U.S. Senate unanimously passes formal dress code after uproar
axios.com
The Senate passed a resolution Wednesday to make business attire a requirement on the Senate floor.
The moves comes after backlash to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) directive to scuttle the chamber's informal dress code, which was widely viewed to be inspired by Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.).
The bipartisan resolution requires that business attire be worn on the floor of the Senate, "which for men shall include a coat, tie, and slacks or other long pants."
The bill does not spell out what the attire includes for women.
I'm so glad the country doesn't have any actual problems that need to be addressed so the Senate can afford to spend time on nonsense like this.
I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. We're facing another Republican engineered government shutdown but what's the #1 priority? Fashion.
I’m starting to think they also don’t want to see his arm tats that honor victims of gun violence. That would be another crisis unaddressed.
That doesn't mention female attire...
25 senators are women 15 of whom are Democrats (and 1 independent who caucuses with the Democrats) and it was a unanimous vote. Isn't that peculiar?
I think you misspelled “fascism”.
Well there's definitely a rise of ultraconservatism I don't know if I'd call it fascism personally but American politics is in a dangerous place right now.
At least this issue is bIpArTiSaN.
Yes, let's enforce a classist dress code to remind everyone how classist we are. That'll fix everything.
It certainly makes it more likely for the rich to be able to go to the senate. Especially if you're an especially big and tall guy like Fetterman who would have to get all of his suits tailor-made.
Yeah it’s basically an attempt to be like the House of Lords in a country without nobility
You might not have a nobility but you've sure as shit got an aristocracy. Cabots, Lowells, Hearsts, Kennedys...
the Lowells speak only to Cabots, and the Cabots speak only to God
'Home of the bean and the cod...' That's where I first became aware of the Boston Brahmin.
For anyone interested in reading quite a long bit about how the early European settlers influenced modern US culture, Slate Star Codex's book review of Albion's Seed gives a good outline.
This is a line that stuck in my head since the first time I read 'a brief history of nearly everything' by Bill Bryson.
Thanks for the link!
You're welcome.
Oh absolutely but they don’t hold titles or political power granted by blood. If the Vanderbilt family loses all its money that’s it. I’ve known several poor people whose family had been old money but lost it all. Our aristocracy has to fight to stay an aristocracy.
And yeah that’s part of the point of the senate. It was clearly meant for representatives to be the common dredges of society, whoever the hell the people of a small geographical area felt represented them at the time. Both the 6 year term and the 2 per state quantity are meant to make it a more prestigious institution. It’s more expensive to become a senator and you have to be able to appeal to people outside your area. That results in a handful of senators that aren’t alike, but for the most part they’re career politicians, rich people, backed by rich people, or from a more legal background. A representative Kennedy isn’t sure they want to be a politician that much, is breaking their teeth, or is a fuckup, kennedies are senators. The founders of the United States saw themselves in the senate or executive branch. Hell, even in states with more senators than representatives, due to the greater power of senators they’re the ones that fit those descriptions.
Attempt? That was the original intent. They still wanted aristocracy, they just wanted it to be wealth based instead of hereditary.
What an odd way to say the same thing twice in those last five words
Let’s remember that a bastard who married rich that had a good deal of influence on how our government works. He definitely was making sure that he had a future.
Only if you want them to fit. I saw no requirement for that in the memo
I'd laugh my ass off if Fetterman shows up next time in a jacket that barely reaches his elbows
Bonus points if some other Senator walks in looking like a Dick Tracy villain
Bingo bango. High-waters, hoooo!
It's the Senate, it's intended to be the "upper class."
The rabble is supposed to be in the House of Representatives.
The tie is the most useless piece of clothing ever invented. It serves no purpose (shut up about the original function, it no longer serves it) except to constrict your airway and dip into your spaghett.
Autoerotic asphyxiation.
What was even the original function anyway?
To please King Louis XIII.
