Whether a war should be authorized is a separate question from who has the power to authorize it. [… But] there are good reasons to believe that if the Congress took its war powers more seriously than either it or the executive branch presently does, it would act as another barrier—however imperfect—against the capricious resort to military force.

Certainly, the most reflexive advocates for war seem to think so.
I’ve just had a baby, I’ve just been appointed [to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate], I have a lot to learn, so much on my plate, and this man basically says to me, ‘You’re too fat to be elected statewide.’ At that moment, if I could have just disappeared, I would have. If I could have just melted in tears, I would have. But I had to just sit there and talk to him … I didn’t hear a word he said, but I wasn’t in a place where I could tell him to go fuck himself.

Congressional Democrats Seek HHS Update on Gay Blood Ban

86 members of Congress have sent a second letter to the fed urging it to speed up its re-evaluation of the lifetime blood ban on blood donated by men who have sex with men.

Prompting this new letter was the recent rejection of donated eyes after the death of a gay 16-year-old who committed suicide. They were rejected because his mother could not confirm her son had not been sexually active.

So far, only one Republican has signed on.

Is Congress mad that the president didn’t ask for their permission? No, because if he did, then they’d have to go on the record with their opinions which could be used against them later if it turned out they were wrong. They’d rather sit back and criticize the outcome without ever having to do or say anything.

But isn’t that their job? Yes, but in their defense: they’re terrible at their jobs. But don’t feel bad for them. They want to be terrible at their jobs, and when you consider that they want to be terrible at their jobs, they’re doing an excellent job.