“Just say aye,” Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Patty Murray repeatedly pleaded to Feinstein during the vote. Eventually, Feinstein did just that.

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday appeared confused and attempted to deliver a longer speech during a Senate hearing, the latest in a string of episodes that have raised further questions about her ability to continue serving in office.

“Just say aye,” Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Patty Murray repeatedly pleaded with her colleague.

Instead of a short reply, Feinstein began her response by saying, “I would like to support a yes vote on this, it provides $823 billion …” As the California Democrat continued to speak, an aide also intervened to try to remind the lawmaker that this was not the time for speeches.

“OK,” Feinstein then said as Murray reminded her one final time to “just say aye.” “Aye,” she finally said.

[article continues]

  • joe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I know what your goal is an applaud it, but have you taken any time to consider what unintended consequences this might have? Like, lots of people say stuff like “people who work in Congress should get minimum wage” and that sounds great, until you realize that the stance plays out to only allowing financially independent people to hold office. Is there any concern with, in your mind, with linking an intelligence test with being a representative, in a country that has routinely deprioritized the education of minorities?

    • DrYes@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not the OP. I can easily imagine a test that, if someone cannot pass it, I can clearly say they shouldn’t be representatives. While still weeding out cases like Feinstein.

      Might there be problems with people who have the knowledge but have problems with the process of being tested? Maybe. But maybe those people also shouldn’t be representatives. I don’t know enough about the causes of test fright to be confident on that.

      • joe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can easily imagine a test that, if someone cannot pass it, I can clearly say they shouldn’t be representatives. While still weeding out cases like Feinstein.

        Why are you sure about this? Do you think her issue is a lack of education/knowledge?

        But maybe those people also shouldn’t be representatives.

        I’m sure you mean well, but this is a very dangerous sentence. What if the body or person that ends up with final say on the test has some thoughts on what a representative should or should not know, and those thoughts don’t match yours? Like, in an extreme hypothetical, imagine if someone like Tucker Carlson had some input on what questions to ask and what answers to accept. What kind of person would that test filter out?

        In a perfect world, a knowledge test requirement to be a representative isn’t a terrible idea, but in a perfect world, it also wouldn’t be needed, and most importantly, we are definitely not in a perfect world.

        • blivet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why are you sure about this? Do you think her issue is a lack of education/knowledge?

          Exactly. From what the article says, the remarks she was attempting to deliver were accurate and on point. She was momentarily disoriented as to what particular action the Senate was engaged in at that time.