Does AOC not meet the requirements to serve on the house judiciary committee?

[PTWB]

Earlier today someone on this forum (whom I will not name out of respect for their privacy) made the claim that AOC does not meet the “strict qualifications and requirements” to serve on the house judiciary committee. I understand that most of the members are attorneys but some are not.

Can any poster with knowledge of these “strict requirements and qualifications” please link them to me? I’m trying to better educate myself.

I did ask the person who originally made the statement but they declined to provide further information.

[qazplm135]

1. what makes her a better choice

than the people already on there?

She's not an expert at everything. I am assuming she is on the committees she wants to be on for the most part.

[PTWB]

2. No one is saying she's a better choice than any of the current Democratic members

But it was claimed that she is ineligible and does not meet “strict qualifications and requirements” in order to serve on the committee.

My question is what those qualifications and requirements are and why she is ineligible.

[lapucelle]

3. Why not just link to the post or give a direct quote so folks know what you're upset about?

Didn't you mark down the name?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100213642197

[betsuni]

4. BE WARNED. MARK THEIR NAMES DOWN.

[Hortensis]

83. Lol. #DULivesMatter, march on GD Friday-Sun 6-2 a.m.

[NurseJackie]

121. And screen-captures!

[The Magistrate]

139. Yes, Ma'am, Our Own Little Amateur Chekist

"Your attitude has been noticed! Oh yes, it has been noticed!"

[SidDithers]

7. +1...nt

Sid

[NurseJackie]

13. Haaaaa! Bazinga!

[Dem4Life1102]

47. Yes Bazinga!

MICHELLE CARUSO-CABRERA 7,393
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ 27,460

[NurseJackie]

60. In 2018, it was 110,318 ... there must still be some uncounted ballots left to process.

Yes Bazinga!

It's unclear what's bazinga-worthy about that. Am I overlooking something, or were any additional details omitted in error? ---In 2018, she had 110,318 votes ... far more than the number you quoted above, so I imagine there must still be some uncounted ballots left to process. Did you know that the population of the 14th congressional district is 712,053... so that's about 3.8% who voted for her.

[Dem4Life1102]

63. Actually

In the 18 primary it was AOC 15,897 votes and Joe Crowley 11,761 votes. So AOC actually got almost 12,000 more to come out and vote for her, during a pandemic.

[NurseJackie]

67. 0.03%

[Trumpocalypse]

68. Still a lot more than 18

People in her district must like her to come out in those numbers during a pandemic.

[NurseJackie]

77. Looks like the population grew by about 6000 in two years.

Everyone knows her victory was a foregone conclusion, wasn't it? Nobody is surprised by it, not even her critics.

And for her fans, that fact is obviously that not nearly as satisfying as a "come from behind" and "unexpected" win from a "Cinderella" long-shot team winning the World Series (or her victory in 2018). I suppose that's why all the gloating on the Internet, Twitter, etc. seems to be a forced effort to make more of the win than it actually is.

All I'm trying to say is from what I've observed, this behavior seems to be less about having celebratory feelings of genuine joy and elation for her victory ... and instead more about using exaggerated and phony glee to taunt and evoke a response from her critics.

Ho-hum. What good purpose does that serve?

[Trumpocalypse]

78. So the pop grew by 6000

and she got 12000 more votes, twice the increase.

[NurseJackie]

79. Yes. More people equals more voters. Duh.

[Trumpocalypse]

81. Twice as many more

So did all the new people vote twice?

[NurseJackie]

92. Doubtful. It's just a local event with an unsurprising outcome.

[melman]

93. lol

You were saying she was in big trouble just the day before. And now it's an unsurprising outcome.

[NurseJackie]

94. LOL

[melman]

95. LOL

One might get the impression...well..you know.

[NurseJackie]

98. LOL

[melman]

99. LOL

Non-stop hilarity. LOLLOLOLOLOL!

