NC Republicans in Legislature are ... wow! Seriously?!

[laughing dog]

Just out of curiosity, was this less objectionable?

The thing is, ahead of past expected Senate vacancies, rather than looking for a loophole, Massachusetts state legislators have opted to simply change the appointment rules. Multiple times.

In 2004, the Democratic-controlled State House pushed through a bill that stripped then-Gov. Mitt Romney of his power to fill Sen. John Kerry’s seat, presumably with a fellow Republican, as the Democratic senator ran for president. The measure—to keep the seat vacant until a special election was held in 145 to 160 days—was ultimately passed with a veto-overriding two-thirds majority, despite the fact the Kerry ultimately lost to incumbent President George W. Bush.

But then in 2009, with Democrat Deval Patrick as governor, state legislators passed a bill at the behest of Sen. Ted Kennedy to give Patrick the power to choose a replacement for the terminally ill Democrat.

Would Massachusetts legislators change the rules a third time for Warren? According to state House and Senate leaders, there are no such plans.

https://www.boston.com/news/politic...nge-senate-appointment-rules-elizabeth-warren

It is not less objectionable in terms of partisanship shenanigans. But is less objectionable because it is much less extensive in scope and time frame.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In NC, many people saw #OneTermPat McCrory as losing the ACC Tournment. So even though Trump took the state, McCrory lost the governor's mansion. You see, the GOP can go to far, and when Chapel Hill, Duke, NC State, and Wake Forest won't be playing in the Tarheel State for the Championship, that is a bridge too far. That is bad basketball, the ultimate sacrilege on Tobacco Road. Now, if the GOP (the moral and christian party) as a whole gets painted as sore losers and working the refs, that would be bad basketball and a whole GOP could very easily find itself kicked out of the General Assembly.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just out of curiosity, was this less objectionable?

The thing is, ahead of past expected Senate vacancies, rather than looking for a loophole, Massachusetts state legislators have opted to simply change the appointment rules. Multiple times.

In 2004, the Democratic-controlled State House pushed through a bill that stripped then-Gov. Mitt Romney of his power to fill Sen. John Kerry’s seat, presumably with a fellow Republican, as the Democratic senator ran for president. The measure—to keep the seat vacant until a special election was held in 145 to 160 days—was ultimately passed with a veto-overriding two-thirds majority, despite the fact the Kerry ultimately lost to incumbent President George W. Bush.

But then in 2009, with Democrat Deval Patrick as governor, state legislators passed a bill at the behest of Sen. Ted Kennedy to give Patrick the power to choose a replacement for the terminally ill Democrat.

Would Massachusetts legislators change the rules a third time for Warren? According to state House and Senate leaders, there are no such plans.

https://www.boston.com/news/politic...nge-senate-appointment-rules-elizabeth-warren

Yes, much less. You seem to be equating changing one rule with changing a lot of rules. It wasn't right, but Moore-Coulter is in effect. Find me Democrats who neutered an incoming Republican Governor and we'll talk about it.

 

[dismal]

Just out of curiosity, was this less objectionable?



https://www.boston.com/news/politic...nge-senate-appointment-rules-elizabeth-warren

Yes, much less. You seem to be equating changing one rule with changing a lot of rules. It wasn't right, but Moore-Coulter is in effect. Find me Democrats who neutered an incoming Republican Governor and we'll talk about it.

Yes, the Constitution is very clear on this. Article 6, section 3, clause the fourth clearly states: "It's Ok to change one rule, but changing a lot of rules is no bueno"

 

[blastula]

Judges issue split ruling on NC governor-legislature power struggle | News & Observer

RALEIGH The N.C. General Assembly’s attempt to revamp the state elections board and ethics commission weeks before Democrat Roy Cooper was sworn in as the new governor violates the state Constitution, a three-judge panel ruled on Friday.


The judges also found unconstitutional the legislature’s shift of managerial and policy-making employees from former Gov. Pat McCrory’s administration to positions where it’s more difficult to replace them.


But the Republican-controlled General Assembly’s attempt to have a say in who joins Cooper’s Cabinet was not found to be a violation of the separation of powers clause in the state Constitution. To date, the state Senate has approved three of the appointments Cooper has made with hearings for others set for next week.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Judges issue split ruling on NC governor-legislature power struggle | News & Observer

RALEIGH The N.C. General Assembly’s attempt to revamp the state elections board and ethics commission weeks before Democrat Roy Cooper was sworn in as the new governor violates the state Constitution, a three-judge panel ruled on Friday.


The judges also found unconstitutional the legislature’s shift of managerial and policy-making employees from former Gov. Pat McCrory’s administration to positions where it’s more difficult to replace them.


But the Republican-controlled General Assembly’s attempt to have a say in who joins Cooper’s Cabinet was not found to be a violation of the separation of powers clause in the state Constitution. To date, the state Senate has approved three of the appointments Cooper has made with hearings for others set for next week.

What?! How can the have a split rulling. If they feel the actions for some of it were Unconstitutional, why not all of it? Looks like the reason is that the Republicans haven't blocked any Cabinet members yet.

“It is encouraging the court recognized the plain language in our state’s constitution providing for a transparent confirmation process for unelected cabinet secretaries who control multi-billion dollar budgets and make decisions affecting millions of everyday North Carolinians,” Carver said in a statement, adding her disappointment over the rulings that went against the legislators.

Seriously Carver, go swimming in the Outer Bank with the sharks.

 

[Malintent]

Let the people decide!

.. cause that's a great idea...

Let's all vote on what we should do with Nice Squirrel's assets that a make-believe government will seize, if approved by popular vote.
Everyone who votes gets a share of all seized assets. So, if you vote "yes" on "take everything from that squirrel", you will be given a portion of the proceeds.

Perfectly fair and democratic, right? Just let the majority make the rulz!

 

[fromderinside]

Your post seems to indicate Trump gets to pick his own supreme court and have them rule on whatever they feel like that goes on at the state level.

I believe, by Trump's reactions suggesting Obama wiretapped him, he does believe just that.