During the 30 year war, Croatian mercenaries fought alongside the King in battle. To keep their jackets tied they used a piece of cloth which King Louis XIII took a strong liking to. He made this smart scarf a mandatory accessory for royal gatherings. Paying homage to the Croats who introduced this scarf to him, he named it ‘La Cravate’, which is still the French name for the necktie today.
Over the ages, the cravat has evolved into the modern necktie we wear today. Since their origins in military regiments, they have been a symbol of power and respect. Throughout the 19th century, they swept through the Western world. They were found in most universities, schools, sports clubs and gentlemen clubs.
...could be the soldier in the white cravat who turns the key in spite of the fact that this is the end of the cat and the mouse who dwelt in the house where the laughter rang and the tears were spilt; the house that jack built...
...bang-bang, shoot-shoot, white-gloved thumb: lord, thy will be done...
"He was always a good boy," his mother said, "he'll do his duty when he's grown."
...yeah, everybody's got someone they call home...
The original function of any dress code is always maintained by the aristocracy and adopted by the people to put on the same airs, never the other way around.
It hides your placket. You don't want people walking around with their plackets on show do you?
That’s the first thing I check out when I pick up a nudie magazine.
Edit: I think… I have no idea what a placket is
I'd like to see you find a better way of keeping soup off your shirt.
Can't spill soup on your shirt if you aren't wearing one
Please don't take this from men. It's like 1 of the only 3 socially acceptable male fashion accessories.
We already let them take the codpiece from us
Speak for yourself
As far as I'm concerned, a T-Shirt with a funny slogan and shorts is acceptable male fashion.
Sure, cause the ex president with the most federal charges is in business attire and he is an upstanding citizen. Let’s focus on how people look instead of actual issues.
It's only ever about appearances with the repubs. They want the appearance of propriety. If they start dressing like their lessers, then The lessers might realize they are equals.
It's also why suits are so expensive. It's not like the cloth that makes a suit is any different than the cloth used to make my Slayer T-shirt.
If all the poors started wearing suits they'd just invent something else and make it cost $1mil per outfit.
Even trump might be out of code, unless high heels are acceptable business attire for men.
It’s cross dressing and we know how regressors feel about that
I suppose they feel hypocritical about it.
This is what's important to these people. They don't care about millions suffering every day, they don't care about the climate going to shit, they don't care about the economy. They're up in arms because someone might not wear a full suit in their presence. These are your "representatives".
They didn't get into power magically. Every single one was elected. So unfortunately we get the politicians we deserve. It ticks me off that in a non presidential election it's basically impossible to get even half of eligible voters to show up at the polls. If more Americans cared then we might get more politicians who care.
It's ostensibly true that they were elected by the people, but after many years of observation I have to assume that no one gets into the position to be on those ballots without an entire shit-ton of shady backroom wheeling and dealing. I assume all of the top level politicians are corrupt and we aren't given any choices for legitimately altruistic politicians.
If the American people wanted better politicians we could vote them in. Most politicians are able to get on a ballot by getting signatures on a petition. If people cared about politics as much as they cared about their entertainment (sports, movies, TV, games, etc) then there would be an entirely different class of politician running for office.
Say you don’t understand the political economy in the United States without saying you don’t understand the political economy in the United States.
I'm always willing to listen someone else's opinion. What is your diagnosis of current American politics and what's your prognosis?
I'm not sure we could. Who was on the ballot in the last presidential election? Not anyone whose politics i want to support. I can't vote people who represent me into power because those people can't get ballot access. Sanders isn't even that guy for me but at least he'd be something. He almost broke through twice but each time he was stomped down by the status quo politicians.
Not magically, no, but it's no secret that the more evil the candidate, the more money they get in campaign donations and behind the scenes help from billionaires who really really want them on their side when they are in office. Americans are not getting fair elections with fair information.
Americans have more access to good information now than ever before. If Americans want to be informed they can be. Billionaires don't have mind control rays. Too many Americans just don't care. Not all but the vast majority of us can name the athletes on our favorite teams going back decades but don't know the name of the men and women who represent us. Or the name of our state's governor.
