muff528

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    4,127

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by muff528

  1. "For let Philosopher and Doctor preach
    Of what they will, and what they will not. Each
    Is but one Link in an eternal Chain
    That none can slip, nor break, nor over-reach."

    ~Omar the Tentmaker (according to Fitzgerald)

    Also:

    "Beyond the earth,
    beyond the farthest skies
    I try to find Heaven and Hell.
    Then I hear a solemn voice that says:
    "Heaven and hell are inside.”

    and

    "...One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies; ..."

    ~same guy

  2. jakee

    I'm not arguing the case - In fact I'd agree that the DAs behaviour sounds far worse than Perry's and she probably should resign if there's no mechanism to fire her.

    I was just taking issue with you statement that a veto can't be unethical/illegal.



    I'm wondering if we're arguing two different scenarios here ...before and after a bill is passed into law. Like lawrocket pointed out in the "spaceport" example, a governor has the authority to either veto a bill or sign it (or let it pass without his signature). I don't think there is an option that would be illegal, even if the governor threatens to sign or veto it for any reason.

    But, after the bill is passed, my question is: does the governor have any control over any funds provided by the bill that are not explicitly placed under his control by the bill? If so, is he held to any standard that may cause him to be exposed to prosecution based on a reason (political, personal, etc.) if he threatens or does withhold that funding?

    In this case, has the Governor threatened and then withheld funding that was already provided by a lawfully passed bill? Or has he merely vetoed the bill funding the agency? (IDK, ...haven't bothered to look it up since I don't really care about the case in particular ...just the laws in general.) The "veto" language suggests to me that the legislation was simply not passed because of his veto. Then it doesn't matter legally. Then it is up to public opinion to decide, like Perry said, at the ballot box ...not in court.

  3. jakee

    Quote

    As it stands, a governor or president can veto bills for any reason. Or no reason.



    The idea that just because an official has the power to take certain actions it falls outside the realm of all other ethical restrictions is absurd.

    Hypothetical: A state construction contract is awarded. Governor has the power to veto the funding for it and threatens to do so unless the firm with the contract gives him a substantial 'campaign contribution'.

    Has wrongdoing occurred?



    Interesting point. The Governor has veto power over passage of the bill for funding a project. But does he have power to determine (legally or ethically) who gets the contract after the bill is passed into law? Somehow, I doubt it. But, with respect to the Governor's "persuasive" powers, this is where illegal stuff might happen ...not at the legislative/signing level. (unless he's strong-arming or threatening legislators during the legislative process.)

  4. GeorgiaDon

    ******Seems to me that if Perry was acting appropriately, he would not have been indicted by a grand jury.....

    Chuck



    You would think! But, as we've seen more than once from these folks.........

    ("inappropriately" is not necessarily "illegally".)

    If the DA had acted appropriately, she would not have been arrested, convicted and thrown in the hoosegow.In all fairness, I would say it's not very hard to get an indictment from a grand jury. I'm content to say I really don't know if there is anything to the charges, and I'm happy to let the legal process play out.

    You might know more than I do, but all I have read is that the DA was arrested, not that she had been "convicted and thrown in the hoosegow". An arrest is unseemly, especially for a DA, but perhaps not sufficient to fire them. A DA who has been convicted of DUI would, it seems to me, lose all credibility to prosecute, and so should be required to relinquish their office.

    Don

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF9WGKnhXdE

    I stand corrected. She plead guilty and was sentenced to 45 days in the pokey and lost her license for 180 days. Upgraded to "Class A Misdemeanor" because she blew .23 which is a little over the .15 threshold for the more serious charges. Don't know if she served the entire time. I think the pokey is for misdemeanors and the hoosegow is for felonies.

  5. masterrig

    Seems to me that if Perry was acting appropriately, he would not have been indicted by a grand jury.....

    Chuck



    You would think! But, as we've seen more than once from these folks.........

    ("inappropriately" is not necessarily "illegally".)

    If the DA had acted appropriately, she would not have been arrested, convicted and thrown in the hoosegow.

  6. GeorgiaDon

    ***A governor threatening a veto means corruption.

    Pass the Tylenol...

    A governor using his veto to defund targeted offices based on political affiliation of the incumbent?

    I wonder if the issue here is the "threat" ...and not the actual veto. I think the governor can legally veto anything for any reason.

    Quote

    A governor's office closing bridges/roads to communities based on the mayor not endorsing the governor's election campaign?

    Pass the Tylenol...

    Don



    No argument from me if that's what actually happened.

  8. By the title, I thought this was going to be about a shit-faced, drunken, "Boss Hogg"-like, abusive DA bullying and threatening the officers who appeared to be treating her with respect while doing their jobs (at least in the booking video I saw). As a point of interest, and ironically, the State's "Public Integrity Unit" operates out of her office.

    Instead it's about a guy who, when all is sorted out, may have been legally exercising his executive authority. I'm no Perry fan, but it really looks like he was giving her a gracious way out and she decided to go down swinging. Only useful purpose for this indictment is political ammo. Same jurisdiction that indicted Tom DeLay ...says it all, IMO.

  18. Andy9o8

    ******.......

    A "social agnostic" is an atheist who, probably from hard experience, doesn't feel like being socially pressured to explain and justify himself every f**ing time he'd refer to himself as an atheist, so he just says "agnostic" as a more socially-acceptable path of least resistance.



    Kind of like a political "moderate". Works from either direction.

    Not really. Moderates really do exist; in fact, I think they make up the majority of the electorate, despite Ron's apparent belief that they don't really exist.
    I think it's more akin to skydivers who try to avoid mentioning to whuffos that they skydive, because they're sick of the same inevitable conversation over and over again.

    Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. Just trying to be funny. Probably a topic for another thread, but I think there are increasingly more folks who think they are moderates than there are actual moderates.

  19. Andy9o8

    .......

    A "social agnostic" is an atheist who, probably from hard experience, doesn't feel like being socially pressured to explain and justify himself every f**ing time he'd refer to himself as an atheist, so he just says "agnostic" as a more socially-acceptable path of least resistance.



    Kind of like a political "moderate". Works from either direction.

  20. I wonder if non-collectors of stamps hold conventions where the politics and tenets of not collecting stamps is discussed and compared with that of stamp collectors. They might even attract protests by rabid hordes of hoarders of commemoratives ...or (shudder!) topicals!.