This is a one-sided article which does not discuss the opposing view, or the reason why they thought congress should appoint. Ironically, if this became law then it might have prevented Trump from removing the librarian as he attempted in 2025 (still pending in the supreme court). It also includes a term limit of 10 years.
The plain language of the bill’s summary on the bill’s web page (ignoring the EFF article) explains it quite clearly:
1. Gives power to Congress to appoint/remove the librarian rather than the president (cool, great)
2. Strips the copyright power held by the Library of Congress away, library of Congress becomes a supporting resource like a consultant
3. Reassigns that same power to a different position that’s politically appointed by the president.
What you are saying is technically true, but the deck chairs have been shuffled around in a way that seems to at least partially negate the positive change.
I also find it odd that this was passed in a voice vote. It’s hard for me to tell if that means it has strong bipartisan support? I guess I’d have to watch a video recording of the proceedings to know. If I am recalling correctly, congresspeople can call for a tallied vote if they think the voice vote was too ambiguous.
> Rama, a long-time friend of the Trump and Kushner families
> The protests, which civil society and international media have called the Flamingo Revolution, have grown well past their environmental starting point into a challenge to Rama himself
(because of accusations he's bending regulations for Kushner that exist for other companies).
> On 30 December 2024, a Strategic Investment Committee chaired by Rama granted strategic investor status to Atlantic Incubation Partners, a firm affiliated with Kushner's Affinity Partners ... Reuters, which saw the written decision, reported .... the terms include no tax during the construction phase while the Albanian state underwrites the water, electricity and sewage infrastructure.
Yeah, forgive me if I don't exactly see his opinion as unbiased.
That's a rather long screed possibly by an AI thing, so it may have been mentioned in there, but you don't need to be a judge to be on the supreme court. So while it may be nice to hate Alito and file it, there is no practical benefit other than your (or the robots) enjoyment.
It proves nothing because Biden generally didn't fire anybody. Name all the times Biden fired ANYONE from his cabinet. Below the cabinet, compared to any other president, he just didn't fire people to any degree.
If they lose it will be because they don’t track unfavorabilty ratings for your democrats as much as they do the current admin. It’s not enough (for moderates) to just say you hate the other guy.
Genetically and environmentally some people need a job for identity and some don't. There are benefits and drawbacks to everything. If you are in the former category keep working indefinitely. Know yourself.
https://www.stoneslaw.net/legislative-branch-agencies-clarif...
reply