To your point, more people have access to information than ever. Good and bad. Look at all the crap around COVID. You have medical professionals releasing studies and vaccine, and some douche named Q saying "Nah, it's poison. Drink bleach instead". Obviously this is an easy example to differentiate what's good and bad info. But people still tried bleach. Countering good information with a malicious, self serving narrative seems to be as easy as saying "That's what the establishment wants you to think", and people fall for it all the time. In huge numbers. Over every little piece of bullshit that gets published somewhere. Politics are a huge centre of misinformation and disinformation, making it very challenging to pick out what's not total crap. And that's the point.
If you want good information it's easier now than ever before to access it and verify it.
Verify it against what? Additional information of dubious quality? Case in point, the whole "vaccines cause autism" thing. That finding was published by Andrew Wakefield in Lancet and cited everywhere. Only thing is that is was debunked almost immediately, but people kept citing the publication.
My point being that few people have the gumption to check sources, and if they do, fewer still are going to keep tabs on them more than once, or verify the validity against... yet additional sources. Every step in the process has the end user trying to determine if what they are reading is true, against other information they don't know is true.
My point is that misinformation has always been here. This isn't something new. In the past you had to do actual research to verify if something was true, half-truth, or completely untrue. Now you can easily find information. And compared to researching something in a library, easily verify it.
This could be a generational thing but it's so incredibly easy to disprove something now. If you Google, "do vaccines cause autism" in less than a quarter of a second Google gives you government websites, scholarly articles, links to university studies, etc. It's easier now than ever before to find and verify good information. And I'm not trying to be dismissive but I don't think anyone will convince me otherwise any time soon.
It's a little out of order, but I just wanted to mention that I don't disagree with you, and I don't find your tone dismissive at all! Further, I have no intention of convincing anyone of anything specifically, just raising points of interest. We're just having a fun little back and forth!
Misinformation and falsehoods are as old as time, absolutely. What is new is the lack of trust in the authoritative bodies that would typically provide that ballast of truth, to measure against. People distrust the government (and if what I've read about the history of US politics is true, there might be something to that). They don't typically associate government information with "good" information as they would have in the past. Even official publications are not immune, as per my previous example with vaccinations. Lastly, I believe you and I have the ability to search something and find a suitable result to cut through bad information; at least better than most. Passing the "smell test", if you will. We take that for granted. The vast majority don't realize how to find information effectively. They may search "vaccines cause autism" as a question, but that may very well return many fringe articles with that exact string in it, providing validity to the statement where none was before.
Basically, the game is rigged. We've figured out how to navigate those waters with a reasonable amount of success, but it's a skill we've invested in. Most people do not possess that, and are unwilling to acquire it (those same people that will put in a support ticket before trying literally anything to resolve a technical issue they may be encountering). For them, the information bounty we are enjoying is a minefield of confusion.
We all get the politicians the worst of us deserve.
How about instead of making sure they wear the correct clothing, you make sure they do their god damn fucking job of making life better for the citizens. Because that hasn't been happening for decades now and what they wear while fucking over Americans hardly matters.
The crappy thing is it's our job as citizens to make sure they do their job but too many Americans just don't seem to care. Getting half of eligible voters to vote in a non presidential election is nearly impossible.
This is the dumbest fucking thing
Ah yes formal business attire, the universal dress code for those who accomplish nothing while looking very important. Very appropriate
Ya know gym shorts and a t-shirt besides being infinitely more practical and comfortable would lead to confusion with actual hard working Americans who don't have the luxury of getting paid to do nothing.
Maybe we should switch to some type of sci-fi uniform.
I might watch C-SPAN if they were all dressed like the Martians in Mars Attacks.
I always thought sci-fi uniforms were really cool, could you imagine congress in like, mass effect alliance uniforms? that would be cool as fuck.
of course, that might also be because I find business attire to be boring as fuck. So maybe most things look cool in comparison.
That's gold, Jerry
Good thing they're focusing on the important things. Fucking Cunts!
So it's an orgy?
Tame orgy if only one opening is getting fucked.
