- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Charges against Perry should wait until he is out of office - agree/disagree?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:13 am to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:13 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The rule of law is it is a crime in Texas to coerce a public official in the exercise of her duty.
I read the statute yesterday, and although I'm not a fan of Rick Perry's I think this indictment is pure baloney that does not comport with the intent or spirit of that law.
The obvious purpose of that law is to keep officials from being coerced into performing something foreign to the public interest, or to keep officials from being coerced into neglecting something that would be in the public interest.
Coercing a person to perform or refrain from a particular duty is not the same as coercing her to step down... after which there is NO particular action to perform or neglect. The latter type of coercion is not meant to provoke a particular discharge or mischarge of a public duty, and is not the type of coercion addressed in the statute.
Perry seems to be well within his gubernatorial rights to withhold funding by veto power from an agency he thinks suffers from poor leadership.
5
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:17 am to Rex
quote:
I read the statute yesterday, and although I'm not a fan of Rick Perry's I think this indictment is pure baloney that does not comport with the intent or spirit of that law.
The obvious purpose of that law is to keep officials from being coerced into performing something foreign to the public interest, or to keep officials from being coerced into neglecting something that would be in the public interest.
Coercing a person to perform or refrain from a particular duty is not the same as coercing her to step down... after which there is NO particular action to perform or neglect. The latter type of coercion is not meant to provoke a particular discharge or mischarge of a public duty, and is not the type of coercion addressed in the statute.
Perry seems to be well within his gubernatorial rights to withhold funding by veto power from an agency he thinks suffers from poor leadership.
Rex - the DWI is just a cover for the real reason. The real reason Perry wanted her to step down is the Public Integrity Unit is one of the only political bodies with statewide power in Texas with a Democrat in charge. They were investigating Perry's pet project - CPRIT - for making grants to Perry's buddies without following protocol - and Perry wanted that to stop.
Come on dude - you didn't seriously think this was just about a crazy drunken lady, right?
LINK /
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 10:18 am
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:20 am to Rex
quote:Agree with all of that.
I'm not a fan of Rick Perry's I think this indictment is pure baloney that does not comport with the intent or spirit of that law.
However, the courts deemed it reasonable and prudent to proceed, so the die is cast.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 10:21 am
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:20 am to Rex
quote:
Perry seems to be well within his gubernatorial rights to withhold funding by veto power from an agency he thinks suffers from poor leadership.
As the poster above you stated, "She didn't follow through on a single one of her threats and was over 3 times the legal limit".
That sounds like someone who offers "poor leadership".
I'm not a big Perry fan, but I believe he did nothing wrong here.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:23 am to Rex
quote:
I read the statute yesterday, and although I'm not a fan of Rick Perry's I think this indictment is pure baloney that does not comport with the intent or spirit of that law.
The obvious purpose of that law is to keep officials from being coerced into performing something foreign to the public interest, or to keep officials from being coerced into neglecting something that would be in the public interest.
Coercing a person to perform or refrain from a particular duty is not the same as coercing her to step down... after which there is NO particular action to perform or neglect. The latter type of coercion is not meant to provoke a particular discharge or mischarge of a public duty, and is not the type of coercion addressed in the statute.
Perry seems to be well within his gubernatorial rights to withhold funding by veto power from an agency he thinks suffers from poor leadership.
Rex ftw
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:34 am to Rex
quote:
Perry seems to be well within his gubernatorial rights to withhold funding by veto power from an agency he thinks suffers from poor leadership
I agree and unless it is shown that he was attempting to squash an investigation then we have political BS here of the highest magnitude. I would like to think that most reasonable people would feel this woman shouldve stepped down.. Perry choose to use his granted powers to force her out, all the while being open about the why.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News