Should congress refrain from business during the lame-duck-session?

[Sir Mohamed]

Should congress refrain from business during the lame-duck-session, including new members be sworn in after 30 days already instead of January 3? With refrain from business I mean not passing any laws of significance or confirm any nominees for the cabinet, courts, ambassadorships or attorneys. Only exceptions should be immediate relief in case of a natural disaster or so.

The question is not related to your partisan preferences, so any rule would apply to either side.

I personally voted No. Sometimes unpopular decisions needs to be made and important measures be enacted/unfinished business gotten done now that the election is over. Also, lawmakers are elected for 2 or 6 years and not 1.75 or 5.75 years. I don't see what's the benefit swearing in new members in December instead of January. I think it's better to start once the new year has arrived anyway.

[Sir Mohamed]

No. This would mean that Congress is literally not doing anything for nearly 2 months. That's stupid.

Not necessarily, if the swearing-in date is moved. Theoretically newely (re)elected members could be inaugurated in December. Terms in the CA state legislature begin in early December already.