Representatives and Senators in the US Congress should have law degrees

Mi amigo/My friend watches Amy Goodman’s DemocracyNow! and he told me that she often refers to “the Congressman” instead of saying “Representative [name of person].”  Because every member of the US Congress — both House and Senate — is a Congressman or Congresswoman.  Senators are in the Congress, correct?  Correct. Because the Senate is part of Congress.  It’s not an outside, separate body.  Therefore, why this disconnect?  And Amy and her staff should know better.  [Update]:  She’s now referring to the Representatives as “Congress Member.”  The woman can’t say “Representative [name of person]?”  So I guess she has renamed the House of Representatives.  It’s now the House of Congress Members.  (roll eyes)  Mi amigo also told me:  You’re fighting a losing battle here because most sloppy-language people absolutely refuse to use the correct language and the official title for the politicians in the House of Representative(s).  Yeah, I know.

Hola a todos. Shouldn’t a “lawmaker” have a law degree? Put another way, shouldn’t someone who makes laws for a country have training in the legal field and a law degree? To me, that should be a given. In addition to an advanced law degree — Juris Doctor, the Doctorate degree for attorneys as well as passing the bar for the state they’re representing in Congress — one of the requirements for any Representative or Senator should be training on how to speak proper US English — as opposed to Alabama “Hick-English,” or Texas “Hick-English” or Carolina “Hick-English” — since few people in the shithole US speak the Queen’s English or European Union English. People from all over the world hear these corporate parasites in the US Congress (House and Senate). Some of these trash in Congress speak like a bunch of illiterate, mumbling, slurring, slobbering outback hicks as if they just arrived in the District of Columbia on Bessie, their cow, with Jethro waiting outside looking for the outhouse. Where did these people come from? And who are the trash who keep putting them in office? They are a disgrace and an embarrassment to the alleged “greatest country.” LOL. Ha! What a joke! If we were the “great country” we wouldn’t have to keep telling ourselves we are to pump ourselves up with cheap and ugly nationalistic/fascistic propaganda and fake-patriotism, with fake-Christians wrapping themselves up in that fucking bible. It’s nothing but brainwashing the masses. (Related: Why does there have to be a “greatest country?”). By contrast, Senators Dianne Feinstein (no JD), Kamala Harris (JD, University of California Hastings School of Law, San Francisco) and Cory Brooker (JD, Yale University School of Law) speak well. As does former Representative (2001 to 2013) and now Senator Jeff Flake (no JD). They speak clear, precise and intelligent US English. (Yes, I said something positive about Feinstein for the first time. Take note. Write down the date.)

To her credit, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting Delegate in the House representing the District of Columbia has a Bachelor of Laws degree from Yale University School of Law. At least her Bachelor degree is related to law and what she’s doing in Congress, the House of Representatives specifically. Because the District of Columbia is not a state but rather the Federal District where the US government/US Oligarchy is located, District residents have no voting representation in Congress, yet District residents pay taxes. The District’s population is roughly 693,972 (2017), larger than the population of the states of Wyoming and Vermont, DC has more active duty military than 29 states, more tax revenue than 29 states (and) a larger domestic product than 27 states.” That information is as of Feb 6, 2013. So, if you visit DC you might see vehicles with licence plates that read, “District of Columbia: Taxation Without Representation.” Yes, District residents pay taxes like everyone else yet have no representation in Congress. And they call this a “democracy?” (roll eyes)

The outright hostile resistance from many “Democratic” Party Cultists (voters) to my suggestion of requiring legal training for members of Congress has been rather stunning. They seem to like and prefer legally-ignorant and untrained “lawmakers.” I thought education was a good thing especially in the minds of the fake “progressives” and fake “liberals” who adamantly and blindly support their right-wing “Democratic” Party Cult. Before we entered the Century of Insanity, education was considered a good thing and highly desirable. But with a stupid, willfully-ignorant and apathetic electorate, increasing insanity among the population and a corrupt and easily-hackable voting system (An 11-year-old hacked a replica of Florida’s voting system in 10 minutes) which most people live in denial about and refuse to talk about because their illusions about “democracy” in the shithole US would burst if they admitted that our “election” system is a sham, utterly corrupt and fraudulent. The very foundation of these fake-“progressives” and fake-“liberals” and their delusional beliefs in our (corrupt) system would start crumbling. And therefore, we end up with the corrupt, sleazy and corporatist US Oligarchy government we have today.

Why are these “Democratic” Party Cultists so resistant to members of Congress — both Representatives and Senators — being well-educated in a legal sense the way anyone else is in any other field/career?

For example: Is anyone else tired of hearing a senator in the US Congress — who has no legal training or law degree — say in senate hearings, “As best as I understand you because I don’t have any legal training or a law degree, what you’re telling me is ….”

(roll eyes)

I’d love to ask Dianne Feinstein sometime in a senate hearing: Excuse me Senator Feinstein, but I have a question for you. It’s a question I’ve wanted to ask for sometime, and this can be off-record. You’ve lived here in the District of Columbia how long? She answers: Since 1992 when I became a Congresswoman, specifically a Senator. (Note to stupid people: the Senate is part of Congress; that’s why she’s called a Congresswoman as well as a Senator). And you are aware that we have at least two excellent law schools here in the District, correct? They are George Washington University School of Law (around the corner at Washington Circle where I used to live) over in Foggy Bottom in NW DC a few blocks from the Kennedy Center, and then we have Georgetown University School of Law over in Georgetown also in NW DC, correct? (Note to stupid people: DC stands for District of Columbia, or as locals call it “the District.”) She answers: Yes, that is correct. Well then, I find it interesting that politicians get to do what they want. They don’t need the appropriate legal training or advanced degree to be a career “lawmaker” politician. As an analogy, I remember in my high school that my Choral Music Director who had a Bachelor of Music Education degree while teaching was required to earn a Masters degree in order to continue her teaching position as Choral Music Director in the high school. She worked on her Masters at night commuting to the local highly-regarded University with its School of Music. At the Conservatory of Music where I trained, if longtime professors didn’t already have a DMA (Doctor of Musical Arts) which the Conservatory now required they had to be working towards a DMA, again usually at night. My point is that since 1992 you, Senator Feinstein, have not taken it upon yourself to better yourself in a professional sense so that you can properly understand legalese and the law coming before you as a senator by earning a JD from either George Washington University School of Law or Georgetown University School of Law. You’ve lived here in the District long enough to have earned a JD from both Universities! How lazy of you. Now you will likely say, “but I’m working as a senator during the day.” Yes, but like my Choral Music Director, you could have gone to University at night at either University. And both Universities are close by, just right across the District, right across the City. It’s not like you would have to commute hours one way out into the wilds of Virginia to go to the esteemed University of Virginia at Charlottesville. There are many people in today’s society who earn their degrees by going to school at night. And do you feel at all inferior and less qualified for the job as Senator than other Representatives and Senators here in Congress who have come here with an earned JD? Do you feel the need to cater to Kamala Harris, for example, when she speaks in legalese on law/legal matters because she has an earned JD?

A brief aside: I would like to say this about Dianne Feinstein: At age 85, she’s still very mentally-sound, and I say that despite my disagrees with her. I watched her opening statement during the Kavanaugh hearings. Her opening statement was excellent — it sounded like what I would have said frankly — and she sounds no differently than she did when she was mayor of San Francisco. She’s just as mentally alert. Good for her. Maybe her staying in the Congress is keeping her mind alert, working and from degrading into senility? Similar to what music studies does for older people by working their minds and keeping their mind alert/active. And if anything works your mind, it’s music studies. I can guarantee that, especially if you’re working on Rachmaninov or Scriabin. When I was teaching piano, I had students tell me, “My mind feel fried from our class today.” I said: Oh good! That means we worked. Yes, it’s hard work followed by the reward and the “fun” of hearing yourself (hopefully) play beautifully and artistically at some point and hearing yourself play pieces that you had “always wanted to play.”

Now back to the US Congress: How on Earth can someone without a law degree be making laws for a country? Yet that’s what these US Congresspersons do. Make laws for a country without a law degree or any legal training makes no sense whatsoever to me and the people I’ve talked with about this subject. And it’s embarrassing to hear some corporate senator admit to their lack of legal training in senate hearings by saying, “As best as I understand you because I don’t have any legal training; I’m not a lawyer or an attorney …” To that I say: Then get your ass out of the Senate. WTF are you doing in the Congress to begin with? Other than working for the Republicans most of your days in the case of the “senior senator” (Dahling) “Democrat” and millionaire Dianne Feinstein (with her $94 million net worth as of January 2018). This woman has been parked in the US Senate for decades with her Bachelor of Arts degree in History. One might be asking: WTF does a BA in History have to do with being a “lawmaker” and making laws for millions of people in this country? Exactly! This is crazy. That’s the same as someone applying to teach at a Conservatory of Music or a University’s School of Music without a DMA. The Dean of the Conservatory or School of Music would say to that applicant, “Your lack of advanced-level credentials do not meet our qualifications for this teaching position. We require a DMA for all our faculty members.”