[NurseJackie]

100. LOL ... I know!

[melman]

102. LOL

Delightful. Just delightful!

[NurseJackie]

105. Yes it is!

[Trumpocalypse]

96. Yes unsurprising

because the people in her district really like her.

[NurseJackie]

97. All 27,000 or so.

[Trumpocalypse]

101. Almost twice as many as 18

And a lot more than MCC.

[NurseJackie]

104. LOL! OMG, You guys crack me up!

And a lot more than MCC.

Noooo! Reeeally?

[Trumpocalypse]

108. Yes

Really.

[NurseJackie]

118. ... and truly

[Trumpocalypse]

119. Truly

She got 12000 more votes than in 18 and almost 4x as many as MCC.

[NurseJackie]

120. Yes, that's why she won.

How exciting! It was a real nail-biter.

[Trumpocalypse]

122. Yes she won

because the people in her district really like her.

[NurseJackie]

123. Really? No! You're kidding! LOL!

[Trumpocalypse]

127. Yes

They like her so much she got 12000 more votes than she did in 18.

[PTWB]

82. Well now...

You said she received “0.03%” of the vote (from total persons in her district). That would be 1.8 persons out of 6,000.

Assuming you meant she received 3% and not 0.03%, that would be 180 votes out of that 6,000.

[NurseJackie]

91. OMG! A typo. You got me!

[melman]

103. More wonderful gifs!

WOW!

[NurseJackie]

106. Oh, just a simple animation on a repetitive loop.

Glad they're entertaining.

[melman]

109. "repetitive loop."

Redundant! LOLOL

[NurseJackie]

112. Yet many find them captivating and entertaining, apparently.

[melman]

115. Seems doubtful

[PTWB]

111. I'm not sure if they're that entertaining. I'd say... they're illuminating.

Your gifs do remind me of one of my favorite quotes:

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” -Carl Sandburg

Chuck loves it too!

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

114. At least one person (whom I will not name out of respect for their privacy) actually enjoy them.

[PTWB]

116. Thank you for respecting their privacy.

I’m sure they appreciate not being named and shamed for that!!

[NurseJackie]

117. LOL

[PTWB]

107. No, I didn't get you.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and calculated what I assumed you meant as well as what you wrote.

We can say AOC received 180 votes from folks new to the districts, based on the percentage you calculated.

In 2018 AOC received 16,898 votes in the district’s Democratic primary. While you initially claimed she received 110,318, and tried to make some point that she received fewer votes this year, I’ll chalk it up to an honest mistake and not attribute that to an attempt to mislead.

In 2020 AOC received 27,460 votes in the district’s Democratic primary.

I’m curious to what you attribute this 60% increase.

[NurseJackie]

110. Yes, my calculator's total was 0.03 which is 3% when notated with a percent-sign... you got me!

I’ll chalk it up to an honest mistake and not attribute that to an attempt to mislead.

How gracious.

[PTWB]

113. Thanks!

I take it now that you have the accurate numbers you’re no longer interested in speculating as to why AOC received 60% more votes in 2020 than she received in 2018?

[PTWB]

74. That's not how math works.

[Dem4Life1102]

138. Nothing I said in either post

was incorrect.

[R B Garr]

16. LOL

[PTWB]

19. Here's the quote:

He's Chairman of the JUDICIARY Committee, membership in which has strict qualifications and requirements, as you know. [AOC] doesn't have either.

I'm not naming the person because I'm not trying to publicly shame them, I'm on a quest for knowledge my friend.

[lapucelle]

26. If you're on a "quest for knowledge", why not simply look up the information?

[PTWB]

29. I tried to.

I actually looked for several sources. I first looked at Wikipedia and looked online. I found some unofficial sources that claimed there were no requirements at all for being a member of the judiciary committee (aside from being a representative, of course). I also looked at the rules for the committee itself and found nothing there.

We have a lot of knowledgeable folks here so I thought I'd pose the question openly to see if someone had some concrete knowledge about the issue.