Imagine a world without conservatives. Immense wastes of energy and time like this would be a thing of the past.
Conservatism is a disease in need of a cure.
I frequently do. A world without conservatives is essentially what I envision a "heaven" to be, not that I'm religious.
Gotta look profesh while they're not doing their jobs. It's like they're in competition with that disaster of a House to see which chamber can be the most useless.
Well with the potential/likely shut down I'd say the house is by far the most useless.
It's cause it is.
The House is the kiddie table at a family reunion, where there is an overabundance of small, bratty kids. Half of those children want to get food and make sure everyone has enough to eat, but refuses to share their ball, their toys, or their area, and think sitting in pee is an acceptable alternative that other kids should be content with.
The other side wants to eat all the food, even food they aren't entitled to, the cake, blame the kids next to them for eating the cake, then take a shit on the plate where the cake was, and tell all the other kids it was the cake the whole time.
The parents are nearly as shitty, but most of them are in their 80s or higher and are propped up with sticks, bailing wire, and denture cream.
If I was Fetterman, it'd now be my personal pet peeve to subvert this dress code whenever I could by showing up in the most ridiculous-but-formally-correct outfits.
Yellow ties, mustard green coat, orange slacks?
How about this beauty?
That is brilliant.
We could only hope Fetterman would be so based.
I love it, but it just doesn't assault my eyes enough.
Literal clown suit
The Joker does wear a suit.
"Wanna know how I got these votes?"
I think the stereotypical clown suit would fit the rules. That'd be perfect.
Dress like Saul Goodman or the Joker
Dress like Saul Goodman and the Joker
I’d go full Vinny Gambini on em’.
I wonder if Don Cherry's tailor does Big and Tall...
Most of us Americans probably aren’t familiar with Don Cherry, I wasn’t until I lived with a Canadian and found hockey.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
Why only men have specific requirements? This is not an attack on women but the ridiculousness of having a dress code that only specifies one gender.
I would go the malicious compliance route.
“which for men shall include a coat, tie, and slacks or other long pants.”
First up, there is no mention of a shirt...
Coat (n): A sleeved outer garment extending from the shoulders to the waist or below.
Lots of room for fun there.
Tie: (from wikkipedia) Variants include the ascot, bow, bolo, zipper tie, cravat, and knit.
Again, lots of fun.
slacks or other long pants
You get the idea by now.
Honestly something along what you're suggesting was my first thought too but then that might hurt Fetterman when he runs for reelection. He beat Dr Oz by 3%, which is rather good, but Oz was a pretty terrible candidate. He might face significantly stiffer competition next time around and he probably wants to avoid a montage of him dressed silly on some attack ad.
Dressed the way he did, he would get Philly residents to support him more.
Yeah people that think Pennsylvania will be less likely to vote for someone like that don’t know Pennsylvania.
PA is basically 3 states in one. As someone who grew up there, don't confuse Philadelphia (or Pittsburgh for that matter) politics with PA politics. There's a BIG area in the middle there...
Anybody in PA can relate to athletic shorts and hoodie. Doesn't matter the location.
Maybe. Seems like it could be a lot to risk with little gain. I don't think it would play well in the suburbs. I'm just some schlep though what do I know?
You're not a shlep you're a schmo!
I'm not a schmo I'm a schmuck
You're a schmuck, but you're also a schlemiel. Or is that a schlemazel?
That's a negative ghost rider. I am Hasenpfeffer Incorporated
He also suffered a stroke right before the election and was not in the most coherent state in his speeches at the time. And the ruling is only for the Senate floor, so he should be able to campaign in his own form of style outside of that.
So, puffy sports team coat, bolo tie, and pants hanging below my ass. I'm compliant!
I feel like that's how my character looked in Disco Elysium lol. Gotta get those stat boosts!
It also doesn't require a shirt!
Parachute pants, Dante's trenchcoat, and a bolo tie, got it.
They don't want to piss off Kristen Sinema, I guess?
Surely some tailor out there can make a hoodie styled like a suit coat with a drawstring "tie".
