Well what options do her constituents have? Can they recall her? If so why haven't they?
It could be that she is still in office because her constituents support her and want her there.
Ah democracy.
I really don't care about parties.
The point of the representative body that is the Senate is for constituents to have their interests represented, so if the constituents are happy then she's doing her job.
I mean I don't like her, but that's between her and her constituents in the US system of government.
To put it another way, if she is screwing over her party like you say, but her constituents like that, well then that's how that's supposed to work. Representation over party.
Okay, we’ll that is your prerogative.
That’s not the way I view it and I also have never made any claims as to whether her constituents support her or not. I don’t think anyone knows or any polling has been done.
I think she should choose to resign because of the reasons I stated. She doesn’t have to, her constituents don’t have to demand it, but she should do it because she’s derelict in her duty to represent her constituents.
You are welcome to disagree. Have a good 1
But you're making a factual statement that's the key here: we don't know if she is derelict in her duty to represent her constituents because we don't know what her constituents think of the job she is doing.
It's up to them, not us, to judge whether she is being derelict under the design of the US government.
We don't have a parliamentary system in the US. The role of parties was intentionally minimized in the design of the system.
Under the representative system that we have, it's up to them to decide what good representation consists of.
@volkris
They could, I believe California has the recall. It likely wouldn’t be fast enough to matter, even if it was possible.
I make no claims on her support from constituents either way. She is still screwing over her party, her constituents, and the rest of the country by not showing up to do her job because she is old and sick.