I also wanted to spark a dialogue about being open and honest about how we debate with one another. I've seen an increase in factually incorrect claims (to put it gently) and I think we're all better off if we are honest when debating.

[R B Garr]

31. LOL

[PTWB]

34. Thanks for your contribution to the thread!

I appreciate the thought you put into your responses. It means a lot to me.

[R B Garr]

45. Public Announcement: your opinions aren't factual statements.

[PTWB]

48. My opinions are opinions.

Statements of fact are statements of fact. Sometimes I express opinions, sometimes I express statements of fact. Let me show you the difference:

AOC is a member of the house of representatives (fact)

I think AOC is an exceptional young woman who offers a lot to our party (opinion)

----

Now I challenge you, again, to quote something I have said was a fact that is actually an opinion.

[Dem4Life1102]

51. Since you want facts

MICHELLE CARUSO-CABRERA 7,393
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ 27,460

[melman]

54. Bazinga!

[customerserviceguy]

5. Isn't that considered

one of the most sought-after committees? If so, I would expect that the members with the most seniority would be picked to serve on it.

But I don't think there are any actual qualifications and/or requirements to be a member, the House leadership has the power to decide. And I'm sure AOC didn't make a lot of friends in the leadership by supporting Eliot Engel's primary opponent.

[Budi]

6. Some is addressed here. I would hope any appointee comes with some degree of legal background,..

..whether a law degree, or years spent employed in such a capacity. Constitutional Law background would be beneficial & fair as members work & rely on expertise from each other in their decisions.
I personally don't see this as an on-the-job-training position.
You have to answer for your decisions in such situations as the hearings we have seen this past year.
You'd also have to be confident in questioning people like Mueller who well know the laws of this country.
-----------------------------
From the link, some info but not all.

BACKGROUND:

The Committee on the Judiciary has been called the lawyer for the House of Representatives because of its jurisdiction over matters relating to the administration of justice in Federal courts, administrative bodies, and law enforcement agencies. Its infrequent, but important role in impeachment proceedings has also brought it much attention.


A standing Committee on the Judiciary was established by the House of Representatives on June 3, 1813 to consider legislation relating to judicial proceedings. Since then, the scope of the committee�s concern has expanded to include not only civil and criminal judicial proceedings and Federal courts and judges, but also issues relating to bankruptcy, espionage, terrorism, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional amendments, immigration and naturalization, interstate compacts, claims against the United States, national penitentiaries, Presidential succession, antitrust law, revision and codification of the statutes of the United States, state and territorial boundary lines and patents, copyrights and trademarks.


Because of the predominantly legal nature of the committee�s work, it has been the custom, dating back perhaps to the 19th century, that members of the committee have a legal background, though it is not necessarily a requirement. With the advent of the Internet, the progressive nature of telecommunications and scientific developments such as cloning, the list of issues which the Judiciary Committee must consider is ever expanding, requiring members to maintain a wide breadth of knowledge to effectively address concerns that may arise in these and other new areas.


Because any new legislation that carries with it the possibility for criminal or civil penalties could potentially be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, the legislative workload of the committee is heavy. Not surprisingly, its weighty agenda has frequently placed the committee in a central role in American politics, most notably during its consideration of impeachment charges against incumbent Presidents of the United States in both 1974 and 1998.


SUBCOMMITTEES:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pmc/oldsite/committee/H-JU.html

[Bev54]

10. That makes sense n/t

[PTWB]

11. Traditionally most members of the judiciary committee have been attorneys.

This is by no means a hard and fast rule or a requirement and one of my favorite Democratic members of the current committee does not have a law degree.

My concern is that there is a strict requirement / qualification that I am unaware of. I hate to argue from a position of ignorance, which is why I'm trying to clarify based on what was originally communicated in the other thread.

