Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

[Final-Fan]

SpokenTruth said:

irstupid said:

I'm sure a shit ton of laws have been passed that weren't read by a many congressman. THere are also just as many passed that have stipulations or mutliple things in. I HATE that. You know the whole, we want this law passed, but the dems or reps won't vote yes unless they also add this to the law. Wish that was illegal. Each law/bill/ect shoudl be voted on it solely.

But only one I can think of that flat out was like "you can read it when it's passed" was AIA. Any others were just lack of care, imo, on congressmen. The dems just wanted to make sure the AIA got passed before they lost the numbers to pass it.

That too.  Slipping in a bunch of unrelated laws in a big omnibus bill while focusing on only one main issue is rather nefarious. 

41 states of single-subject laws which ensure every vote is solely for one single issue at a time.  I wish that were a federal rule too.

Pelosi's "Lets pass it so we can see what's inside" is the biggest, most brash admission I can think of.  I've heard another congressman admit during an interview that they often do not read what they vote on but I don't recall who it was.  I'll see if I can track it down.

I agree on the general point you guys are making but I have to question the specific example you are using.  As I recall I looked into this and that quote was taken out of context (what a shock).  Pelosi was responding to all the doom and gloom Republicans were saying, death panels etc.  She was saying, look, none of that stuff is true but they're never going to believe me, so we have to pass it and the results will speak for themselves.  In other words, it wasn't that the text was unknown but that the text's interpretation was being disputed. 

If I'm misremembering the quote, or if there's a different quote closer to the meaning you ascribe, let me know. 

Last edited by Final-Fan - on 08 October 2018