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: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @12:31PM (4 children)
Why should the fool have has weighty a voice as the scholar?
The answer to society's ill's is Freedom; voluntary trade; capitalism.
Everything you think requires a State, well, doesn't.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday December 04 2018, @01:37PM (2 children)
Why not? Is the scholar a fool as well? Do we have some sort of foolproof way to determine who are the fools?
Democracy helps out a lot with these things.
Bread and circuses as the obvious counterexample. When you have a bunch of people who are willing to sacrifice all those "answers" for fear, greed, envy, etc, you need something to keep them busy.
(Score: 1) by fritsd on Tuesday December 04 2018, @04:45PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday December 05 2018, @03:37PM
"Remember, Russia is a democracy. Iran is a democracy. America is a republic." Fox News.
The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings ALL states, especially the smaller ones, into play.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @02:32PM
Emacs! Emacs! Emacs!
If not now, when?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @12:38PM (1 child)
I guess you could call it the best government money can buy...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday December 05 2018, @03:44PM
So true! I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. And they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.
But Crooked Hillary's campaign spent much more money than mine did. And she lost MASSIVELY. Because she's a CROOK. With NO PERSONALITY -- ZERO!!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 04 2018, @12:55PM (26 children)
In before the usual Repugnican apologists start trying to distract attention away yet another display of right-wing contempt with lame whatabouts and diversions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 04 2018, @01:32PM (2 children)
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @02:15PM (1 child)
Wow, you've got the "In before" right from the first try.
I'd use the "genital" word but, albeit close, I have this feeling it's not quite the meaning to describe the brilliancy of your mind.
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday December 04 2018, @02:46PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @02:08PM (14 children)
You're going to take this as apologist talk but decreasing the power of the Executive is rarely a bad thing, regardless of why. They currently have way, way too much.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @03:18PM (2 children)
Too bad they're only ever doing this when it's the other guy that sits in the executive chair.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @03:29PM
Right but everybody is the other guy to someone.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 04 2018, @04:24PM
(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.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @06:26PM (5 children)
The corrupt toad in the White House does illustrate your point. No one man should have that much power, because a really bad man was bound to come along and get the worst of us to vote for him.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @06:40PM (4 children)
It's not bad men you should be afraid of. Good men with the best of intentions are far more terrifying.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tibman on Tuesday December 04 2018, @09:26PM (3 children)
That's silly. A good person could be reasoned with and accept they screwed up. Could even attempt to undo damage. A bad person who intentionally does bad things really doesn't care. Will deny they did anything wrong. Will abuse power to cover up any visible damage.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @10:07PM (2 children)
When was the last time you tried to reason with someone who felt morally obligated to do something for your own good? I ask this because clearly you have not been paying attention to politics for the past several decades.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @11:36PM
Very few people have the same "everyone should literally have total freedom" attitude you do. Just so you know that makes you sound like a moron, psychopath, or whatever falls in between.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday December 05 2018, @12:51AM
You said:
Then you said:
The one is not like the other. People who feel "morally obligated" tend to be very bad, not good at all except perhaps in their own minds (IOW, characterizing one's self as "good" does not make it so.) Witness just about every "sin" law ever made. Made by people who were not good, but rather evil types with devastating intent and ability to control and meddle with the lives, agency, and independence of others.
So no: it is the bad people we have to worry about. The good ones don't interfere with anyone else until someone gets right in their faces, at which point, it's outright self-defense.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday December 04 2018, @06:46PM (2 children)
The problem here is that it's a zero sum power shift (as I understand it). I'm all for less government power, but in this case it's just executive power that is being usurped by the legislature. Now that may be a good thing, but it doesn't sound legitimate in context.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @10:09PM (1 child)
The legislature is less dangerous. They have built-in disagreeability within themselves. One man who knows what he wants is astoundingly more dangerous and should only be given the bare minimum necessary power.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05 2018, @01:32AM
Not in WI they are not. We are so gerrymandered that the legislature is far less accountable than the AG or Gov. Those two (actually all state-wide GOP posts) flipped to the Dems, but the GOP is still 2:1 in the assembly.
Once again TMB's knee jerk ideological purity flounders on the shores of reality. Maybe one of these days you'll realize sometimes situations are different.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @02:11PM
How about straight up dishonesty in reporting. The Utah medical marijuana discussions were already being worked on in the legislature before the election and were expected to pass regardless of the outcome of the election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @02:27PM (3 children)
These so-called 'voters' should be at home mending their children. Ideally the department of child services should check the home of every voter to ensure child safety as they vote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @02:40PM (2 children)
Is that you legont [soylentnews.org]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @03:29PM (1 child)
Thought the same. I prefer to darn my children.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @09:11PM
You reap what you sew.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @03:57PM (2 children)
Lovely. GreatAuntAlzheimers jumps in with both feet immediately proclaiming "Repugnican apologists" while dismissing the same behavior of its preferred side as whataboutism. This is the new get-out-of-jail-free card that the leftards jump to play whenever their own actions and policies are replicated by those they despise. These days, it is only slightly less preferred to their all time favorite, the race card and reaching parity to their rising star, the Nazi card. It is truly despicable when they excuse their own only to point fingers across the aisle and accuse their opponents.