[PTWB]

21. That's partially true.

I am concerned that there is a strict requirement / qualification that AOC does not meet because I think it is important that persons from all backgrounds, who are duly elected representatives of the people of their district, have the opportunity to serve in any committee. I think the only qualification is whether or not they are elected.

I'm also after accuracy and honesty, which was absolutely lacking from the person who claimed that AOC did not meet "strict qualifications and requirements" to serve on the committee.

[R B Garr]

22. I doubt that is your concern, as we've seen what your concerns actually are.

[PTWB]

27. You act like my concerns are some sort of conspiracy.

I don't think I've been anything other than totally honest and open with my concerns and positions on this forum. When asked questions I answer to the best of my ability. I don't dodge the questions or refuse to answer them like many with whom I've debated.

If you go back to the primaries forum you can see that my first choice was Kamala Harris and second choice was Elizabeth Warren.

You're free to actually dive into the discussion if you like, but you're more than welcome to keep making unfounded insinuations that you cannot support, too. It's a forum, after all!

[R B Garr]

30. You sound familiar.

I'll let it go at that. I've seen the way you distort things, so I can't agree with your assessments of yourself.

Your questions have already been answered on this thread, so let's be honest.

[PTWB]

35. What am I distorting?

You claim to have seen me distort things so, please, drop some quotes in your reply. If anything is distorted I'll gladly own up to it an apologize, or try to clarify it.

[tonedevil]

86. LOL...

you said be honest.

[lapucelle]

33. So it isn't actually a quest for knowledge, as you originally claimed.

I'm also after accuracy and honesty, which was absolutely lacking from the person who claimed that AOC did not meet "strict qualifications and requirements" to serve on the committee.

Some might argue that your original claim was, therefore, neither entirely accurate nor completely honest.

[PTWB]

38. No, my reason was both accurate and honest. It would be fair to say it was also incomplete.

I strongly suspected I had been lied to going into this thread. DU is full of knowledgeable folks and I was certain someone could point me, conclusively, to the answer. I looked online and couldn't find the information there, not on Wikipedia, not in articles and not in the rules of the house judiciary committee itself.

[R B Garr]

40. Oh dear! You strongly suspect you were lied to?? So that's what this is about. I didn't realize.

[lapucelle]

52. Wait...what? Are you saying that your claim was the the partial truth

rather than the whole truth, and it was thus "accurate and honest"?

accurate
- (of information, measurements, statistics, etc.) correct in all details; exact.

honest
- free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere.

And why would anyone assume they had been "lied to" when someone might simply have been mistaken?

[PTWB]

55. I'm not going to name and shame the person who originally made the claim...

but I gave them plenty of opportunity in that thread to support their statement. We went back and forth several times. If it had been a simple mistake they'd have corrected it when they had the opportunity. That person has a comment history that led me to suspect they may not be being completely honest also.

In any case, yes, I was both accurate and honest when I said that I wanted to get to the bottom of this "strict qualification and requirement" business. Assuming that the poster had been correct the thread would have ended there. But since it appears that poster was either mistaken or intentionally lied (and then doubled down on their lie), I think it presents us with a wonderful opportunity to discuss how important it is to be honest when we're debating with one another.

[lapucelle]

64. "I think it presents us with a wonderful opportunity to discuss how important it is to be honest

when we're debating with one another."




Scope is an element of honesty. That's why one swears "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" in a court of law. Some might even say that exclusionary detailing is deliberate deception by omission.

[PTWB]

65. I'm not omitting anything.

I’ve said many times in this thread that was a secondary goal of the post.

[Demsrule86]

72. I highly doubt this person would be shamed. This is just more disruption.

[Alex4Martinez]

8. I'm sorry the poster wouldn't back it up. I will conclude that AOC is eligible.

Unless otherwise proven.

And I'm sorry that the reply above was not helpful. You try to ask a very simple question and get a response to a different question that you did not ask.

Happens all the time:

ie:

Can anyone recommend a memory upgrade for my 2012 iMac?

