Boomerdog 0 #26 August 17, 2014 QuoteSeems to me that if Perry was acting appropriately, he would not have been indicted by a grand jury. There's a saying out there...been out there a long time! "A Grand Jury could indict a ham sandwich!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #27 August 17, 2014 QuoteBy the title, I thought this was going to be about a shit-faced, drunken, "Boss Hogg"-like, abusive DA bullying and threatening the officers who appeared to be treating her with respect while doing their jobs (at least in the booking video I saw). As a point of interest, and ironically, the State's "Public Integrity Unit" operates out of her office. Actually, it is the shit-faced "Boss Hogg"-like, abusive DA bullying and threatening the officers who appeared to be treating her with respect while doing their jobs WHO heads up the State's "Public Integrity Unit." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #28 August 17, 2014 Agree on principle...disagree on the Tylenol. Today, ya need something a helluva lot stronger! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #29 August 17, 2014 BoomerdogQuoteSeems to me that if Perry was acting appropriately, he would not have been indicted by a grand jury. There's a saying out there...been out there a long time! "A Grand Jury could indict a ham sandwich!" Yessir! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #30 August 17, 2014 jakeeI'm not arguing the case - In fact I'd agree that the DAs behaviour sounds far worse than Perry's and she probably should resign if there's no mechanism to fire her. I was just taking issue with you statement that a veto can't be unethical/illegal. I'm wondering if we're arguing two different scenarios here ...before and after a bill is passed into law. Like lawrocket pointed out in the "spaceport" example, a governor has the authority to either veto a bill or sign it (or let it pass without his signature). I don't think there is an option that would be illegal, even if the governor threatens to sign or veto it for any reason. But, after the bill is passed, my question is: does the governor have any control over any funds provided by the bill that are not explicitly placed under his control by the bill? If so, is he held to any standard that may cause him to be exposed to prosecution based on a reason (political, personal, etc.) if he threatens or does withhold that funding? In this case, has the Governor threatened and then withheld funding that was already provided by a lawfully passed bill? Or has he merely vetoed the bill funding the agency? (IDK, ...haven't bothered to look it up since I don't really care about the case in particular ...just the laws in general.) The "veto" language suggests to me that the legislation was simply not passed because of his veto. Then it doesn't matter legally. Then it is up to public opinion to decide, like Perry said, at the ballot box ...not in court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 August 18, 2014 [Reply]Do you have proof that she meets the definition of alcoholic? No. Other than she was at a 0.23 and didn't appear to be slurring her speech or losing balance and thought she was in control enough to drive. It's not like it was a .10. A 45 day sentence. I take little issue with inferences in a public opinion forum. This isn't a court of law. Getting pinched at three times the legal limit is a pretty damned good sign that there is a problem. With that I'll assume she's got a problem unless something is otherwise shown. I'd actually like to see her get some help even if unneeded rather than have her get no help if it is. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites