This should be easy to clear up - Squink, what exactly did you want to happen in 2015 so that justice would be served?
Regards,
Shodan
No, no, not jailed.
Hammered. Hammered is good.
Except on Fox and amongst Republican Congressmen, where it was the other way around. It’s [del]China[/del]Washingtontown, Jake.
[Genuine question] Is putting relatives on your payroll illegal in Congress? I know that there was a lot of controversy about UK Parliamentarians hiring spouses and children to do menial officework at greatly inflated salaries but am not sure to what extent it goes on in Congress. If Pelosi’s doing it and it’s not actually against the rules, I’d bet good money that Congresspeople of all ilks have been doing this from the earliest days of the Republic (rightly or wrongly).
Of course not. Perish the thought. A Republican? Never. 
The editorial could have been clearer about simply calling his actions unethical and dishonest. But perhaps there was a fear of a libel suit if they did?
The line quoted in the OP was not implying that Tom Delay was legally a criminal. It’s taking Delay to task for saying he was “found innocent,” as a defense to his ethical misconduct.
The point was that Delay should not gloss over the moral concerns regarding his conduct by simply claiming he did nothing illegal. I would give Bricker the same advice.
ETA: The editorial also never says that lawyers were wrong to not prosecute Delay. Only that what Delay did was wrong despite not being prosecuted.
Nope. It’s an important point.
No, because it’s evidently not criminal and no one seriously thinks it should be so they are obviously speaking figuratively.
On the topic of this thread it seems someone is actually saying someone is a criminal because he did something that is not illegal and should be prosecuted for something that is not illegal.
And that’s plain daft.
Yes.
That actually makes sense and is a logical thing to say. 
You can’t know that. Didn’t you see him murder the Cha Cha on nationwide television?
OK, but I didn’t say anything about retroactivity. Going forward, would it be good for society if DeLay’s actions were made illegal?
Also, do you believe that “found not guilty” and “found innocent” mean the same thing?
Presuming your question is not rhetorical, it’s because “the Justice Department decided last week not to bring charges against Tom DeLay,” making Delay’s case once more into a current event.
Additionally, although the editorial clearly revolves around Delay, the author also specifically singled out Nancy Pelosi for misbehavior, so the author is already at least partially following your suggestion.
Finally, the editorial is urging the currently Democratic-lead Congress to do more in the way of ethics reform, and specifically no to allow the Office of Congressional Ethics to be weakened. Since the two most high-profile ethics investigations currently are Reps. Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel (both Democrats), and failure to stiffen ethics regulations would be specifically on the head of the Democratic leadership, I’m surprised you’re not wholeheartedly behind this editorial on purely partisan grounds.
What a proud moment for our tighty-righty contingent! “Not indictable!” they sing, in a chorus of full-throated joy. It would be churlish and mean of me to snark at such a triumph. I shall not!
No, and again, no! Instead, lets have a glowing tribute, let our politically constipated friends list for us all the many, many noble and patriotic efforts that Tom DeLay (R-Undead) has made on behalf of a grateful nation, how often he has risen above politics and the unseemly pursuit of power. Blinded by lefty hypocrisy as I am, I cannot be of much help, but you must have simply dozens of such instances when Tom DeLay represented the very finest, the very best, and shown us all what we might hope for when such a paragon is in our midst! Perhaps just the top ten, for now.
Gentlemen, the floor is yours!
(Hush, you crickets! Show a little respect…)
Is there an actual debate, or is this just another tweaking of liberals? Don’t we have a Pit for that?
Nancy Pelosi’s behavior, however, is ongoing. Her having her relatives on the payroll, therefore, is always a “current event”. But the NYT editorial writer does not choose to mention it apart from times when he can link the behavior to a Republican.
If it is an unethical as the writer claims it is, why does he never seem to bring it up except when Delay gets away with it? Why does the fact that Pelosi has been getting away with not trigger an editorial?
His outrage is rather selective.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe the writer could have phrased it a little better, but it’s basically an opinion piece complaining about a need for ethics reform by Congress. Doesn’t that logically have to be be about conduct that is arguably unethical but currently not criminalized?
You did not, but the editorial writer certainly implied it, which is what began this thread (and for the benefit of Hamlet and others who missed it, that’s the proferred debate: should we readily accept the undertone of who cares if there’s a law; the SOB is guilty, with harmonies sung by elucidator.)
My point is that communication among people happens by inference and implication as much, if not more, than by stating bald fact. I don’t believe for an instant that the phrasing in the linked editorial was a clumsy error; I believe it was a deliberate attempt to push the idea that his actions should be punished by law even if the actual, technical, law doesn’t actually, technically forbid them. Of course the NYT knows that this is not ever going to happen… but by pushing the idea that it should, they cerate a climate of opinion where people mutter darkly to themselves about what Tom DeLay “got away with.”
This is unfair.
Of course not. Finding guilty means that the government could not persuade a finder of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. “Found innocent” doesn’t have the same technical precision of definition, but it certainly invites a presumption that some indicia of actual innocence at some clear burden of proof has been met.
Come, come, friend Bricker! Don’t be distracted by minor semantic distinctions, list for us his accomplishments, just the top ten, that make you swell with pride to be both an American and a Republican. Perhaps I should cringe, knowing that you will present us with a parade of his acheivements that have so selflessly advanced the causes of justice and freedom, how he has risen above mere partisan considerations to bring such gifts to us all!
I wait with bated breath.
I guess I just didn’t read it that way.
If the debate is “should someone face legal consequences even if they didn’t violate the law as written”, then clearly the answer is no.
If it’s “can a person be guilty (read: not innocent) for his actions even if they don’t violate the letter of the law”, then I think it can vary from case to case.
The editorial ends with this:
That seems to me to be the point of the article - DeLay can claim innocence because lawmakers have not been sufficiently strong in criminalizing his activities. By fostering an attitude of “anything goes” (which I readily admit festers on both sides of the aisle), propped up by wrong-doers (in a moral, if not legal sense) being able to claim innocence, our legislators do the republic a disservice.
I don’t think it’s unfair at all. By discussing what people “got away with” we can influence legislator’s to make laws against that activity in the future. That, as I read it, is the entire point of the editorial.
I grant that yours is not an unreasonable take on the editorial.
Neither is mine, although I’lla llow that mine has been leavened with seeing similar sentiments against DeLay in other forums.
Oh, that’s the debate! Here I assumed stuff like the ex post facto clause and fundamental fairness kinda ended the debate that the government should only punish those who broke the law has been settled for a good 200+ years. And I don’t really think that the author of the piece was seriously advocating going back on all that, but build your strawmen where you like. Enjoy.
Undertone, chief, undertone. See, when I say ‘undertone,’ I am meaning to say… well… undertone.
That’s the danger of this tactic. If called on it, of course the author (and you) can say, with pious and wide-eyed innocence, “Of course not! I stand four-square for Mom, apple pie, baseball, the ex post facto clause and fundamental fairness! Never would I condone convicting someone without there being a law in place!”
But the tone of the piece is anything but respectful to those notions of fundamental fairness. No, no – the tone says, “Hang 'em - hang 'em high!”
Seldom does a piece come along where the tone is quite so blatant. Usually, they hide better. Today’s “…actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them…” was a bit more blatant than the usual fare, and – for anyone not mired in the attempt to either scuttle any point I make or steadfastly committed to defending liberal icons would at least acknowledge that the tone exists, even if they wished to argue about the degree or significance of its presence.
So the debate isn’t really about ex post facto and fundamental fairness at all, it’s about the existance or not of an “undertone” of an editorial? I really wish you would make up your mind.