Republicans changing their rules
Hardly seems cricket, does it ?
Printable View
Republicans changing their rules
Hardly seems cricket, does it ?
At the very least the Republicans should let DeLay step down, if indicted, and then change the rule. That would solve the problem of having a bad rule while still giving the rules some teeth, by making it clear that they won't be changed just to cover asses.
I never did understand that term "hardly seems cricket." After all, is anything really cricket besides cricket? :grinyes:
And so it begins...
--D
It's not really changing the rules if there is a rule that says they can vote on it, is it?
Depends on what your definition of "is" is. :evil:
Face it, both sides play the game. . .
Both sides should be killed.
The party of moral authority strikes again.
And they won't get punished for this because they've gerrymandered themselves into power for the forseeable future.
punished for what? Using the system? It's in their power to do it. Morally wrong, yes. Punishable? Nope
Why don't we stop trolling for responses. Please and thank you.
-Nattik
--Sorry...
--D
I know tom delay (and for that matter have met both Bush presidents). why would I be surprised? I knew about his fundraising practices YEARS ago through my family.Quote:
Republican criminals protect Republican criminals...
If you are surprised, you're 12 years old...or 70 and senile...Or Istari, whom gamely manages to be ~both~...
if you want to make ~stupid~ ~personal~ attacks, at least make substantial ones. both senile and immature at the same time? please do yourself a favor and shut up and leave the flaming to someone capable, like grindel. after that incredibly naive post about applying liberalism to life, I'm surprised you'd make a comment like this.
Democrat criminals protect Democrat criminals. Surprised yet? There is nothing special about which party you belong to in order for this behavior to be evident. The key thing is that republican lawmakers in general are not criminals, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that democrat lawmakers are less likely to commit crimes. furthermore, they couldn't protect DeLay from criminal prosecution, only indictment. if he's found guilty of anything, he's not protected.Quote:
Republican criminals protect Republican criminals...
A (pleasantly) surprisingly restrained response, Istari....
--D
I like how they keep claiming it's "political" from Austin (city), when the HOUSE condemned him for things like offering BRIBES. The allegations have already been proven to the House's satisfaction, to the point where even his own party members condemned him, but actually prosecuting for his issues is purely political!
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the rule.
It was my understanding that currently, if you are indicited, that means you lose your position. The Republicans saw a flaw in this in that, in the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. The feeling was that a rogue prosecuter could gather enough circumstantial evidence to force a congressman to lose their position while the case made its way though the court system. With the change, so long as one was not found guilty of a crime, congress would vote and decide of the charges brought against the congressman were worthy of forcing him to step aside.
Am I understanding that correctly? (I am seriously asking)
You got it mostly right except for a few parts...you don't LOSE your "position" you're just on probation, and
the Republicans wrote this rule knowing about this. It was written at the time a Democrat was being indicited (but not found guilty yet) to gloat and to get to remove him immediately instead of waiting for the end of the trial, which is exactly what happened. It was hardly a flaw it was planned, the flaw was it backfiring on themQuote:
The Republicans saw a flaw in this in that, in the US, you are innocent until proven guilty.
The republicans changed the rule to the existing one in 1993 in order to oust democrats. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they want to remove the rule to prevent Tom Delay from being removed. The shortest simplest way to explain the hypocracy is: getting rid of democrats is good; getting rid of republicans who do the same thing is bad.Quote:
Am I understanding that correctly?
Ok got it.
Hmm, not sure how I feel about this rule. On one hand, if you were at a normal job and put up on charges, yeah, your employer might put you on probation. On the other hand, there is that whole innocent until proven guilty issue.
In either event, yeah, I would have to agree that its pretty shifty to have things one way for Dems and another way for Republicans. I really wish our polititians would play clean. Republicans are in power pretty much because they presented themselves as being the party with morals. I hope they don't lose sight of that.
Wow the more I read about Delay the more I miss Gingrich. Turns out his old press secretary has been ripping off indian tribes for tens of millions of dollars over the past couple of years.
Everyone has been ripping off indian tribes. Look at the non-scandal over the tribes being shorted for royalties for oil, gas, coal, timber and uranium. The shortages are in the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars added up over the last 100 years. Read Sinister Pig, by Hillerman for a tangential discussion of it. Nah, just read Hillerman's mysteries anyway, they're good. The BIA has been taking lots of flak for their mishandling of this issue. If you live outside of "indian country" then this issue has been whited out.
Sample: there is a oil pump, pumping oil out of the ground. It is connected to the "pipelines" and there is a meter. There is also a shunt pipe going around the meter (the explanation is that meters break, so there needs to be a shunt so you can fix them). You/your_tribe get paid royalties based on the meter reading. The shunt is padlocked in the bypass mode for 10 months per year. People who break the padlock and set the valves so that the oil flow is metered have been known to get shot (which might be an urban legend, and is connected to the plot of the book above). How much do you/your_widow lose in royalties?
Valas you have it correct.
Wrong. According to AP - "requirement that leaders indicted on felony charges relinquish their positions."Quote:
You got it mostly right except for a few parts...you don't LOSE your "position" you're just on probation, and
Quote:
the Republicans wrote this rule knowing about this. It was written at the time a Democrat was being indicited (but not found guilty yet) to gloat and to get to remove him immediately instead of waiting for the end of the trial, which is exactly what happened. It was hardly a flaw it was planned, the flaw was it backfiring on them
The rule is a party rule, it only applies to the Repulicans. The Dems have a similar rule, with the difference that it does not affect to top positions in the party. The Dems have already stated that they are going to change their rule to apply to all Dem positions.Quote:
The republicans changed the rule to the existing one in 1993 in order to oust democrats. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they want to remove the rule to prevent Tom Delay from being removed. The shortest simplest way to explain the hypocracy is: getting rid of democrats is good; getting rid of republicans who do the same thing is bad.
I agree with this change. The prosecutor in the case has a history of bringing up republicans on charges, only to drop all charges later for lack of evidence. It is completely logical to close the loop hole in how the rule works. If someone is CONVICTED, then they should not only lose their committe/party leadership positions, they should lose their seat in congress.
welcome to politics. it's not hypocrisy, it's power.
It's an abuse of power. In a functioning democracy they would have to worry about losing the next election.Quote:
Morally wrong, yes. Punishable? Nope
Well, that and massive gerrymandering.Quote:
Republicans are in power pretty much because they presented themselves as being the party with morals.
You would agree of course, ignoring the fact the HOUSE has already decided the charges in question are TRUE. Yup, an Ethics committee with a MAJORITY of Republicans cited him for 3 seperate incidents, 2 of which are what he's being charged with (and are clearly illegal)Quote:
I agree with this change. The prosecutor in the case has a history of bringing up republicans on charges, only to drop all charges later for lack of evidence.
And "relenquish his position" means probation in this case. He doesn't have to leave Congress, just step aside while it's ongoing. And you want to call it a party rule? Fine whatever, I still remember them running advertisements about the rules to the public and crap, in the world of politics this was not a voluntary thing
That sounds insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangurena
There will be reckoning for this. A massive court case one day.
Activist judges appointed by Republican presidents have had no issue with screwing the Indians in disregard to the law and the Constitution. Why would this change magically?Quote:
There will be reckoning for this. A massive court case one day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remfin
It might happen one day, it is proceeding in Canada, some tribes have settled and had large amounts of land, minerals, and cash given back to them.
Canada is a whole lot more accepting of it's native population than the U.S. is.Quote:
Originally Posted by camrael