As another brief aside: How does the current witch/bully who serves as UN Ambassador qualify whatsoever for that position with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics? What on Earth does a degree in economics have to do with proper credentials for being an ambassador at the United Nations? One would think a degree such as a Doctorate in International Relations would be required for that position, no? Yet the orange nazi/international bully man-child put that piece of bullying basura in that UN position. Utterly embarrassing. She’s merely a belligerent extension of him. UPDATE: This piece of work resigned her position on the 8th of October 2018. I was pleased to see that since I’m sick of seeing her face when they show the UN. She says she has no 2020 political ambitions, so in political speak, that means she does have 2020 political ambitions. These basura always lie.

Yet when it comes to the position of US senator (according to the US Constitution, Article I, Section 3), that job has nothing to do with one’s education or lack thereof. All that job requires is:

1. being a US citizen,
2. 30 years of age or over, and
3. to be an inhabitant of the state that one seeks to represent at the time of their election.

That’s it. By those pathetic requirements, one is not even required to be a high school graduate or a graduate of any school, including elementary school. Something is terribly wrong with such weak and pathetically lame requirements for such an important job.

Representative and millionaire Nancy Pelosi (net worth $29.35 million) over in the House of Representatives — where they represent their corporate owners — is no different. She comes with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. I suppose one could say that her BA is a little bit more relevant than Feinstein’s BA in History, but it’s not a law degree. Pelosi also now has one of those ugly honorary degrees, meaning it’s non-earned. It was just given to her in a form of ass-eating. She was recently granted an honorary Doctorate of Law degree by Mount Holyoke College on May 20, 2018. Yet for the position/job of US Representative (according to the US Constitution, Article I, Section 3), all that job requires is:

1. being a US citizen,
2. being 25 years of age or over and
3. to be an inhabitant of the state one seeks to represent at the time of their election.

As with the Senators, by those requirements one does not need to be a high school graduate, at minimum.

I can’t think of any other job — other than the lame requirements for US president which are no better than the requirements for Representative or Senator — where one is not required to be a high school graduate and where one can get by with such low standards.

Even sewage contractors have to have licences to properly perform their job and that requires a certain level of education.

Of course with both the Representative and the Senator, the unspoken requirement is that it also requires being able to fool/bamboozle enough stupid and gullible people in the electorate into voting for you time-after-time, which has been the case for both of these celebrity politicians, Feinstein and Pelosi. And we all know how shallow people love and worship celebrities. I’m not into celebrity pop culture worship; I wouldn’t walk across the room to see any of them.

But stupid people of the “Democratic” Party Cult keep voting for Pelosi and Feinstein no matter what they do for the Republican Party Cult. Feinstein overwhelming won the 2018 CA primary and is expected to win another 6-year term again in November 2018. Pelosi also just won a new 2-year term. I suspect most voters voted on name-recognition and couldn’t tell you a thing either of these two creatures have done. “I see her on television so I’ll vote for her.” That’s about the extent of it. I suspect both Feinstein and Pelosi assume that they can keep their jobs as long as they want them.

With any other job that the rest of us would hold, there are stringent qualifications required. But as you see, that’s not at all the case for the corporate parasites in either the cesspool called the House of Representatives or the Senate of the US Congress. And these are two of the most important jobs in the nation that effects millions of people’s lives. But I live under no illusion that this is going to ever change because many of the corporate parasites in the Congress would be out of a job if they were required to have any legal training or a JD.

From my research, and this is from February 2013, but I doubt it’s changed much since then:

“169 Members of the House (38% of the House) and 57 Senators (57% of the Senate), held law degrees. 19 House Representatives have doctoral (Ph.D. or D.Phil.) degrees. 22 Members of the House and 3 Senators have a medical degree.”

A reader e-mailed me saying that he had borrowed part of one of my articles related to this topic and made a comment out of it on a “progressive” political website. He wrote that the response he got was that of harsh attacks for merely suggesting that “lawmakers” have legal training and a law degree. Sigh. He said that he was angrily attacked and even trolled for his comment — seems an extreme response simply for suggesting members of Congress have a legal background — by “Democratic” Party Cultists, some of whom rushed to defend Feinstein for not having any legal training. These “Democratic” Party Cultists were claiming that I and he, the commenter, were ignoring Feinstein’s years of experience as a Congresswoman. I never said anything about her years of “experience.” I was only talking about her not having a JD degree to help her understand what someone is telling her in legalese in a hearing, for example.

He, too, said that he could not conceive of someone making laws for a nation without any legal training.

I’d like to ask the reader:

Would you want a surgeon to operate on you without proper training from a respected Medical Centre and School of Medicine?

Would you want a contractor building a 50-story building without proper training?

Would you want to study piano with someone who’s never studied piano?

Would you want to take a flight with someone having no pilot training?

If you answered “no” to any of those questions, then why is it perfectly acceptable for a “lawmaker” with no legal training or law degree whatsoever to “walk in off the street” and make laws for a country for a population of 326,766,748 ?

Education is a good thing, despite what some of the “Democratic” Party Cultists think or tell us. I see no reason why the Representatives and Senators of the US Congress don’t have the best knowledge available to them through thorough legal training while they do their job. One can hear Feinstein in hearings having difficulty understanding legalese. This would not be the case if she had an earned JD. Attorney and Senator Kamala Harris, JD, doesn’t have that problem, as one example.

I’ve spoken with some people here in San Francisco who assumed that all members of Congress — both Representatives and Senators — are attorneys. They were shocked to learn that’s not the case. As some of them pointed out, the “lawmakers” of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors are attorneys with a JD degree. Yes, I think that’s the case with most of them, if not all of them that I can think of. Why shouldn’t that be the case – and what harm could it possibly do to have that requirement? – with the US Congress?

There was a day when genuine progressives and liberals — there are very few of those around today — viewed education as a good/positive thing. But it seems that with the fake-progressives and fake-liberals of today — who are nothing more than “Democratic” Party Cultists supporting their pro-war, imperialistic, Republican-enabling right-wing no matter what they call themselves while they support their right-wing Cult — no longer believe that education is a good thing. Or, are they afraid that some of their saviour celebrity “Democratic” politicians who don’t have legal training would be forced out of the Congress? No chance of that happening. So relax. Tranquilo/a. So why the resistance from some “Democratic” Party Cultists to members of Congress being required to have legal training? I suppose one should expect this kind of thinking here in the Century of Insanity. Nevertheless and unfortunately, I suspect that Pelosi and Feinstein will be with us for as long as they want their jobs. At the end of her next 6-year term, Feinstein will be 91-years old. I suspect she’ll be ready for another go at it for another 6-years.

Oh by the way, surprisingly Feinstein plans to vote “No” on the Kavanaugh nomination. I listened to Senator Kamala Harris question him. She doesn’t put up with any shit but even she had trouble with Kavanaugh and his constant word games. He was the poster boy for “Stupid is In” or pretending to be dense with his highly selective but excellent memory. He was a complete waste of time. Another charade in theatrics. It seems that Feinstein was turned off by him during the hearings, such as when he perjured himself. Perjury is no big deal for a Supreme Court nominee under oath. There are no consequences. But if any of the rest of us perjured ourselves here’s what can happen:

“If you are found guilty of perjury, a court may impose any or all of the following sentences: Imprisonment. Fines. Death, if Perjury lead to the Execution of an Innocent Person (only in some states) Jun 19, 2018.”

And finally, just as I was completing this article, I was with hesitation reading the comments under a YT video about the Kavanaugh FBI fake-investigation charade. Some damn fool wallowing in ignorance about the US governmental structure wrote the usual mistake, “Congress and Senate.” Oh geezus fucking christ, here we go again. What is wrong with people today here in the Century of Insanity? I thought we had already covered that, no? I guess he didn’t read my article: It’s too close to the end of his term for impeachment where I hammered away on that ubiquitous mistake that idiots keep making. It’s the House and Senate, you fool. Not the Congress and Senate. The Congress is both bodies. You don’t say the House and Congress, do you? You don’t substitute the word “Congress” for Senate do you, idiots? You only do that for the word “House.” Fucking idiots. I swear, it feel fucking hopeless. The level of outright blatant stupidity. I have reached the end of my patience for it. And then there were the partisan-brainwashed “Democratic” Party Cultists who will always live under the illusion that their Cult of a party is a so-called “opposition party.” (One cannot fix stupid.) Someone whined that “the Republicans control our government.” Someone astutely tried to inform that partisan-brainwashed idiot that both corporate parties control the US government — regardless of the number of seats that each Cult has in the House and Senate — and it’s often the “Democratic” Party Cult that enables their employer the Republican Party Cult with their far right-wing imperialistic agenda. Absolutely true and muchas gracias for pointing that out. Chau.—el barrio rosa


Dianne Feinstein: War profiteer and war criminal.

Lawyers no longer dominate Congress; is commercialization of profession to blame?
“Lawyers once dominated Congress, but they are being “squeezed out” today by those who have made politics a career, according to a new research paper. In the mid-19th century, nearly 80 percent of members of Congress were lawyers, according to the paper (available here). The percentage fell to less than 60 percent in the 1960s and less than 40 percent in 2015.”