Please do. May I suggest a fine tradition of research first, claim second?
If you’re researching how it compares to past shenanigans, this article might speak volumes.
It contains examples of Democratic shenanigans:
That sounds pretty gross, I’ll agree–although it may lack some of the dragees of gross that make this case extra bad, such as the tacking-it-on-to-a-special-session, doing it in the couple of weeks before a change in leadership, refusing to tell the opposing party about it until the last minute, kicking out and arresting the media, etc.
But the article also says:
So even a former Republican governor, who saw some shenanigans during his term in the eighties, thinks this is over the top.
One of the bills being considered during the special session is a court packing plan that would let the outgoing governor appoint enough justices to keep a Republican majority.
Awful behavior.
Is it illegal? These legislators were democratically elected. (Their elections may have benefited from gerrymandering, but the gerrymandering was done by a democratic process.) How can the voters of North Carolina*** have confidence in the democratic process***, if their elected representatives fail to pursue the agenda of those who did (convince the voters of N.C. to) pull the (R) lever?
ETA: Isn’t it in the best interest of the citizens of North Carolina that their new liberal Governor be emasculated? If given free reign, might he not do something absolutely dreadful? … like subsidizing opera?
I don’t see the problem. Except for the powers defined in a national or state constitution, the powers of the executive are determined by statute. That means that Congress or the legislature decides what powers the President or governor have. depending on exactly what they want to do it could be good or bad. I’m not sure how requiring advice and consent for cabinet officials is a bad thing, we do that at the federal level and it would apply to Republican governors too.
So if your neighbor drops a marshmallow on your toe, that means you’re justified in cutting off his head, burning his house down, raping his wife, and torturing his dog because “well, the stakes have been raised and people won’t listen to you now. It’s incrementalism.”
Do you see a problem with:
-only doing these things when the Republican governor is leaving.
-locking in place the previous governor’s incompetent political appointees
-refusing to let anyone know what they were planning during the weeks leading up to the special session (my wife called multiple senators every day)
-refusing to let Democrats know what they were planning
-changing the court system to make it harder for the newly Democratic supreme court to hear cases?
Do they have the votes? Is the process legal? It’s all fair then.
That being said, I wouldn’t want to do this unless a governor was abusing his power.
So might makes right? Not technically illegal = morally justified? It’s okay to strip a governor of power because you’re not sure that he won’t abuse it?
Well, you know, I.O.K.I.Y.A.R.
Legal and ethical are two different things.
I’m not hip to the specifics of the parliamentary process complaints or validity, so I don’t know the answer to, “Is it legal?”
It’s awful, in my view, so that’s what I posted.
Let it be noted that the torch has passed. Wasn’t the Counselor who said “Legal! And Constitutional!”. It was addy.
Good on you,** Bricker**. And Merry Christmas.
(omitted)
I applaud you for this stance.
Which is why the GOP gets away with doing evil stuff like this.
I appreciate that.
Cooper appears to be planning a lawsuit. As our attorney general, he was generally on the winning side of the constitution, so I’d give him pretty good odds.
At this point, I hold out no hope for any sort of decency or fair play from these hooligans. They’re going to get away with everything they can; the only thing that’ll stop them in the short term is the court system (which has stopped them several times before), or maybe the DOJ, but I doubt the latter.
However, 2017 is another election for all of them. The issue should stay alive until then. They’ll try to pull a “this is old news” then, but we need to keep it alive, reminding voters next year how they changed the rules in their favor so blatantly the last time they lost, how they can’t be trusted with power.
I also saw another article that detailed some nascent Democratic efforts that were later pulled back, or allowed to die in an uncontested referendum. But you will agree that politics in North Carolina is never particularly nice, and that “tit-for-tat” is an applicable statement, as I made, right? Republicans may be pushing it a bit over the top here, but that may be more a function of the times than of the party involved.
Has that actually been submitted as a bill? The last I heard, that was the one speculation from the Democratic camp that actually had NOT been acted upon by the Republicans, who prior to the second special session, were vigorously denying that they would do that.