Friday, September 26, 2014

If you're against this lame duck, be against all lame ducks

Why shouldn't he? I mean, other than because the people who are determined to oppose whoever he nominates wouldn't like it.

I get the idea that a lame duck Congress is not as accountable as a Congress that is not lame. But that is a problem with everything that a lame duck Congress does. It is not particular to Senate confirmation votes on attorney general nominees. In other words, that is not an argument against holding a confirmation vote for Eric Holder's successor during the upcoming lame duck session. It is an argument for Congress to not hold a lame duck session at all.

If the lame duck's lack of accountability bothers Chuck Grassley and Ted Cruz, then they should press for a new Congressional calendar that cuts out lame duck sessions entirely. That is something they could do. They could keep Congress in recess for the entire period between election day and swearing in day, and/or they can make swearing in day come sooner (the latter would require a constitutional amendment). But as long as there is a lame duck session, Congress should do something during those sessions. Why is a cabinet confirmation vote different than anything else they might do?