just another example of what an older, long-term Senator can do for the people. In the House, Nancy Pelosi is another example of the power and influence an older legislator can accrue, and wield for the good of the country if they are true to their oaths.

In light of that, to me, it should be up to each party to cap a particular legislator's age on a case-by-case basis, because the chronological number just isn't enough anymore, especially now when there are razor thin margins involved in the balance of power in both houses of Congress. It can be done responsibly without ceding any power: for example, when Ted Kennedy was sick, he simply had other senators fill his committee assignments. John McCain was another who was ill for a long time. This does not have to be an issue, and in the past it would not be. But now it's just another convenient target to shoot down all obstacles to a bicameral majority.

It's also worth remembering that just like with the double-faced R approach to Supreme Court nominations, if age-based term limits were passed the Rs would simply carve out exceptions for whoever they wanted while continuing to insist on adherence to the letter of the law for anyone else. Same as it ever was.