Also it doesn't say where those garments have to be worn. I'm putting on my jacket as a cape, slacks on my head, and tying a tie around my dick. Technically compliant with your stupid dress code.
Bravo
Glad they are focused on the important things.
Bunch of worthless cunts.
Sir I must let you know that you are impugning upon the good reputation of cunts everywhere.
You know this is just going to result in a pride suit right? I 100% expect him showing up in rainbows. Should bring in cat ears as well.
If they didn't specify a dress code for women then he should just change his pronoun. That would get them all in a tizzy!
I love it. Although that might be considered fairly offensive to some.
Oh no! We wouldn't want to offend pearl-clutching tone-policing bigots; that would be terrible!
👌I more meant those in the LGBTQ community.
They should know better than anyone to respect people's chosen pronouns.
I think it's more the disingenuous nature of "changing your pronouns" to in effect make a point.
Also it kinda gives those weirdos like "I'll just go into the women's restroom and say I'm a woman if questioned; love this system" some undeserved ground (granted I think gendered restrooms are a bit silly).
Or a Steelers style suit.
All it says is 3 piece suit right? Nothing about the condition of said suit? Slacks, cut off just below the front pockets. Sport jacket, sleeves ripped off. Shirt, top 3 unbuttoned, sleeves rolled up.
That, or straight pimpin'. Only 2 colors allowed, purple and leopard. Only 2 materials, silk and velour.
Theater is the only thing U.S. Senate is good at. And maybe getting bribed, but that's beside the point.
Are you trying to tell me that you don't have gold bars in your closet? Who doesn't have at least one Egyptian gold bar somewhere in their couch cushions?
I prefer the smell of cash, so I keep my name branded jacket pockets full of them.
I prefer my bribes... er... contributions in gold just in case I need to relocate quickly to a country without an extradition treaty. Who wants to mess around with exchange rates?
Gold, ha. Apparently American politicians are awfull cheap to bribe.
Remember that one that was hiding her bribe in her bra? https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6132629
So she got 3½ years and was released in September 2013. Then in February 2014 she received an award from the mayor of Boston as one of 18 "women of color changing our world." I wonder where she put the award?
Bobert has the theatre thing down pretty well.
well, democrats can't really do much without more votes for avoid filibuster; and the only page in republican's playbook is obstruction--and they are getting rather 'good' at it, having run it for decades.
So glad they can decide on what to wear instead fixing things to prevent a government shut down ..... phew I was so worried about their priorities there for a moment 😕
Well technically it's the house that needs to prevent the shutdown. That's the chamber that can't pass a funding bill.
When I was in middle school (private school), the headmaster somehow manipulated the 8th grade class into voting for a dress code. I was just commenting on that to my therapist two weeks ago. Can't even remember how it came up, but talk about voting against your own interests.
WFH should have taught us that this shit doesn't matter in most scenarios. Oh well. At least they'll look nice while they accomplish fucking nothing.
Who counted the votes?
Pass a budget. Nobody should be getting paid until then. The 20 republican extremists holding the entire country hostage should be fined exorbitantly every day they refuse to work with everyone to pass a budget.
Fuck stuff like dress codes. I could give less of a shit if everyone was naked, literally doesn't matter vs getting the government properly funded.
The Senate isn't the chamber holding up a budget bill...
It isn't, but they should be entirely focused on talking to their colleagues and making damn sure that the government gets funded before time runs out. It's extremely important we don't let this one slide.
Please, the last thing the nation needs is Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz naked on TV.
This is going to help avert a Government shutdown and put millions of people out of work!
I absolutely hate to defend the Senate on anything, but there's really nothing they can do about the shutdown at this point. They're ready to fund the government. The House isn't playing ball.
Crisis averted! Good job senators! I know I'll sleep better now!
Who cares what people are wearing?
40 something and still dealing with dumb shits in office.
Seems blatantly discriminatory on the basis of gender
Discrimination is the point of every dress code. They can't have commoners walking freely through the House of Lords, or whatever these fuckheads want to call themselves this incarnation.
