Well, sure, DeLay is a lying scum until he says something that supports your thesis!
Lefty hypocrisy! Everybody come see the lefty hypocrisy!
Repeat after me:
- Courts
- Legislature
Repeat until you understand.
So it is your allegation that putting lobbyists into two columns is an attempt to skirt the law, and is only technically legal?
I don’t see any admission from Delay that amounts to what you claim. Got anything better?
Regards,
Shodan
What law does that “skirt?” What law is that so close to breaking that it’s only “technically” legal?
And again with the deflection.
I cannot believe your reading comprehension lacks so badly.
I’ll repeat:
I asked you in the thread on EP analysis if you were ok with it as it stands. I have asked here repeatedly if you were ok with the status quo.
You have diligently ignored answering those questions.
You are diligently ignoring the question again.
The courts are assessing something passed by the legislature. A bill that need not be the “best”. The discussion IS about the laws being passed (be it Prop-8 or the CNMI). Whether the courts are looking at it or the legislature or we are looking at it.
Waiting eagerly to see you dance and evade yet again.
I’m generally OK with EP analysis, because I think generally it’s consistent with our notions of self-governance that the legislature, not the courts, make substantive law. There are individual instances where I don;t think the best result is reached – in other words, if i were King, I would impose a different result. But I recognize that the system is imperfect, and believe it’s the best possible overall system, even if it sometimes produces flawed results.
So now I have answered your question. It has nothing to do with this debate, because the two actors are in such different roles. A lawmaker is the one that creates laws. He SHOULD be asking if his laws are the best to achieve a given result. The court doesn’t get to ask that same question, because then the court would be a super-legislature, overriding the real legislature whenever it disagreed.
So it’s perfectly correct to simultaneously imagine, about a legislator’s decisions, the internal dialog “Is this the best possible way to go about this? No? Then I won’t do it!”
-AND-
To imagine a reviewing court asking, “Is this law rationally related to a legitimate government interest? It is? Then, even though it’s far form the best solution in my opinion, it’s legit!”
No conflict. Both are exactly the right things to do.
I had a sneaking suspicion you’d use “technically” to dance around.
What does “technically” legal mean?
For the purposes here this brings us full circle to the OP. I am not aware of all the laws and ethical rules congrescritters must abide by (and I think Congressional ethics rules are relevant here as well…Bricker can do things that are “legal” but would get him disbarred as an ethics violation…congresscritters presumably are beholden to ethical rules as well). What the article in the OP is on about it looking at some patently unethical behavior and noting the foxes are in charge of the hen house. Go figure they do not make rules to bust themselves for these actions.
Clearly my above cite shows a pay-to-play mentality. They flat out told lobbying firms and corporations to pony up more money or they would not get favorable results. They insisted on what people K-Street had to hire and blocked access to those who didn’t do what they wanted.
But hey…not illegal so no problem right? :rolleyes:
FWIW seems others felt this went too far and tried (and failed) to address it as a legal matter:
Ask The Second Stone.
OK, what law or House ethical rule does that “skirt?” What law or House ethical rule is that so close to breaking that it’s only “technically” legal?
As a reminder, here is the original claim:
So you don’t know what law or ethical rule Delay broke, or didn’t break but came close, but you are sure there were some.
And you claim Delay said so explicitly, but you cannot seem to come up with any examples where he did.
But Delay is scum because he made lobbyists sit in two rows in his office.
Well, I’m convinced.
Regards,
Shodan
Whack-a-Mole didn’t make the original claim that DeLay’s own statements established the “skirting” of laws; The Second Stone did. W-a-M has since sought to defend the statement, but it’s unclear to me if he endorses it or not.
The cite about the lobbyists sitting in two rows is a response to this request:
It seems pretty clear that Wahck-a-Mole was attempting to substantiate The Second Stones’ claim - with what success, we have seen.
Regards,
Shodan
I already answered that I am not versed in the relevant laws or ethics rules covering Congress much less what was in effect at that time. I suspect that would be a large research task.
What I am saying is the behavior, to me, appears fundamentally unethical and I would hope be illegal. It is the problem the article in the OP was getting at. You have these jokers policing themselves and it is not surprising that they are less than zealous to do that.
My real dismay comes at people here defending this. We stipulated long ago no one was looking for extra-judicial punishment but we would like to see rules/laws put in place to prevent this in the future (and I am aware this covers liberals and conservatives…as it should).
Do you really want a pay-to-play government?
Ok…how does the US Constitution strike you for “skirting” the law?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Seems to me these guys demanding money up front and insisting you hire their guys is a substantial barrier to being able to approach our government. Remember this is not just one guy doing this (that is bad enough) but literally barring you from access to the majority you need unless you play along.
If that is legal it is shocking.
I’d bet anything if a client hired Bricker to lobby congress for them he’d be furious if the democrats told him he had better start writing bigger checks to the Democratic campaign funds and that he had to hire substantial staff that are distinctly liberal (which of course they can provide…some former staffers and others they owe favors to need some $400k/year cush jobs on Bricker’s dime). If he doesn’t he can go pound sand because all doors will be closed to him.