Ivanka Trump/Hillary Clinton
Bret Kavanaugh/Keith Ellison
Even that biased right wing fake news propaganda machine, NPR, this morning had a story where an academic admitted that Democrats are as guilty as Republicans of these horrible actions. Sheesh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @08:23PM (1 child)
National Public Radio is now right wing?!? When did this happen? Are you posting from a parallel Universe? What is the color of the sky in your world? Or was this intended as sarcasm?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @10:11PM
He forgot his <sarc> tags. It was obvious from context, so you must have skimmed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Tuesday December 04 2018, @03:34PM (15 children)
Just as we've seen the voting thresholds in deliberative bodies moved around depending on who is/will be in power. Gerrymandering and other techniques to make sure the will of the people is supreme only if it agrees with the powers that be. See this past presidential primary and whether Bernie voters were screwed out of their vote...
(I'm not excusing it, just pointing out that it's snafu)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @03:46PM
this is what i came to post. the whole point of the state legislature is to deny the people justice and con them out of their rights. in texas the republicans champion scam licensing schemes that steal your god given rights while the brainwashed idiots love their new pieces of government paper. modern legislators are gatekeepers for the scum destroying the nations of the world. hopefully people will figure this out before it's too late, but it's not looking good.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by schad on Tuesday December 04 2018, @03:49PM (13 children)
The story here is about two issues where the submitter is trying to draw a relationship, but where I'm not sure one exists.
In the case of Utah, it seems clear that the legislature is, in fact, going against the will of the voters. Or at least, trying as hard as it can not to go along with the will of the voters.
In the other cases, remember that it's not just the governor who's elected by the people. The legislatures are too. Legislatures are, in fact, considerably more representative and democratic than the executive offices (which are winner-take-all). I think it's a little dishonest to say that the governor more properly reflects the will of the voters, and therefore that a legislature acting against the governor is somehow going against the will of the voters.
When the same party controls both the legislative and executive branches, you will see the legislature delegating more power to the executive. This is because of what I said earlier: the legislature is more representative and democratic. This makes it harder for them to push through their agenda, especially when it's got strong opposition. Far easier to let the governor rule like a king. This way, if you lose the legislature, the governor can still advance your agenda through executive order. If, on the other hand, you lose the governorship, it's time for the legislature to step in and strip as many powers as possible. Really, the only way to lose is if you lose both branches in the same election.
And rather than merely being cynical politics, there are strong indications that this is exactly what the American people want. How many people were calling for Obama to make sweeping changes by executive order due to an obstructionist Congress? How many people are calling for Trump to do the same thing now? How many people do you think maintained a consistent position regarding executive powers between the two administrations?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday December 04 2018, @04:08PM (1 child)
It's a laugh a minute here where posters who claim not to be Republican voters post in support of Republicans politicians.
These legislatures are not representative because of heavy gerrymandering in those states, which mean that Republicans get more seats than Democrats with fewer total votes.
(Score: 2) by schad on Wednesday December 05 2018, @08:42PM
That means that the legislature is less representative than it should be. It doesn't mean it's less representative than the executive branch, which is almost always stocked exclusively with members of the governor's party.
Of all the things I said, I never thought that "a branch of government that represents only a single party is not very representative" would turn out to be the controversial part.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stretch611 on Tuesday December 04 2018, @04:43PM (1 child)
I admit you do have an interesting point. However...
These actions are being held in lame duck sessions. These are legislative items that were not formed in committees before the lame duck session, not requested by the public and lets face it, they were never even considered until the group in power lost some of their power.
If while in office, the current governor makes legislative choices that the people do not like. The people vote to change governors; well, the state congress benefited from those choices and decide to change the law to allow only themselves to make the choice, not the governor. This goes against the will of the people.
Also, some people actually like it when the Governor and State Congress (or President and US Congress) are controlled by two different political parties... It forces compromise so that the ideology of one party is not forced on all of the voters. This compromise will never happen if one branch of government rewrites all the existing laws to remove the power (and forced balance) of the other branch.
When considered against these points, IMO, it is difficult to see these as anything but an end run around the will of the public.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @06:45PM
I'm one of them. Best case scenario by my way of thinking is having the legislative branch in opposition to the executive but not quite so strongly that they can easily override a veto. And for both branches to switch which party holds the advantage every single term of the executive.
