It seems that, according to this facebook page Remove Rosemary Lehmberg
The public lawsuit to remove her failed (but not till after Rick vetoed funding)
Is there a legal avenue for the Governor to fire her? IF so - what mechanism would that use?
If I were a Texas taxpayer, I would wonder why someone in the Texas government has not removed this mean drunk from office. If someone in the Texas government could not remove the mean drunk from office, then I would expect the Texas government to remove her access to funding. IMHO, of course.
So ‘The Law is The Law’… unless it’s inconvenient, at which time it’s OK to violate the law?
Full disclosure: I haven’t read this thread other than the last page.
I fully agree with this.
I’m not really sure that follows. Would you defund, say, an entire judicial district while attempting to remove a judge from office? And if it does follow, why didn’t the Texas government defund the Austin State Attorney’s Office itself?
Because, as a Texas voter, you *elected *her. *You *get to remove her.
You mean, the funding of the entire office that just happened to be investigating the Governor.
Of course.
Is the death penalty a possible punishment in this case?
Can I suggest you read State v. Hanson, 793 SW 2d 270 (Texas Ct App 10th Dist. 1990), and tell me how it affects your view of Count II of the indictment?
As I understand it, Perry vetoed part of a bill that had been submitted for his signature. The part that funded the mean drunks department. Was the Austin State Attorney’s funding also included in the same bill?
The Gov of TX doesn’t have the authority to fire the mean drunk. Impeachment and voting her out of office would be the usual methods of ousting elected officials.
Factual question on that Hanson case: if I’m getting this right, Judge Hanson both had authority over the office budget and the ability to fire the auditor. Sounds like the court said that since Hanson had those authorities, she was acting legally.
But it seems to me that the case with Perry is that he was trying to get someone fired who he did not have the ability to fire, even though he had some authority over the budget. If I’m understanding this correctly, it seems to be a nuance that makes some difference in my judgment. Am I correct in seeing this difference between the two cases?
For example: if the President vetoed funding bills for the courts until some particular judge steps down, that isn’t fair play. I’m not quite sure it’s criminal behavior, but that situation is quite a bit different than the President withholding funding for the FBI until the FBI Director steps down (to use a pretty bad analogy).
AIUI, Perry is not in trouble for defunding the office. He is in trouble for threatening to do so to get the DA to resign.
I don’t have a view of the indictment, except that it seems a bit… political. I was just responding to doorhinge’s post.
It’s actually broader than that. If the prosecution’s theory is correct, any veto threat of any kind by a Texas governor is a criminal act. Many affirmative promises of action would be as well: “If the legislature passes my bill, my administration will get right to work on this problem,” for instance.
What a fascinating set-up Texas has, in which an individual county prosecutor, elected by that county alone, controls the public watchdog for the entire state government. That may work at this moment in time, using liberal Austin voters to counterbalance the weight of state government in the hands of conservatives elsewhere.
It is hard to see that as the best construct, though. For example, it seems quite likely that mean drunk DA’s own party would have forced her out of office if they would not have lost the spot to a Perry appointment. And if Perry had said, mean drunk DA must leave, but I will appoint a Democrat, would there by an indictment? I say that there would have been no scandal and no indictment.
All of which is to say that a veto is a political tool. It is intended to be used to political ends. Political ends include not just the act itself, but the politicking surrounding the act - the pronouncements, the enticements, the persuasion, the cajoling, the threatening. And it also includes the consequences: The proper opposition to the Perry veto could include political attacks on him or on his coalition. The veto certainly would seem to be a potential vehicle for impeachment if public sentiment were in that direction (which of course it is not).
At a minimum, there were political remedies at hand, but the pro-indictment camp opted for criminal ones instead. The result is that they look like clowns (like the mean drunk) or neophytes (like the lesser Castro brother), and Perry - against all odds - looks stronger.
IME, most state governments have no independent watchdogs at all. At best, you might have state attorneys who have authority to prosecuted elected officials within their own districts.
(post shortened)
That’s my understanding also.
The DA didn’t resign so neither the request to resign or the non-funding was effective. The attempt is still under legal discussion.
What the prosecution will have to establish is that the Governor of Texas can’t use his office’s line item veto or that the Gov of TX is restricted in some way from using his office’s line item veto.
If the TX Governor’s office is unrestricted from using it’s line item veto, then there is no case.
Well, not quite. ISTM they’ll have to establish that the Governor can’t threaten to use his line item veto to accomplish something that is lawful but not actually within his power.
That remains to be seen, doesn’t it? I, and others, hold that what he did was both legal and legitimate.
No, I just don’t think Lehmberg’s actions justify Perry’s. Again, there is a procedure for removing a DA, and but Perry didn’t follow that.
[/QUOTE]
[quote=“bdgr, post:216, topic:695656”]
You’re assuming that his main goal was to remove the DA from her job. Why isn’t it that his main goal was to not have someone with that type of judgment have power over 7,5 million dollars. Does not a governor have a fiduciary responsibility to see to it that the taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly?
Authority over the budget: yes.
Ability to directly fire the auditor: no.
I don’t think so, since Judge Hanson did not have the ability to fire the auditor. The district judge, not Judge Hanson, had that power. Hanson revoked funding in order to convince the district judge to fire the auditor.
Color added by me for emphasis; italics in original.
I’m not assuming that was his goal, I’m taking his word for it. He said resign, or I’ll cut funding.