you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

There's a difference between voting in a block, and literally passing/interpreting legislation to expand powers of another branch at the expense of your own.

If you vote in a block, you still have your vote. If you pass laws saying actually you can do whatever you want without a law saying you can, you just took your own vote out of the equation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There's a difference between voting in a block, and literally passing/interesting legislation to expand powers of another branch at the expense of your own.

    Not really. As soon as people are told they have to vote for what the party wants instead of each person individually voting as they believe, then it's just a matter of where you draw the line. If your party's leader is president then why wouldn't you just fall in line and pass everything he wants. If you're a judge and your party's president is in office, why wouldn't you try to find legal justification for everything he wants. Why should there be party infighting between the president and the head of the house? Surely the house should just fall in line and let the President get his agenda passed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Because parties change power? And you end up setting precedent that is used against you? Not to mention the voting part is literally part of the job they are paid and elected to do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment