There has always been a debate about whether reps are elected to exercise judgment or elected to be weathervanes. And even if you subscribe to the second school of thought, surely you would agree that common sense takes precedence over being a weathervane in situations where the consequences of being a weathervane are potentially catastrophic.

That's quite an elitist take.

Personally, I want my politicians to do exactly what I want. When they know what I want, they should vote exactly what I want. And when they don't know, they may use their judgement with my best interest in mind.

Politicians, particularly Representatives, if they are not doing that, they are not doing their job.

If you were a representative, and your constituents wanted you to do something that you believed was unethical, illegal, or would have catastrophic consequences, what would you do?

And don't say that you would resign and let your seat get filled by someone who was willing to do what the constituents want. That's a copout.

Essentially, if I disagree with my constituents, I would give it a shot at trying to convince\brainwash them to my way of thinking. If that completely fails. Well, if the issue at hand is of critical importance, then they are now my enemies. And I will try to stay in power as long as I can so I can get my way in, while screwing my constituents over.

Just saw your edit. Lol at re-signing. Only the honorable (and stupid) Ned Stark would do that.

(but errrrbody did have to die first)

Perhaps acting normal appears elitist to deplorables.

It sounds like you don't believe that reps should mindlessly do whatever their constituents want them to do.

So what is your plan when 250k constituents of the 480k in your district want to succeed from the U.S. and you have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the U.S?

Keep giving your baby the cocaine it craves of course!

That is how you can fascism real quick.

In my view they 'represent' the constituents not as automatons who even if told to do something illegal must comply, but as independent officials chosen by the people to apply their judgement to issues based on what they presented during the election as their beliefs and principles.

Just as i think lawyers should not cross lines in defending their clients to the unethical or illegal, so to do I think Representatives should have the same lines.


They must review the Law, The Constitution and the Will of the Voters and weight them all accordingly and act on the best blending of the above.

If your view was the correct one then I would say they should get rid of any swearing that adds 'faithfulness to the law and Constitution' and simply says 'loyalty to the Constituents'.

BTW that is Trumps views of any he puts in power. Loyalty to him only with no regards for anything else.

I'm losing respect for you with these shallow one liners. They don't even make sense and has so many presumptions.

Reps are humans. They have their own opinions and judgements. They will do what is in their OWN best self interest. I'm describing here and not prescribing.

Regarding SHOULD, to me that doesn't even make sense. Should in whose interest?

Like I said before, what I want as a constituent.
And what I want and do as a Rep stands. They are players in a game with their OWN self interest.

If I like my representative, and want them to continue to serve, then it stands to reason that I’d want them to deploy self-preservation measures (within reason) that ran counter to what I would prefer they do in a vacuum.

Firstly, interesting points and I respect your thoughts.

I don't see how what I described which is essentially direct representation (direct democracy) could lead to fascism. It's probably more likely that representative democracy leads to fascism?

Great nuanced point. Totally agree. Yeah they can do self preservation measures that counter to my interests on things that are of low importance to me. Now that they got a bunch of political points , cash it out on things that are important to me. This would be a perfect Rep!

I think the challenge is that even within partisans there are many differences.

So I see no way that a Representative could apply a literal interpretation of what he heard his constituents say they want. In all cases it will be his interpretation and application.

Unless you go to a vote by each measure with a simple 50+1% rule.

In the debates on a post Trump world and who could carry his water of nonsense and lies with his base, I struggled to see anyone who could. Certainly not Don Jr or Jim Jordan or Matt Gaetz. Maybe Tucker but i think he is too smart to take that role.

But now I see a contender rises.

Hmmm who do you trust?











Hmmm.....

Impossible to tell who is more likely to be lying here.

Could somebody please point me to a Congressional district that was encouraging its Representative to sign onto Texas' claim?

I live in an extraordinarily red district and I never sensed a groundswell for our lackey to sign on, but sign on he did. Likewise our AG.

Seems to me that most (all?) of these people freeloaded an opportunity to enhance (salvage?) their personal political goals.

Yeah. This really could go either way.

I’m sure there is some behind the scenes grift a transpirin’