maxparrish said:
"Removing a law breaking district attorney through political pressure is the business of the governor, not the courts." Which is true (but perhaps unclear).
It is not true, it is a dangerous undermining of electoral laws and due process. The governor is not expressly forbidden from using some forms political pressure (e.g., asking for their resignation, telling voters to call their representatives) to prompt an official to resign of be removed by official channels. But to assert that is his "business" as governor is ridiculous.
In addition, your statement is more than unclear, it clearly implies that you view unofficial channels of political pressure as THE standard way by which elected officials should be removed from office. You reinforce that this is your stance when you follow that comment with
"Please quote the part of Texas law that it is the business of the courts to remove a DA through political pressure", again implying that using political pressure to remove disliked elected officials is someone's duty, and if not the courts then it must be the governor. ksen accurately comprehended your statements for the clearly implied meaning and thought is odd that you failed to grasp that he think official channels and not political pressure are the means by which elected officials should be removed and that it certainly is neither the courts nor the governor's "business" to oust people via political pressure, even if he used methods that are not technically illegal.
How? One way to pressure is through not funding the office he/she oversees.
Yes, that is a way to blackmail and coerce an elected official out of office, threaten to put their colleagues out of work and harm the public by eliminating an office that serves and protects the public for no other reason than to personally punish that person.
No one denies it could serve his goals, just that it is dangerous, reckless, anti-democratic, and an abuse of power toward an end that no sane person thinks the veto should or was intended to be used for.
Bypassing official channels and using coercive political pressure instead is not his "business", just something that he can potentially get away with if he limits himself to actions that prompt the person's party or constituents to put pressure on them to resign or that pressure on other office holders to impeach. He didn't use "pressure" he used threats towards her to harm other people and the public. That is grossly unethical no matter how he made those threats, but to do it via veto power is an abuse of that power to make an unethical threat to undermine the democratic will to have that office in place to oversee just the kind of unethical actions he threatened to engage in to achieve his ends.
ksen likely has the crazed notion that elected officials who do not willingly leave office should only be removed from office by official channels like impeachment, recall vote, or proven criminal activity, rather than by underhanded, secret blackmail or threats to harm the public and fire that person's colleagues by shutting down an entire vital function of the government.
And Rick Perry seems to have the crazy notion that elected officials that are seriously unbecoming of someone who is an officer of the court, someone who prosecutes drunk drivers, ought to go. Yes she was elected, and so was Rick Perry. They did not give him the power to fire her, but
they did give him the power to politically pressure her to resign.
No, they did not give Perry the power the blackmail his opponents out of elected office.
Show us the statute which says anything similar to "The Governor shall be granted powers that allow him/her to remove elected officials from office via threats and coercion." Actual political pressure (not the direct threats and blackmail Perry used) is a just form of social pressure available to all humans and not a power "given" to us. The legit power Perry has to exert political pressure was not given to him but is merely the power all humans have to engage in social influence. He has the same rights and only the same rights as you or I to use standard avenues of encouraging an elected official to leave office, such as informing the media and public about their wrong doings, etc.. Although his social status (like that of a hollywood actor) makes it more likely those methods would be more effective than if you or I use them, but he isn't given special powers to use methods not available to us. The powers he is given as governor were not given to Perry to coerce others out of elected office. IF the rules of government were intended to give him special powers to coerce people out of office, then the rules would simply eliminate all elective offices and replace them with Governor appointments or give the governor direct veto power over all State elections and direct power to fire them. The absurdity of that is that exact absurdity of the idea that he was given powers for the purpose of coercing elected people out of office.
It is of course possible for him to use powers he was given to coerce people out of office, but that is an unintended misuse and unethical abuse of those powers.
Your argument amounts Perry using a kitchen knife that came with the Governor's mansion to stab someone, then claiming "they gave him that power".
I wouldn't mind a solely "official" system if it were effective, but I've seen so much scum in prosecutors offices I don't think current "official" methods are reliable.
Perry and what he did is as scummy as any prosecutor, so that's not much of a solution. Oh, and you basically just admitted that you have no regard for the rule of law and want your politicians to undermine it whenever it serves their and your political aims.
