- 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: Just went off on Bill Cassidy's Staffer
Posted on 1/27/21 at 12:10 pm to SOKAL
Posted on 1/27/21 at 12:10 pm to SOKAL
quote:That does raise an interesting question. If his side loses on a procedural issue, does a Senator then have an obligation to set that disagreement aside and then judge the substantive facts objectively. Given the oath they take before sitting in judgment, as follows:
Why would he listen to the evidence if he has already expressed his opinion that the Articles were unconstitutional?
quote:you would think that the answer is "yes," but ...
I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of __________, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.
In the impeachment and trial of Republican Secretary of War Belknap, more than twenty Senators voted AGAINST trying the case after receiving it from the House, due to the fact that the House did not impeach Belknap until after he had already resigned ... believing (correctly) that the Senate had no jurisdiction.
The question of jurisdiction was to be decided by a simple majority, so they lost on that point.
At the Senate trial, ALL of those Senators voted against conviction for exactly that reason (jurisdiction), and they were the margin that Belknap needed to avoid conviction by a 2/3 majority in the Senate.
Clearly, THOSE Senators did not feel compelled to serve as objective jurors once they lost on the jurisdictional question. They were overwhelmingly-Republican, as was Belknap.
So there WOULD have been precedent for Cassidy to say "I will vote against conviction regardless of the facts, because I think that the Senate lacks jurisdiction."
This post was edited on 1/29/21 at 8:11 am
Posted on 1/27/21 at 12:13 pm to lowhound
quote:No legislator anywhere in this country has the time or the staff manpower to provide a detailed, personalized response to every letter from every constituent.
I emailed him last week and got that same canned response.
Posted on 1/27/21 at 12:41 pm to Vastmind
I did the same thing weeks ago. Same result. He needs to be primaried.
Posted on 1/27/21 at 1:09 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Dude, just like in all things you have to assess the context for a stand alone statement.
And the context for this one is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, politically charged and motivated retaliation for ideological reasons.
If we could only have the perfect world in which that statement would be valid...
And the context for this one is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, politically charged and motivated retaliation for ideological reasons.
If we could only have the perfect world in which that statement would be valid...
Posted on 1/27/21 at 1:47 pm to SSpaniel
quote:Do you think he might have been thinking about the following oath?
I will uphold my oath to be an impartial juror at the trial and vote based on the evidence presented.quote:quote:Ain't it, though?
Outrageous!
quote:Fulfilling a sworn oath, rather than playing partisan politics. SCREW this guy.
I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ______________, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.
This post was edited on 1/27/21 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 1/27/21 at 2:02 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
No legislator anywhere in this country has the time or the staff manpower to provide a detailed, personalized response to every letter from every constituent.
They will if you pay them for a response.
30,000 people is what a House Rep is supposed to represent. They now represent 730,000 people, give or take, each.
Too many. We need around 8,000 House members, to keep them honest.
Posted on 1/27/21 at 2:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
No legislator anywhere in this country has the time or the staff manpower to provide a detailed, personalized response to every letter from every peasant.
They respond to those who have bought a piece of them
Posted on 1/27/21 at 2:10 pm to gthog61
quote:No, those folks get a phone call, usually from the legislator rather than from a staffer.quote:They respond to those who have bought a piece of them
No legislator anywhere in this country has the time or the staff manpower to provide a detailed, personalized response to every letter from every peasant.
I know this because I worked as a staffer one session of the Texas legislature. As the first letter on a give issue arrived, I wrote those form responses for the boss's review, and I sent the final of the same response letter to dozens or hundreds of people who later wrote regarding that issue.
And I handed him the letters from the people that needed a personal response.
Fair? Probably not. Life isn't fair.
Posted on 1/27/21 at 2:30 pm to Mickey Goldmill
He should call BS on the whole process and say that he will not vote to impeach, because it is an unconstitutional process. The Chief Justice won’t even participate because DJT is no longer President.
Posted on 1/27/21 at 2:46 pm to AggieHank86
"I will continue to represent the views of my state"
Curious thing that statement. How does he know what his constituents views are? I don' recall the Senator holding a town hall or phone group discussion to discuss the views of said constituents. I can only believe that he believes like so many of his colleagues that his beliefs are the only ones that matter.
After all we work for him???
Curious thing that statement. How does he know what his constituents views are? I don' recall the Senator holding a town hall or phone group discussion to discuss the views of said constituents. I can only believe that he believes like so many of his colleagues that his beliefs are the only ones that matter.
After all we work for him???
This post was edited on 1/27/21 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 1/28/21 at 1:38 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
And I handed him the letters from the people that needed a personal response.
What criteria did you use to determine who needed a personal response?
Posted on 1/28/21 at 1:41 pm to #1TigerFan
Rich people, other politicians, & big donors are the ones who get a personal response.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 2:31 pm to Hetfield
I kind of figured that, but AggieHank86 posted that he handed the letters that needed a personal response to his legislator boss. Since he was a gatekeeper for a state legislator, I wanted to hear his criteria that he used and to see if there an indicator other than what you listed.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 2:36 pm to #1TigerFan
quote:We had a list. Mostly local elected officials, business owners and significant donors.
What criteria did you use to determine who needed a personal response?
You might find it surprising that the members of the first two categories were NOT limited to political supporters of the legislator. He wanted to feel the pulse of local opinion-makers.
This post was edited on 1/28/21 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 1/29/21 at 1:50 am to Captain Rumbeard
quote:
... He needs to be primaried.
He was.
There were two very good alternatives in the Nov. 3 primary. Dustin Murphy (Republican) and Aaron Sigler (Libertarian). Both were strongly small government, pro-liberty. Cassidy got 59.3%, Murphy 1.9%, and Sigler 0.5%.
There's the problem. People are too lazy to be bothered to look at all the options and instead simply vote for the R they recognize because "can't let the D win".
Had Cassidy's votes been split among these three, they each would have got 20.6% and two of them would have been in a run-off. The closest D was Perkins with 19.0%.
Cassidy is typical of the intellectually deficient, establishment hacks that the state keeps sending to D.C., and it is completely the fault of Republican voters who allow themselves to be manipulated by the party over and over again.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 1:59 am to Vastmind
In a nutshell, frick the constitution. I was elected to keep an open mind.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 2:01 am to Vastmind
Who knows how to start a recall petition?
Should be able to recall him easily. Every democrat will sign it and over half of the repubs.
Primary him and we are rid of this deep state swamp rat.
We need to get rid of these politicians who are cowards and elect politicians that have courage and will stand up FOR the US Constitution.
He already betrayed his constituents.
We have to stop fooling around by letting these politicians stay in office when they have blatantly betrayed our state and the US Constitution.
Should be able to recall him easily. Every democrat will sign it and over half of the repubs.
Primary him and we are rid of this deep state swamp rat.
We need to get rid of these politicians who are cowards and elect politicians that have courage and will stand up FOR the US Constitution.
He already betrayed his constituents.
We have to stop fooling around by letting these politicians stay in office when they have blatantly betrayed our state and the US Constitution.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 2:44 am to Jspaspa3303
Mail it back to him every time! Tell him thanks for the canned response and your next vote for him will be canned as well!
Posted on 1/29/21 at 2:48 am to Vastmind
quote:
As you are aware, rioters violently
As you are a aware, we all know you are a lying piece of shite.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 5:36 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
How can anyone be upset with this part of the statement?
Because the charge is absurd on its face.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News