SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to Reuters and The Washington Post:
Two of the Democratic Party’s biggest wins last month occurred in Wisconsin and Michigan, where their candidates won gubernatorial elections, unseating a well-known incumbent in the former and flipping the seat in the latter. In anticipation of having to work with a Democratic governor, state lawmakers are aiming to hurriedly pass legislation that would dilute the executives' powers.
The moves in both states have drawn comparisons to Republican efforts in NC in 2016, when lawmakers pushed through legislation limiting the authority of the state’s Democratic governor, after he defeated the incumbent Republican.
The proposals include preventing the incoming governor from withdrawing Wisconsin from a legal challenge to the federal Affordable Care Act, sidestepping the attorney general’s power to represent the state in litigation and rescheduling a 2020 election to boost the chances of a Republican state Supreme Court Justice, among others.
U.S. Republicans and Democrats have a history of using lame-duck sessions to advance priorities ahead of power shifts. Wisconsin Democrats in 2010 unsuccessfully tried to push through public union contracts after Walker won election while promising to get tough with organized labor.
Meanwhile, in Utah, lawmakers are getting ready to meet in a special lame-duck session on Monday (Dec 3rd) to rewrite a medical marijuana law that voters passed this November. Patient advocates are saying the move is an end run around voters.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hyperturtle on Tuesday December 04 2018, @03:41PM (1 child)
Ok. No arguments there. There are often situations of excessive power in government that us voters can do little to reign in except to hope for change that often doesn't happen the way we hoped.
Unfortunately, the real problem is that it was only when they no longer were they were able to retain control of such power, that they used the same power to limit the incoming administration ability to exercise the same controls that the incumbant party enjoyed.
That is wrong no matter what side of the aisle one is on.
The voters have to decide this. Not sore losers. And don't get me wrong. There are probably more Democrat party chuckleheads than Republican ones. But this is a major jerk move. If Republicans were truly for small government (at least in this specific case), they'd have done this to themselves previously and affected their ability to govern--and due to they being the ones to cut the strings shorter and tie the knots tighter, they'd have certainly done it in a positive and well-thought out fashion.
This is neither positive or well-thought out.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @04:38PM
Yup, which is a good argument for changing who's in power regularly. That way they're all constantly taking turns removing powers from the other side. Eventually regular old people might end up with a government lacking the power to screw them over too bad.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.