When you say, “…tried (and failed)…” it seems you’re referring to the failure to find anyone to sue.
But the article you linked to also describes a failure: Bob Casey’s amendment to the ethics rules to prevent such a situation was ultimately withdrawn (See 100th Congress, S.AMDT.56 to S.1)
So when you describe all this as “technically illegal” and “skirting the law,” you evoke a feeling that, if only lawmakers had thought to include the conduct, they would have.
Yet when the majority Democratic Congress in 2007 considered these changes, they didn’t adopt them. So you ask us to believe that it was the single perfidity of Tom Delay… when it seems that a good chunk of the Congress felt that these things should not be illegal either.
Now, you may say, “Yeah, they’re all a bunch of crooks!” But that’s not the thesis here. Here we are discussing whether DeLay is scum, a terrible example. And the evidence is that he tried to influence lobbyist hiring, which should be illegal.
But Congress didn’t agree.
So why is it just DeLay, then?
Yep, I think most of them are crooks and democrats do it too and I don’t like it either. This is why I want better/stronger laws and ethics rules put in place.
DeLay is among the worst of the worst though. Akin to me hating someone who murders someone but having a special level of hatred for the likes of John Wayne Gacy. DeLay took it to a new level.
What law did Congress make that violated anyone’s right to petition?
Jesus, whack-a-mole, you’re certainly inventive.
So here’s a little thought experiment: Nancy Deeansee, a strong proponent of abortion rights for women, is elected to Congress. She tells her staff, “I don’t even want to see a pro-life lobbyist walk through that door. Those people hate women and are in it only to see women degraded and suffer. If you’ve worked for a pro-life lobby cause, you get no traction with me.”
Has she violated the Constitution’s guarantee?
(Usually I’d just let you answer, but I’ll help you along. Hint: No.)
Luckily, I found a good cut-and-paste source:
Nothing in the line of “right to petition” cases supports the inference that the Constitution prevents an individual representative from deciding to meet, or not meet, with anyone for any reason whatsoever. There’s nothing even close.
So if this “skirts” the law and is “technically” illegal, do you have any cite of the Constitution ever, even once, being interpreted in a way that would show that closeness, that “skirting?”
There is a big difference between Nancy and Tom. Nancy just declined to see you…fine. Now, if Nancy said if you want to see her write a big check to her re-election campaign and hire several of her former staffers she’ll let you in the door. That is a whole other thing. Oh, also add that Nancy will make sure you cannot talk to any member of her caucus because she will put you on a black list. So pay up or forget it.
Hardly the same thing.
As for a first amendment grounds I think a clever attorney could make the case.
I am not persuaded that Congress gets a pass because they did not pass a law preventing you from approaching them. They write the laws, such a law would be unconstitutional and they know it so just effectively achieve the same thing without actually writing it down. Imagine a condo that has no law/rule that prevents black people from moving in but the home owners association just happens to never let a black person move in.
That is ok in Brickerland? Pretty sure that is not kosher and they do not get away with it because they never actually wrote a rule explicitly saying no black people.
Further, the law considers collusion in other areas to be illegal. Nancy deciding for herself is one thing. Nancy colluding with the rest of her caucus to bar you access to the government is something else entirely.
These guys were actively blocking access to the government unless you did what they wanted. I’d be hard pressed to imagine the SCOTUS shrugging and saying sure, nothing wrong with that.
Remember what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So again I ask you Bricker, would you be ok with writing Congressman Whack-a-Mole a fat check for my re-election campaign and hiring my buddies Diogenes the Cynic and Der Tris into your firm for $400k/year each (plus perks and an expense account and full benefits)? If you don’t you may as well go home and blog about whatever it is you’re pushing because that is about all there is left to you.
I get it now, took a while, but I see the point! About why DeLay felt it necessary to block any consideration of the bill that might help the Saipan sweater-shoppers!
Say you come across an injured guy, bleeding to death. Naturally, your first thought is to apply some sort of bandage. Tom DeLay arrives, and prevents you from applying the bandage, because it wouldn’t be effective enough.
And of course, the guy continues to bleed.
But that doesn’t matter, its not the important, dispositive issue! Tom DeLay prevented an ineffective remedy from being applied, and this is a good thing, and whether or not the guy bleeds to death isn’t important, because its the principle of the thing that matters!
No, wait, that can’t be it. That would be stupid. Darn.
No, wait, that can’t be it. What it must be, is that DeLay didn’t want these ineffective things done because it would interfere with his much more effective solution, which he was pressing for, moving heaven and earth, mighty, mighty efforts being made…
Bricker just forgot to tell us about those wonderful, effective remedies that DeLay was pressing for! Well, now would be a real good time to do it! Better late that never!
**Bricker? ** Whenever you’re ready!