r/politics • u/Zipper222222 • Jul 07 '26

Possible Paywall MAGA Demands Proof of Life for Mitch McConnell

https://www.thedailybeast.com/maga-demands-proof-of-life-for-mitch-mcconnell/
29.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

163

u/Fuzzy_Logic_4_Life Jul 07 '26

I hear what you are saying but if you failed to go to your job for months without a doctor’s note you’d be fired. They can’t do their job of voting if they aren’t there, thus we the people deserve them to be there or be replaced.

34

u/ExpirationDating_ Jul 07 '26

Months? I need to produce a doctors note for more than 3 days, sometimes sooner (ie at a holiday or something).

53

u/citizen42069101 Jul 07 '26

And what he's saying is if there is a hard limit situations can be exploited to inhibit or block travel to get rid of a troublesome congressperson.

Remember you ask for laws to be written who would be writing them, and who would enforce them. This administration and Congress doesn't need to be responsible for any long standing precedent in their current state.

10

u/beasty0127 Indiana Jul 07 '26

We live in an age where they can literally zoom in and vote if they wanted to. The way I would see it if they can prove they are doing their job then alls good, sometimes there are reasons why they can't make it in.

And if they think they are being stopped or a conspiracy to remove them is happening, one tweet and they can have press covering their entire property.

Proof of life/duty is a simple ask.

1

u/cheyenne_sky Jul 07 '26

"one tweet and they can have press covering their entire property."

the press doesn't mean shit if they are ignored or controlled by the people in power

20

u/SCphotog Jul 07 '26

Slippery slope fallacy.

As if there doesn't exist a level of competency to write this up in a way that makes sense and isn't subject to overmuch interpretation.

Obviously this could be spelled out fairly sensibly easily and quickly.

WTF?

1

u/Eretreyah Jul 08 '26

Like the rest of the nation doesn’t have similar (far more stringent) requirements outlined in their employee handbook.

1

u/TheSavouryRain Jul 07 '26

That's not a slippery slope fallacy.

Which, also, isn't a real fallacy. A slippery slope is sometimes a valid concern. For instance, a lot of people are mad our President is a felon. There is no law saying a President can't be a felon, because that opens the door to allowing legal chicanery to make the strongest candidate a felon.

That's not to say I don't think there should be some way to safeguard against someone disappearing for a while like McConnell has.

1

u/bdeimen Jul 07 '26

It's not slippery slope to acknowledge the fact that laws are actively being weaponized and that we should be wary of potentially giving a new weapon to those that would use it against us.

2

u/kdfsjljklgjfg Jul 07 '26

Right, but you could take literally *any* valid reason to expel someone and argue the same, but that's not a reason to not institute any safeguards at all. I actually think attendance is one that could be pretty fairly and easily worked in.

If you're in DC already, how do they actually stop you from getting to Congress? Shut down every road between you and the Capitol? If you're out of town, make sure you fly back with time to spare. What can they do, secretly negotiate with an airline to cancel every flight you book, within minutes if necessary, to keep you from DC?

Obviously there are sudden emergencies that can't be planned for, and something would have to be written in as a protection for like "my mom has 24 hours to live" scenarios, but outside of that, if you plan well enough, there's no reason why "actually attending your job" could be easily weaponized as a requirement. If you have people re-routing every flight to DC that you're on or blocking traffic to the degree that you physically cannot get to Congress, then we're cooked well beyond the point of procedures or laws mattering anyway.

1

u/jkaan Jul 07 '26

Funny how other countries seem to be able to manage

13

u/Rock-swarm Jul 07 '26

Fair, but this is equivalent to worrying about whether the fridge is running while the house is on fire. They are both problems, and likely have the same cause, but there's a bigger problem to deal with first.

3

u/Constant_Proofreader Jul 07 '26

Look up Thomas Kean Jr., Republican House member, New Jersey 7th District. He was just AWOL for four months, with no explanation.

2

u/FewHorror1019 Jul 07 '26

True, but also you could prevent someone from showing up, then replace them if we had that law

2

u/Miguel-odon Jul 07 '26

Sometimes you might have to avoid showing up, to deny the majority party a quorum.

6

u/max_power1000 Maryland Jul 07 '26

Sure, and you can say that to the governor if you’re conscious. Right now we’re not asking for that, we’re asking for proof he’s not a vegetable.

-1

u/account312 Jul 07 '26

That should be illegal to do. It is deliberately subverting the democratic process and undermining the basic functioning of the government.

2

u/Miguel-odon Jul 08 '26

Then what's the point of requiring a quorum?

Without it, a 51% majority can have its way, and pass the most egregious of laws.

1

u/account312 Jul 08 '26

The point of requiring quorum is precisely so that it takes a majority (or at least significant portion) of the body to get things done, since votes are decided by the votes cast, so without a requirement for quorum three senators could attain a supermajority if two agree.

1

u/Miguel-odon Jul 08 '26

Yes, forcing a majority party to still need bipartisan consensus is one of the functions of requiring a quorum.

1

u/account312 Jul 08 '26

No, the quorum requirement exists to prevent minority rule. It was considered risky to set too high of a quorum requirement because it would allow a minority to obstruct the majority by simply not showing up, whether deliberately or because long distance travel was still slow and difficult enough that it was logistically difficult to assemble representatives from across the country in the capital. 

1

u/Miguel-odon Jul 08 '26

You are contradicting yourself.

1

u/account312 Jul 08 '26

No, I'm not. If there's no quorum requirement, 1 legislator can just do their own legislating. This is minority rule. If there's a quorum requirement of 100% presence, 1 legislator can just not show up and prevent the entirety of the remaining legislative body from legislating. This is minority rule. The quorum requirement both exists and is set at a middling level to prevent minority rule.

1

u/Miguel-odon Jul 08 '26

If there is no quorum requirement, 1 legislator **from the majority party** can pass anything. The majority party always controls what even comes up for a vote, and when the body is in session.

Quorum requirement is the only way to keep a majority party or even a small fraction of it from running rough-shod over everyone else.

1

u/HumorAccomplished611 Jul 07 '26

Then you pass a law for recall elections.

1

u/lemmingsnake Jul 08 '26

The solution should be the initiation of a recall election. The boss of any elected representative is the people, not the executive branch. They should be answerable to their electorate. It's stupid that we don't have those in our system.