They should be hung from the roof upside down and naked. Instead we get to watch them bicker like children over the scraps of the government they've yet to destroy.
This is pure classism. They think they are better than us.
These people don't know what the country needs and they don't care. They spend their time and our money making it illegal for people to dress in a way that makes them unhappy. Absolutely fucking useless.
I think lawmakers getting paid during a government shutdown, free healthcare, and only work half the year is more concerning. They get more breaks than I get vacation time at work.
And the penalty is what - a letter in your personal file? A fine (and to be paid by whom, if paid at all)? A physical removal from the space (and, again, by whom)? DJT and the modern GOP have shown that laws written concerning the presidency, congress, and the supreme court have no teeth whatsoever. Even congressional subpoenas and perjury no longer have any meaning as long as you're willing to ignore or flaunt them.
I actually agree with the desire for at least a minimum of decorum in the chambers, but the whole process is stupid to the extreme.
That's a really good question as to what the penalties would be. Any removal wound probably be done by the Senate Sargeant at arms who is Karen Gibson and/or her staff. I agree that there should be some general minimum standard. But listing the articles of required clothing seems silly.
Kinda weird they had to pass a resolution to overrule Schumer's non-resolution decision, but they did it by unanimous consent so if Schumer (or Fetterman) disagreed they could have stopped it. If Schumer and Fetterman are on board for this, they could have just reversed the earlier decision.
Yeah, it seems odd to me that Fetterman would have voted for it. Unanimous consent means that they said "any objections" and there weren't any. Thus there is no record of who voted for it. Maybe they planned the vote to be when some members were absent?
Literally cannot pass a budget on time for decades though.
That would be House.
Edit: changed Congress to House.
The Senate is part of Congress, which also includes the House.
You are correct, I should have said that it is the House.
popularity contest for the upper class
How much did this process cost in taxpayer money?
This directive seemed like a trap from Schumer which invited Republicans and conservative Democrats to show off how out-of-touch they are with millennials and Gen Z. Looks like they fell for it.
There is a bigmad Trump supporter downvoting the thread, I'm guessing most of us have them blocked already.
Everyone point & laugh at the stupid fascist symp.
I did notice a comment I couldn't open to read for some reason, lol.
They don't care about us at all and it shows.
Really doing important work there in the Senate. Putting on a good show of how connected and in touch they are with the people.
Really don't indeed. I assume you couldn't force your fingers to spell as ludicrous a lie as the originally intended sarcasm.
Or SwiftKey interpreted doing as don't. Either one.
Aha. So it's SwiftKey that is incapable of saying, even sarcastically, that the Senate is doing important work.
It also seems like some people were unable to interpret my previous comment? Idk why else I'd have a bunch of downvotes for pointing out a particularly amusing typo...
Yeah def originally read it like you were being an ass. Re-read and I got it the second time around!
You mean no more antler helmets?
The rules don't specify "no antler helmets" and if Air Bud has taught me everything it is that if it isn't banned it's legal.
Counter proposal, every member must wear formal dresses. You can have your formal attire, but you're not going to like it.
As long as they all have to wear fancy hats like at the Kentucky Derby too. Even though I think there's nearly nothing redeeming about Lindsey Graham I imagine he'd have the fanciest hat of them all.
resolutions don't do anything do they?
Its the legal version of "we offer thoughts and prayers statement of the following..."
It's... honestly sad that this is what makes the news
Ever since CNN started the 24hr news cycle more and more mundane things are reported on. It's perfectly fine if you don't think this is of any value. Some people do and that's fine too.
See, even the Senate can't function without basic regulations. Just because we used to have freedom and decorum for generations, what makes people think an entire society should continue to be free of restriction and regulation? If individuals operate outside the established norms of a community, legislation is adopted to codify those norms.
The Senate was nonfunctional because someone wore shorts? I'm no ancap but I don't think that this fixed a problem, nonetheless the problem with the Senate.
It seems my exaggerated commentary is a bit above your head. Sorry for attempting to use the internet to spur thought and discussion.