General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ron Perlman: 'We must suspend this regime's power to legislate until allegations fully resolved' [View all]onenote
(46,147 posts)But even the author of the article you cite acknowledges that it would be "unwise" to "blindly" deploy the strategy of "withholding consent" to freeze all legislation and nominations. And that's what Perlman is suggesting -- to "suspend" legislative activities until some unknown point in time when the allegations of Russian meddling are "finally resolved."
Not all legislation is substantively controversial. Bills are introduced, passed, and signed into law where all or most Democrats support the measure. In just the past couple of days, the House passed the Freddie and Fannie Open Records Act with unanimous support from Democratic members. And a Copyright Act related bill (changing the process for naming the Register of Copyrights) passed with 145 out of 191 Democrats in support. Should the Senate prevent these bills from becoming law? The Trump administration has been dragging its feet on filling positions requiring Senate confirmation and has been criticized for it. Do we want to shift the blame away from TRump and onto our party by having Democratic Senators blindly oppose/block (to the extent they're able to do so, which is questionable since there is no filibuster allowed for nominations) all such nominations when they finally get made, whether or not there is a substantive basis for opposing the nominee?
And one more question: Perlman appears to concede the possibility that at the end of an investigation, the allegations of high level collusion between the Russians and Trump campaign might not be proven out. Then what? Just write off a year or more and say, oops we're sorry we stalled all legislation, even legislation that has broad bipartisan support on the substance?
Suggestions like Perlman's are just hyperbolic nonsense. Of course we should resist. But not by demanding that all legislative activities be "suspended."