It seems to me that yesterday’s rule change by the Republicans which will allow Tom DeLay to retain his post even if he is indicted for illegal fund-raising tactics, is a disgusting abuse of power.
Is there anyone who could defend it as anything but a rule change made not on principle, but for one person, just because the Republicans can?
You just wait, homeboy.
I’m betting, by June 2008, we’ll have one of two old amendments repealed.
-Joe
Whether you think its good or bad, Republicans have been dismantling virtually all the rules which Congress put in place to control and moderate itself. And, of course, many of these rules were put in place by Republican urging, including DeLay helping to put in place the rule he’s now trying to get rid of. The current crisis over filbusters is just another example, and we’ve only even come that far because Republicans had previously gradually done away with all the once valued rules about a certain number of Senators from the judge’s home base being able to say no to his nomination.
Completely indefensible. This reeks to high heaven. The only plausible defense would be if partisan indictments of House members was quite common, and used to disrupt the leadership of the House. Since House members are rarely indicted, and those that are indicted usually leave in disgrace anyway, this protection does not seem warranted to me.
[nitpick]already has[/nitpick]
In just a few years, the Republicans seem to be attempting to gain a level of corruption it took the Dems half a century of congressional control to attain.
I’ll defend it, but not yet. First I insist that the OP describe, accurately, the rule being changed. To whom did it apply? Were there exceptions? Under what circumstances did it apply? Did the Democrats pass this rule? What was the situation when they were in power in the Senate?
Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, one could argue that the rule wasn’t necessary in the first place for precisely the reasons you outline above, and that therefore the Republicans are just removing a bad rule.
Of course, the timing still smells like week-old fish.
It strikes me as vaguely similar to, say, allowing a President to continue in office after he had been impeached. If Democrats were clamoring for Clinton to step down after impeachment, I must have missed it.
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
Repealing a Constitutional Amendment? Really which ones?
Poll tax going to be reinstated?
Will Voting rights for women be revoked?
Will slavery be allowed again?
Or maybe just get rid of the 14th Amendment and really make a hash of American jurisprudence?
You missed the part where impeachment is a political proceeding, where simple partisan gotcha intentions are both possible and transparent, and a criminal indictment is a criminal one, requiring that a prosecutor not only have facts and the law but be able to convince a grand jury too.
But that’s just another typical **Shodan ** attempt at transference. :shrug:
You have no blinkin’ idea what it is, but since it’s the Republicans who look bad, you already know you’ll defend them? Another :shrug: for you too, friend.
As a democrat, I think that the rule change is actually a good idea.
When you’re indicted, you are considered innocent until proven guilty, correct? Unless De Lay is actually guilty of the felony, why would it be right to punish him? (Forcing De Lay to “step down”, before he is rendered guilty - if he is rendered guilty - is pre-emptive punishment, IMHO.)
LilShieste
Oh, I know. I believe that the OP does not.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=18112
The rule stated that those in a leadership position resign the post if indicted of a crime.
It applied to anyone in a leadership position in the house.
There were, to my knowledge, no exceptions.
The Democrats already had the rule when the Republicans passed it in 1993. The Democrats still have it.
I don’t understand your last question, except that you’re clearly leading to a specific event. Why don’t you just tell everybody what the event was?
Shodan, you’re just being obtuse. The constitution provides clear instructions for an impeachment, and nobody asked that the rules be changed when it was clear Clinton was going to be impeached.
Orbifold, the Republicans made the rule when they were trying to act morally superior in the Rostenkowski downfall. The Dems already had the rule, of course. In fact, Tom DeLay led the charge to get the rule in there.
As irritating as manhattan’s tone is, he has a point. This is a GOP caucus rule being discussed. In other words, this is a rule imposed by the Republican party, which as far as I can tell only ever applied to House members of the Republican party. So “abuse of power” doesn’t seem to apply here. The Republican party just imposed this rule on itself 11 years ago (partly to score points against the Democrats, who were getting indicted quite a bit at the time) and has now decided to reverse the field to protect DeLay.
Of course, I now find myself in the odd position of looking fondly back at the moral character of Newt Gingrich. But that’s another story.
I’ll defend it thus:
It’s their party, it’s their rules. If they want to change 'em, more power to 'em.
Of course, it also reveals the Republicans as a group of self-serving hypocrites who wave the flag of “values” only when it’s convenient for them to do so, but that’s a revelation right up there with “water is wet” for obviousness.
Well, aren’t you smug. Why don’t you tell me what I don’t understand? I don’t even care if you’re condescending - you don’t seem to be able to help it.
I was unaware of this, bup. Thanks for the information.
That being said… the dems should get rid of the rule, too.
LilShieste
I agree with **Manhattan **on this. Tell us what the rule is, when it was instituted and why, and who this rule applies to. If you do that, I think you’ll understand the situation better.
rjung seems to get it.
It’s not an abuse of power to keep someone as the majority leader when yesterday your rules said you couldn’t?