Why don't you switch to a Chromebook?

[DTomlinson]

9. I don't know, but I'm suspicious of the negative obsession some people seem to have with her.

[R B Garr]

15. ah, now we're seeing the reason for this thread.

Welcome to DU

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. Bingo!

[Hortensis]

85. My obsession is with representative government,

not her. You know, government of, by and for the people?

I believe it's a very serious mistake to give power to anyone who would support subversion of fair and free elections. Power to the people! Obscurity to those for whom electoral majorities merely either useful or obstacles to be overcome.

On the happy side, restoration of confidence in future wellbeing usually does consign those sorts to obscurity. Of course, it's also not uncommon for the few who've managed to get into elite positions to decide it's in their interest to play by the rules of democracy. And that's okay as long as the rules hold. Or at least as long as it's okay with constituents who were allowed to decide.

[DTomlinson]

87. I'm confused. Who are you referring to here who supports subversion of fair and free elections?

[Hortensis]

88. Welcome to DU, DT. Have we met before? nt

[DTomlinson]

90. Thank you. No. Why?

[beastie boy]

12. It took me two minutes to look this up on Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_House_of_Representatives_committees

Your reluctance to look it up yourself is peculiar. There was no need to further stir up the pot in a public forum over one person's uninformed comment. An email with this link to your offender would have sufficed. Unless, of course, the purpose of your post was to publicly gloat over this matter.

[PTWB]

23. Do you think accuracy and honesty is important when you're engaging with people on a forum?

I do. The purpose of this post is not to gloat at all, but to inquire as to whether or not such a "strict qualification and requirement" exists and, if not, encourage everyone to do their best to debate honestly.

[beastie boy]

56. Starting a thread to bring attention to a single member who gave you the wrong answer

hardly exemplifies honesty. Your OP is hardly suitable for the pursuit of honesty and accuracy. I strongly suspect you knew full well the answer to your inquiry. In any event, it is quite petty to seek accuracy and honesty by engaging the entire DU community in a matter between you and one other member, and doing so borders on abuse of privilege.

It is self-evident that you elected to use this forum to blow your discontent over a single reply out of proportion. This has nothing to do with your professed pursuit of honesty and accuracy. Using this forum for your inquiry is demonstrably redundant as it is clear that the answer you seek is easily obtainable with a simple google search that takes about the same amount of time as posting your OP.

Yes, I think accuracy and honesty is important. I hope you keep this in mind when you engage people on this forum.

[PTWB]

58. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I looked online. I looked at the Wiki and read the rules of the house judiciary committee. The only information I found was an article which referenced there being a loose tradition of the members of the committee having a legal background.

I didn't know if there was some sort of rule that required a certain amount of seniority (which AOC would not possess) to be eligible for the committee, or perhaps some other requirement.

My primary goal here was to definitively answer the question of whether or not there exists a "strict qualification and requirement" that AOC does not meet. It is hard to prove a negative so even the information posted here by the helpful members of this forum doesn't really specifically say that, although all evidence suggests there is not such a requirement.

My second goal is absolutely to encourage debating honestly with one another. Read my posts through this thread, I've made that clear from the beginning.

If I had wanted to shame the person who made those claims I could easily have linked to their post or named them, but I did not and will not. That isn't what this is about.

[beastie boy]

62. I am willing to give you the benefit of doubt

and accept your assurances that you couldn't find the answer to your question online.

However, there is still a matter of your OP specifically referring to a single reply. That made it personal, and unnecessarily so.

If you hadn't wanted to make it personal, a general question about how House committee members are selected would have fully sufficed. The choice was yours, and there is no way around that.

[PTWB]

66. I chose not to link the post or name the poster

I did not want it to be too personal or seen as an attack on that person. I’m still not certain whether they were simply mistaken and chose to double down on that mistake or whether they were intentionally trying to make something up to take a cheap shot at AOC.