I want both parties to be so terrified of the other party ever gaining enough control in the executive that they wouldn't dream of handing it any more power and would reduce its current power at every opportunity.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by taylormc on Tuesday December 04 2018, @06:50PM (7 children)
To a Brit, many aspects of US politics are surprising. On the one hand, there seems to be nothing like an independent Civil Service; most appointments under a new government are party political.
On the other hand, you permit those who have been voted out of office a free run to commit what mischief they choose for a couple of months, in the sure and certain knowledge that they will not be the ones who have to pick up the pieces afterwards.
I'm not sure what to make of this dichotomy.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 04 2018, @09:44PM (3 children)
I live under a Westminster system as well, and it amazes me how our American friends just seem to accept that there can only be two political parties.
300 million of them, and they can only muster two parties? The UK has 8 parties, plus some independents, and even my own tiny country of ~4 million can manage to get 5 parties going.
I think what happened was the ruling class in the US decided two parties are easy to control, so why let any more get power?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @10:14PM (1 child)
That's more or less accurate if you define the ruling class as a fairly nebulous group primarily made up of politicians, intelligence agencies, and bureaucrats.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 04 2018, @11:12PM
I was defining the ruling class as the owners of the industry groups and corporations that fund the political class in the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05 2018, @07:03PM
that's why i vote 3rd party every time. unfortunately, there are only 2% americans left...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @10:17PM (1 child)
See, from our point of view, having a branch of government not answering to The People is a non-starter. That doesn't keep everything but the agency heads and maybe a deputy or two from being non-appointed, non-elected bureaucrats though. I never said we made complete sense...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05 2018, @01:36AM
What the hell country do you live in? It sure as hell isn't the US. Our government answers to the campaign donors.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday December 05 2018, @01:20AM
Agree - it's just insane to let the losers set fire to everything afterward. My country uses the Westminster system too, and all legislative change is frozen from the moment an election is called until the new elected officials start. Makes sense!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 04 2018, @07:07PM
Since Obama was a Dem and Trump is a Rep, I think many people maintained a consistent position of "I want my party to do stuff and the other one to not."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday December 04 2018, @04:27PM (7 children)
They keep on reelecting people that will take it away. They could have voted for a matching set of democrats to go with their new governor, but they didn't. The system works!
However, the lame duck period should be no longer than a couple of weeks. Less money and furniture is stolen that way, but people have to vote for that also.
The voters have all the power they collectively want.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pipedwho on Tuesday December 04 2018, @09:26PM (5 children)
Lame duck sessions should not exist at all. You fire an employee, he leaves the building and his login credentials are revoked then and there. Maybe you let him clean his desk, but if he looks sideways, security is called and escort him out with a box full of the shit left on his desk. You don't let him mill about on the network to 'tidy a few things up' before he goes.
WTF is this bullshit that an outgoing politician can enact laws and make far reaching administerial changes after they've been 'axed'. That's like firing a network admin, and then giving him a week with full administrator access to all systems with no repercussions for anything he does. This Utah 'lame duck' session is equivalent of an outgoing admin changing all the network passwords, installing a bunch of rootkits and backdoors, and transferring the ownership and access of the corporate domain and dns records to his own name - with legal impunity.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @10:21PM (4 children)
So, you're wanting everyone who runs for President to have an entire staff and cabinet who already know intimately how things around the Whitehouse work hired before they even know if they've won the election?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2018, @10:58PM
We could cripple the lame duck. Surely they could be "in office" in case we need one (if something catastrophic happens) but remove most of their power - no new legislation, etc.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday December 05 2018, @01:25AM
You are implying that it's necessary for legislation to be passed 24/7/365. In most democracies, there is a transition period to allow the new team to get up to speed. Much of the public service is also independent of party politics - the machinery of government continues and changes course only when directed. Key legislation can be passed surprisingly quickly - particularly if it has been discussed at length during the election campaign (rather than purely playing identity politics during this period).
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday December 05 2018, @05:40AM
You dissolve the legislature before the election and recall it after the election. No laws are passed and the executive just does caretaking duties to keep things running and in between the election and the new government getting sworn in, the old consults with the new on anything out of the ordinary.
Once the will of the people is obvious, the government should follow that will and even when it isn't obvious, the government shouldn't do anything controversial until the counting is over.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday December 05 2018, @07:39PM
Why not, right? I did. I just pick the best person for the job. I only hire all the best people. apply.whitehouse.gov [whitehouse.gov]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dry on Wednesday December 05 2018, @05:30AM
The legislature should be dissolved at the start of the election period and recalled after the election is over.