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.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, let’s enforce a classist dress code to remind everyone how classist we are. That’ll fix everything.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Spendrill@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          You might not have a nobility but you’ve sure as shit got an aristocracy. Cabots, Lowells, Hearsts, Kennedys…

          • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            the Lowells speak only to Cabots, and the Cabots speak only to God

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • cerevant@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Attempt? That was the original intent. They still wanted aristocracy, they just wanted it to be wealth based instead of hereditary.

            • cerevant@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

    • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the Senate, it’s intended to be the “upper class.”

      The rabble is supposed to be in the House of Representatives.