I thought some limited context would be beneficial but perhaps I did not go far enough to depersonalize it.

Also, I had looked at the wiki link you post in addition to the wiki to the house judiciary committee itself. I just didn’t see anything on those pages that answered the question to my satisfaction.

I never like debating from a position of ignorance.

[beastie boy]

69. You were personal enough.

Being personal doesn't necessarily involve naming names and linking to posts. And being personal doesn't end with not naming the person. It has as much to do with you. And you made yourself absolutely clear. You deliberately made it a personal matter, needlessly so, between you and an unnamed person, in a thread that was publicly posted.

BTW, the Wiki I posted states: "most standing committees [and that includes Judiciary] are selected by the respective party steering committees and ratified by the party conferences.[1][2] The Ethics, House Administration, Rules and all select committees are chosen by the party leaders". These are the only rules for selecting House committee members. Sounds pretty clear to me.

[PTWB]

71. I read that passage.

It left me wondering if the party leaders had a set of qualifications or requirements that they followed in their selection process. I didn’t want to push the discussion further without something concrete.

For all I knew there was a party rule stating that only representatives with some level of seniority were eligible for that position. Or perhaps a party rule requiring a law degree or a waiver, which AOC doesnt have.

I follow what you’re saying about the thread being personal between me and an unnamed poster, but I disagree with any negative connotations that you may draw from that. This thread is less personal than the thread they were an active participant in, as their name is not present here.

I think a limited amount of context was warranted.

[Hortensis]

17. Well, I imagine all our 235 elected reps technically meet

"the requirements" just by being elected. And since it's a very prestigious committee, no doubt all 235 would be happy to be able to claim membership.

But Judiciary, as "the lawyer for the house," is very powerful and important, with some very big responsibilities.

I do know some members haven't been attorneys, but that's all. "Qualification" is determined by the members of the steering committee, which decides who's appointed to which committee, and of course by top house leaders and judiciary's own chair and subcommittee chairs.

So if Ocasio's ambitions in congress included eventual elevation to Judiciary, she would need to set herself to over time demonstrating to a lot of powerful people, presumably through excellence and commitment on her current committees -- and commitment to serving the house Democratic caucus (it IS Judiciary!) -- that she might someday become an asset on that committee specifically. Get that idea in their heads and work to keep it there.

I see no sign that she's interested in starting along that track at this time. Maybe some other decade.

[Budi]

18. For comparison, here is Rep Engel's Bio: A law background & broad areas of experience are helpful

Engel was first elected to the House in 1988. Before redistricting in 2012, Engel served the 17th District from 1993 to 2013. He also represented the 19th District from 1989 to 1993.[1]

Prior to his congressional career, Engel served as a member of the New York State Assembly from 1977 to 1989.[2] For more on Engel's career, click here.

In the 116th Congress, Engel became chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee. For more on Engel's committee assignments, click here.

Engel was a founding member of the Congressional Medicare for All Caucus in 2018.
He also founded the House Oil and National Security Caucus.
He is a member of several caucuses, including the Congressional Albanian Caucus, the Congressional Caucus on Global Road Safety, the House Caucus on Human Rights, the United States Congressional International Conservation Caucus, the Congressional Arts Caucus, the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, and the Climate Solutions Caucus.

He is an original Co-signer to the Green New Deal

--------------------


Below is an abbreviated outline of Engel's academic, professional, and political career:[5]

2013-Present: U.S. Representative from New York's 16th Congressional District

1993-2013: U.S. Representative from New York's 17th Congressional District

1989-1993: U.S. Representative from New York's 19th Congressional District

1977-1988: New York State Assembly

1987: Graduated from New York Law School with a J.D.

1973: Graduated from Herbert H. Lehman College at the City University of New York with an M.A.

1969: Graduated from Hunter-Lehman College at the City University of New York with a B.A.
---------------

[R B Garr]

20. WOW! Look at all that experience! It starts in 1977 with Law School degrees before that.

Wow, you found that very quickly, too.

