SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Gov't Oversight and Reform (Recommendations)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the final recommendation will require a vote on atleast two questions.

Perhaps we can split this topic, finish one and continue to debate the logistics of requiring the judges to post opinions on all cases and/or deliberating in public. We could include in our recommendation to the Judiciary committee that they pursue the details of this issue "draft opinions reform", with only a recommendation that the general idea be pursued.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think that the requirement for all judges to write opinions might be the only thing we can get public support for, at this point.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think we should get to a vote soon, though.  If possible, I'd like to schedule the Judiciary Committee's recommendation vote around the same time as this committee's recommendation vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Does the other member of this committee have any comments he would like to offer on the matter before we proceed to votes?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think we should get to a vote soon, though.  If possible, I'd like to schedule the Judiciary Committee's recommendation vote around the same time as this committee's recommendation vote.

I was under the impression that your committee would work out the details of the draft opinion issue for a period of time after we wrapped on the matter?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think we should get to a vote soon, though.  If possible, I'd like to schedule the Judiciary Committee's recommendation vote around the same time as this committee's recommendation vote.

I was under the impression that your committee would work out the details of the draft opinion issue for a period of time after we wrapped on the matter?

TJ and I kind of figured we may as well start with the court issue first and then move onto the next topic.  I didn't think that the time that we would work out the details would be a huge issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Alright I will start the vote on the recommendations then:

In opinion should the Supreme by expanded by the addition of two more members?
Please answer with Aye, Nay or Abstain

Should all the Supreme Court Justices be required to post opinions on each case considered by the court?
Please answer with Aye, Nay or Abstain


Ben can offer an final comments during the vote if he so desires.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

In opinion should the Supreme by expanded by the addition of two more members?
Nay.

Should all the Supreme Court Justices be required to post opinions on each case considered by the court?
Aye.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I think both suggestions will improve the Court; I continue to beat the drum for expansion, which I think will democratize the Court and lend legitimacy to its opinions.


In opinion should the Supreme by expanded by the addition of two more members?
Aye.

Should all the Supreme Court Justices be required to post opinions on each case considered by the court?
Aye.

[TJ in Oregon]

If I am allowed to vote here...

If we pursue both ideas, I would also suggest making them separate amendments so one does not doom the other.

In opinion should the Supreme by expanded by the addition of two more members?
Nay.

Should all the Supreme Court Justices be required to post opinions on each case considered by the court?
Aye.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If I am allowed to vote here...

If we pursue both ideas, I would also suggest making them separate amendments so one does not doom the other.

In opinion should the Supreme by expanded by the addition of two more members?
Nay.

Should all the Supreme Court Justices be required to post opinions on each case considered by the court?
Aye.

You're not allowed to vote in committees that you aren't a member of.

The Judiciary Committee could possibly be voting on something right now, though.

[TJ in Oregon]

I apologize for forgetting Scott is on both committees. I also question the usefulness of having two committees discuss in different threads the same thing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I apologize for forgetting Scott is on both committees. I also question the usefulness of having two committees discuss in different threads the same thing.

That wasn't suppose to happen. I anticipated that both would discuss at most, different aspects of the same issue, but not 100% the same things.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In opinion should the Supreme by expanded by the addition of two more members?
Nay.

Should all the Supreme Court Justices be required to post opinions on each case considered by the court?
Aye.
 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The committee has decided not to recommend expansion of the court by 2 members, but has unanimously decided to recommend requiring that all Supreme Court Justices write opinions on each court case.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We can proceed with my intended goal of deliberating the effect or lack thereof of recent economic policies on the general economy, or we can deviate quickly to a topic relating to these committees directly and thus discuss Ben's Contempt legislation?

What do the committee members think about this?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think it would be more appropriate to discuss Ben's legislation while it's still on the queue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The current order of business is the introduced legislations below. We also need to consider not only the necessity of the measure, but the appropriate punitive measures as well if we are going to determine it is essential. We might want to consider looking into any present legislation on the matter, detailing the punishments to be dold out for violations.

The Contempt of Congress Act

1.  Any government official summoned before a Congressional Committee to testify and fails to without providing an excuse deemed legitimate by the Committee shall be charged with contempt of Congress.

2.  If the Senate votes to hold the official in contempt, he shall be subject to impeachment.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think this act is appropriate.  Obviously, we don't really have ways of "fining" or "jailing" officials who refuse to testify, and as harsh as the penalty may be, it's probably necessary.

My only suggestion is that maybe, if such a situation arises in which a private citizen is called to testify and they refuse, their voting rights be rescinded for a period of time?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Gentlemen,

This legislation's purpose is to prevent members of the executive branch from refusing to cooperate with a Senate committee.  While the punishment may seem harsh, it is necessary given our lack of an alternative.  Regarding Scott's concern, I would suggest adding a penalty of a four month voting ban for private citizens.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So as I see it now, the recommendation vote will concern two questions. The act itself and whether or not to recommend adding a voting ban as well. Is this all the considerations?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think that's all that's necessary, yeah.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay we are now voting on recommendations:


In your opinion, should the Contempt of Congress Act, or similar legislation be enacted into law to provide punishments for non-compliance with requests by the Senate for testimony?
Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Should language be added extending the application of the act to non officeholders by including a ban on voting? Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

1. Aye
2. Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In your opinion, should the Contempt of Congress Act, or similar legislation be enacted into law to provide punishments for non-compliance with requests by the Senate for testimony?
Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

Should language be added extending the application of the act to non officeholders by including a ban on voting? Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye