billvon 3,063 #1 November 18, 2004 Republicans, giddy from their wins on Nov 2nd, are now looking at ways to insulate themselves from inconvenient laws that might hinder their ability to do whatever they want. ---------------------------------------------------------- GOP Pushes Rule Change to Protect DeLay's Post By Charles Babington Washington Post Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A01 House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders. The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 November 18, 2004 Some animals are more equal than others.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #3 November 18, 2004 How do you extrapolate Congress giving itself more immunities to pro-crime Republicans? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 November 18, 2004 More stupidity from the GOP. Pass the Tylenol... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #5 November 18, 2004 > How do you extrapolate Congress giving itself more immunities >to pro-crime Republicans? It was passed to protect a prominent republican from the consequences of his actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #6 November 18, 2004 QuoteHow do you extrapolate Congress giving itself more immunities to pro-crime Republicans? None so blind as those that will not see.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #7 November 18, 2004 Christ, Bill, talk about spin. Do you ever tire of it? Anyhow, according to another article, if -convicted- DeLay and anyone else would be prevented from holding a position of power. It's that whole innocent until proven guilty thing; it's a bitch, isn't it? QuoteThe new rule does, however, require anyone convicted of a felony to immediately relinquish a leadership position. QuoteRepublicans, giddy from their wins on Nov 2nd, are now looking at ways to insulate themselves from inconvenient laws that might hinder their ability to do whatever they want. The way I see is that Republicans are looking at ways to insulate themselves from a silly law, an indictment is nothing. The way I see it, the Republicans are looking to insulate themselves from politically motivated DAs. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #8 November 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteHow do you extrapolate Congress giving itself more immunities to pro-crime Republicans? None so blind as those that will not see. Yes, the microcosm of Congress is a real measure of a pro-crime policy. As for blind, see Jimbo's post above and indictment is not a conviction. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #9 November 18, 2004 Not laws, but rules Bill from the sounds of what you've posted. Neither accusation nor indictment equates to conviction either. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #10 November 18, 2004 QuoteThe way I see is that Republicans are looking at ways to insulate themselves from a silly law, an indictment is nothing. The way I see it, the Republicans are looking to insulate themselves from politically motivated DAs. Hmm, wonder how Jimbo would see it if it were Clinton insulating himself from "silly" laws and politically motivated "independent" counsels? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #11 November 18, 2004 QuoteRepublicans, giddy from their wins on Nov 2nd, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha! breath grab side hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha! gets up off floor Oh I forgot about Tom Daschle! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha! breath grab side ----------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #12 November 18, 2004 QuoteHmm, wonder how Jimbo would see it if it were Clinton insulating himself from "silly" laws and politically motivated "independent" counsels? I don't really think lying is a silly law nor do I think he was merely indicted. Clinton was impeached for something he did while in office. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #13 November 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteHmm, wonder how Jimbo would see it if it were Clinton insulating himself from "silly" laws and politically motivated "independent" counsels? I don't really think lying is a silly law nor do I think he was merely indicted. Clinton was impeached for something he did while in office. Well, impeachment is essentially and indictment of the president. And Clinton, as per the rules of impeachment, was not convicted. This however, is irrelevant. I was not calling perjury a silly law, merely questioning Jimbo's supposition that the congressional rule change was in order to insulate themselves from "silly" laws. What is it that Delay might be indicted for anyway? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #14 November 18, 2004 Did Clinton stay in office?? A congressman couldn't under the rules at issue. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #15 November 18, 2004 Quotemerely questioning Jimbo's supposition that the congressional rule change was in order to insulate themselves from "silly" laws. This "silly" law is a law that would have people in power removed for nothing more than an indictment against them. Not a conviction, an indictment. Did you see the "innocent until proven guilty" comment in my earlier post? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #16 November 18, 2004 rules, laws, there is a difference. I believe the rules would call for Delay to step down from his leadership position, not to actually give up his seat in congress. I'd say the reason the rule is in place to begin with is to protect the structure of power within congress in case the indicted are actually convicted but that is merely speculation. In any case, what might Delay be indicted for? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #17 November 18, 2004 Quote Quotemerely questioning Jimbo's supposition that the congressional rule change was in order to insulate themselves from "silly" laws. This "silly" law is a law that would have people in power removed for nothing more than an indictment against them. Not a conviction, an indictment. Did you see the "innocent until proven guilty" comment in my earlier post? - care to research who wrote, proposed, backed and passed this 'silly law' when it was politically convenient for them to do so? the word your looking for isnt 'silly' it is 'hypocrite'____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #18 November 18, 2004 Quotecare to research who wrote, proposed, backed and passed this 'silly law' when it was politically convenient for them to do so? I realize that it was written by Republicans, it's in the article I linked to. Who wrote the law (or rule if you prefer) is irrelevant. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green Party, or other, it's a bad rule and it's high time we did away with it. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #19 November 18, 2004 Quote> How do you extrapolate Congress giving itself more immunities >to pro-crime Republicans? It was passed to protect a prominent republican from the consequences of his actions. Didn't Bill Clinton pardon a shitload of real scumbags, many of whom were buddies of his in some way? I can't remember what it was, but something was in the news not long ago about one of them, and how he was up to something new and scummy. Wish I could remember what I'm thinking of. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #20 November 18, 2004 QuoteThis "silly" law is a law that would have people in power removed for nothing more than an indictment against them. Not a conviction, an indictment. Did you see the "innocent until proven guilty" comment in my earlier post? - Jim It's Billvon's thread, but he hasn't been seen since this question... I know he's a busy guy, but... this is odd. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,521 #21 November 18, 2004 QuoteI realize that it was written by Republicans, Not only was it written by Republicans, but it was discussed and passed with a huge amount of "moraler than thou" rhetoric after the Republican influx into Congress in the 1994 election. The fact that the law's genesis is not mentioned in this attempt to gut is is cynical. The gutting is cynical. And its original purpose, to get a Democratic committee chairman out, was cynical. Calling shit fertilizer is accurate -- it does that also. But it's also shit. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #22 November 18, 2004 If they do change the rule, I am sure they will move just as fast to reinstate the rule if power were to sway to the Democrats. "Ethics" and "Morals" are oxymorons when used in the same context as "Politics". We should be offended by how the so called leaders protect themselves while at the same time work dillingently to imprison the citizens. One only needs to look at the trend in rising prison populations to see where America is going. More than 50% of convicts are there on nonviolent drug offense. Close to 50% of all drug offense are for marijuana. Yet, our leaders see no need for change in certain unjust laws that mostly incarcerate the poor. They do see, however, a need to act quick to change a rule that could potentially be the downfall of one of their own. It is your dollar that is funding the delay of business. When the business should be to protect the country they see time well spent protecting themselves. If Tom Delay is innocent, he should keep his seat. If Tom Delay is guilty he should be in the very prisons that he help to build. How immoral and unethical can politics be."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #23 November 18, 2004 As much as I'd like to see Delay drawn and quartered, gotta agree with Jimbo here. An indictment should not cause their removal. If he had any kind of decency he's resign if he's indicted, but he shouldn't be forced out of power by an accusation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #24 November 18, 2004 QuoteRepublicans, giddy from their wins on Nov 2nd, are now looking at ways to insulate themselves from inconvenient laws that might hinder their ability to do whatever they want I find it funny you don't support "innocent till proven guilty" when it comes to Republicans....Only Dems."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #25 November 18, 2004 QuoteAs much as I'd like to see Delay drawn and quartered, gotta agree with Jimbo here. An indictment should not cause their removal. If he had any kind of decency he's resign if he's indicted, but he shouldn't be forced out of power by an accusation. WOW PK and me agreeing Anyway... Think about it Bill. THe constitution protect the right of innocent until proven Guilty. Therefore, since I don't like Ted Kennedy under the current law I could accuse him rape, and he would have to be removed from his position? Seems stupid to me. Oh BTW -- Nice spin on the title of this thread. You make me laugh sometimes. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)