Engel has one impressive resume.

[Budi]

25. It is a long & dedicated bio. Plus this list of committees & Dem progressive co-sponsorships as well

Engel was a founding member of the Congressional Medicare for All Caucus in 2018.
He also founded the House Oil and National Security Caucus.
He is a member of several caucuses, including the Congressional Albanian Caucus, the Congressional Caucus on Global Road Safety, the House Caucus on Human Rights, the United States Congressional International Conservation Caucus, the Congressional Arts Caucus, the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, and the Climate Solutions Caucus.
He is an original Co-signer to the Green New Deal


Engel is one dedicated Democrat!

[mcar]

126. That is an impressive, and progressive, resume

Makes one wonder why "progressives" were so dead set against him.

[PTWB]

24. Are you familiar with Karen Bass?

She's great, isn't she? I think her background is one reason she is such an asset to the judiciary committee.

[Budi]

28. And why she is being vetted as Joe Biden's VP

Democrats have many serious, experienced, & educated members to select from, as to the committees they represent.

[PTWB]

32. Yes we do!

My goal here is not to suggest that AOC should be a member of the judiciary committee. My goal here is to determine if there are "strict requirements and qualifications" for serving on the committee and if so, what they are, and if not, to start a discussion about being open and honest with each other when we're debating.

As for Joe's VP pick, I think Karen Bass would be great. My first choice is Kamala Harris (she was my first choice in the primaries before she dropped out and I went for Warren) but any of the women of color whose names have been floated would do an amazing job. We are very blessed to have such a qualified group.

[Budi]

37. I have always admired Warren. Until she stood next to Bernie Sanders.

And it is my priviledge to vet my own candidate choice.


💙#Biden2020 ~ cuz someone responsible has to clean up the irresponsibilities of 2016.
Thanks for being the man to do it.

[RhodeIslandOne]

131. In what context did she "stand next to Bernie Sanders"?

I do recall they physically stood next to each other on the debate stage. Why give up admiring her for that?

Legit confused.

[StarfishSaver]

39. I think most members of the committee have a background either in the law or law enforcement

Such a background and experience lend themselves to dealing with the legal complexities of a lot of the issues and legislation the committee deals with.

But if you really wanted to know what that particular poster was talking about, why not just ask them in response to the post in which they made the comment, rather than starting a whole new thread?

[PTWB]

42. Most do have that background but some (very effective members) do not

See Karen Bass, one of my favorite members of that committee.

I did ask the person who originally made that claim and they refused to substantiate it. Then I looked online and couldn't find anything that said conclusively whether there were or were not requirements that AOC doesn't possess. So I figured I'd ask here since we have so many knowledgeable folks.

[StarfishSaver]

50. Karen Bass isn't a lawyer or law enforcement officer, but she was Speaker of the California Assembly

A pretty weighty credential.

[PTWB]

53. Indeed.

Her background makes her an asset to the committee. She's been great.

[Demsrule86]

73. It is my opinion that you should have law experience to sit on Judiciary and AOC is a newbie as well

[PTWB]

80. There is an argument to be made for members having that experience

I believe a strong committee is a diverse committee. We should certainly have multiple exceptional attorneys who can expertly question witnesses.

I do think the committee would be well served with at least a few non-attorneys. When the committee tackles issues in the justice system that impact a diverse section of society, it would be beneficial to have that diversity represented.

Karen Bass is one of my favorite members of the judiciary committee. She is not an attorney.

[StarfishSaver]

36. Has she ever expressed an interest in serving on the committee?

[PTWB]

41. Not that I know of.

I was just taken aback today when someone claimed she doesn't meet the "strict qualifications and requirements" to serve on the committee. It made me wonder what they were and why they were so "strict" - but I was unable to find information online, the poster who made the claim refused to substantiate it and now we've discovered via this thread that such qualifications and requirements do not actually exist.

It appears that the poster who made the claim was simply making something up to take a cheap shot at AOC. I don't know why they'd do that.

[StarfishSaver]

43. You couldn't find the information on line that several people found in a few seconds?

Starting a whole new thread isn't a very logical way to get a simple answer to a question.

It is a logical way to start some mess, which I assume was not your intent.

[betsuni]

59. But it is a Quest for Knowledge!

When on a quest one does not use the internet, one saddles up Rocinante and attacks windmills and so on.

[PTWB]

61. Care to link some information from the internet that is definitive?

When I looked at the wiki there was nothing definitive. I read the publicly available house judiciary committee rules but there is nothing there in the way of requirements (or lack of). I found an article that talked about the loose tradition of a legal background in the members of the committee, but again nothing concrete.

It was obvious that a law degree was not a requirement as one of my favorite members of the committee, Karen Bass, does not have a law degree. But I didn't know if there was some obscure rule that the committee had a seniority requirement or some other technical requirement that AOC did not meet.

I couldn't find anything that specifically said there are no requirements and any representative is eligible. No one has posted anything official that says that. But all the information we've gathered has suggested there are no such rules. It is hard to prove a negative which is why I asked for assistance.

[lapucelle]

57. Last year she told the New Yorker

I was assigned to two of some of the busiest committees and four subcommittees. So my hands are full.

as one of her considerations for turning down Pelosi's offer of a seat on the select committee for climate change. it could be that her committee assignments change in the next session.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-on-the-2020-presidential-race-and-trumps-crisis-at-the-border

[brooklynite]

46. There are no requirements...

House Committees are not Constitutionally based; they are a matter of House policies and rules.

[jalan48]

49. I'd rather she focused on running for the Senate.

[Trumpocalypse]

70. I don't think Schumer or Gillibrand

are planning to retire anytime soon. But NYC Mayor is open next year and the Mayor has a lot more power than a Senator.

[Demsrule86]

76. She might win NYC Mayor.

[Demsrule86]

75. She won't win a statewide race in New York...I don't know where she goes from here...but folks

do have successful and long careers in the house.

[Mariana]

84. In this thread:

[DTomlinson]

89. Also, I don't care whether elected officials have long resumes. This is democracy, not LinkedIn.

[DenverJared]

124. No she does not.

[PTWB]

125. Thanks Jared.

[DenverJared]

132. Your efforts are in vain

but ... more power to you.

Most freshman congrescritters don't get a committe anyway and they have to go through subcommittes, then minor committes like sanitation before they can be in the big leagues.

[PTWB]

133. Oh, my efforts were highly successful.

I learned that despite what another poster insisted, there are NOT “strict requirements and qualifications” to be on the judiciary committee. Further, despite that poster’s claim that AOC is not eligible because of those (non-existent) requirements - she absolutely is!

Not that she has any desire to be on the committee in the first place ... but getting the truth out there is very rewarding.

[DenverJared]

134. My opinion is that it is not healthy to ruminate over

what someone else posted on DU.

Obviously, your opinion may be different but DU allows widely different perspectives. We have to live with that.

AOC will need to be on minor subcommittees and then lesser committees. Judiciary, Intelligence, Banking etc. are elite committees where people are appointed by their experience in congress and not based upon the number of tweets or the number of their twitter followers.

[PTWB]

135. We can debate and discuss the finer points of what makes an effective committee.

I’m just happy to know that there do not exist any “strict qualifications and requirements” - at best one could say there are traditions that are loosely followed.

[DenverJared]

136. Experience is a strict qualification and requirement.

[LanternWaste]

128. As it stand, you're either cowering behind implication to call someone out...

Or you''re assiduously researching this very topic using peer reviews sources.

I'm guessing the first one and you'll simply "decline to provide further information..."

But maybe I'm wrong, and you've educated yourself this afternoon!

[PTWB]

129. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Could you try again?

[Cha]

130. Thank you!