Rick Perry indicted on two felony counts

[carlfense]

I find it ironic the woman in charge of the department looking into integrity gets a DUI, has to be put in shackles to get her under control, makes gun sign at the police, and she's in an uproar about someone wanting her to resign.

 

We live in a backwards world my friends.

I don't think the dispute is over people wanting her to resign. In theory, at least, it's about people trying to force her to resign.

[Ziggy]

This is such political crap, the way she acted after being pulled over should be enough to have her removed from office. If she didn't want to be asked to resign she shouldn't have put every citizen on the road in danger when she drove drunk. It's by some miracle she didn't kill anyone including herself. And her position should not exempt her from being held accountable for her actions which failed to uphold the standards of the very department she heads. Whether or not she was investigating perry is irrelevant to this specific incident, as perry had nothing to do with her legal issues.

[carlfense]

Whether or not she was investigating perry is irrelevant to this specific incident, as perry had nothing to do with her legal issues.

But it could have everything to do with Perry cutting all funding to the Public Integrity Unit and using Lemberg's refusal to resign as a pretext.

 

Either way it looks like that's within the limits of the Texas Constitution . . . but let's not act like Perry was purely acting out of morality here.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm going to go against the grain a little on this since I really don't know anything about the incident. From what I have read, Perry had the constitutional power to do what he did. That doesn't mean he should have. It just means he had the power.

 

But, here is what I think about in this.

 

I don't see why someone should lose their job over a DUI. DUIs have become the law that every politician loves to get stronger and stronger on. it is to the point where pretty much anyone who ever has more than one drink anywhere could be picked up for DUI. No politician is ever going to step back and say...."well...that just is too much punishment for that" because it would be political suicide. Now, I'm not talking about the people who get behind the wheel and are sh#t faced. I'm talking about people I know who have literally sat around and had a few beers in the evening at an event, go drive home, is pulled over on very questionable circumstances and their lives change instantly. This costs them ultimately over $10,000 when all said and done along with everything else in the public eye.

 

Now, bringing this back to the Perry situation. I don't believe someone should have to resign from their position simply because they got arrested for a DUI. They are already being punished by the courts and their insurance company. They don't need to lose their job at the same time. And...again...I don't know any details around her arrest.

[carlfense]

I'm going to go against the grain a little on this since I really don't know anything about the incident. From what I have read, Perry had the constitutional power to do what he did. That doesn't mean he should have. It just means he had the power.

 

But, here is what I think about in this.

 

I don't see why someone should lose their job over a DUI. DUIs have become the law that every politician loves to get stronger and stronger on. it is to the point where pretty much anyone who ever has more than one drink anywhere could be picked up for DUI. No politician is ever going to step back and say...."well...that just is too much punishment for that" because it would be political suicide. Now, I'm not talking about the people who get behind the wheel and are sh#t faced. I'm talking about people I know who have literally sat around and had a few beers in the evening at an event, go drive home, is pulled over on very questionable circumstances and their lives change instantly. This costs them ultimately over $10,000 when all said and done along with everything else in the public eye.

 

Now, bringing this back to the Perry situation. I don't believe someone should have to resign from their position simply because they got arrested for a DUI. They are already being punished by the courts and their insurance company. They don't need to lose their job at the same time. And...again...I don't know any details around her arrest.

In a lot of cases, I agree. Particularly if we're talking about a first offense DUI. There are a few obvious exceptions like CDL holders . . . but it shouldn't be automatically disqualifying. That should be left to the discretion of the employer.

[Junior]

I'm going to go against the grain a little on this since I really don't know anything about the incident. From what I have read, Perry had the constitutional power to do what he did. That doesn't mean he should have. It just means he had the power.

 

But, here is what I think about in this.

 

I don't see why someone should lose their job over a DUI. DUIs have become the law that every politician loves to get stronger and stronger on. it is to the point where pretty much anyone who ever has more than one drink anywhere could be picked up for DUI. No politician is ever going to step back and say...."well...that just is too much punishment for that" because it would be political suicide. Now, I'm not talking about the people who get behind the wheel and are sh#t faced. I'm talking about people I know who have literally sat around and had a few beers in the evening at an event, go drive home, is pulled over on very questionable circumstances and their lives change instantly. This costs them ultimately over $10,000 when all said and done along with everything else in the public eye.

 

Now, bringing this back to the Perry situation. I don't believe someone should have to resign from their position simply because they got arrested for a DUI. They are already being punished by the courts and their insurance company. They don't need to lose their job at the same time. And...again...I don't know any details around her arrest.

 

Agreed. +1

[TGHusker]

 

correct on that. I'm just surprised how strongly Dershowitz came out on this. Perry and he are on polar ends of the spectrum. This will go no where and Perry will use it for fund raising and whipping up and growing his base as he wears the indictment as a 'badge of honor'.

Intellectual honesty. If you'd like to see an example of the opposite you should read the conservative reactions to the Halbig decision.

 

You are correct on that. Do you have a link to the Halbig decision discussion?

[carlfense]

 

 

correct on that. I'm just surprised how strongly Dershowitz came out on this. Perry and he are on polar ends of the spectrum. This will go no where and Perry will use it for fund raising and whipping up and growing his base as he wears the indictment as a 'badge of honor'.

Intellectual honesty. If you'd like to see an example of the opposite you should read the conservative reactions to the Halbig decision.

 

You are correct on that. Do you have a link to the Halbig decision discussion?

 

I don't know about a list . . . but you should be able to find a lifetimes worth of reading if you google the topic.

 

I don't know that I remember a single conservative commentator willing to speak the truth about that case . . . maybe Eugene Volokh did?

[TGHusker]

Thanks Carl.

[strigori]

From reading a few articles it sounds like the devil in the details are what got the charges, and might actually convict. The order of actions is very important. As Perry did not have the authority to remove her from office (which in all honesty was partisan politics to begin with) so he made a threat to defund her department if she did not resign. By attaching conditions to a veto, that had a very personal target, it can be easy to see how this would be views as coercion, which is one of the two charges. It amounts to little more than blackmail with a Gov threatening to basically make her coworkers unemployed, unless she resigned.

[Ziggy]

I guess I am just a little more against people who think drinking and driving is ok, and considering she is supposed to be in charge of the department that is supposed to be the public integrity unit..... How can anyone justify having a unit ran by someone who obviously has a real integrity issue.

[tschu]

I guess I am just a little more against people who think drinking and driving is ok, and considering she is supposed to be in charge of the department that is supposed to be the public integrity unit..... How can anyone justify having a unit ran by someone who obviously has a real integrity issue.

 

Where has anyone ever argued any of this?

[knapplc]

How can anyone justify having a unit ran by someone who obviously has a real integrity issue.

Agreed. And if we start packing up the offices of everyone in Washington with integrity issues, we should be done moving them out by Christmas.

 

Christmas 2015.

[carlfense]

I guess I am just a little more against people who think drinking and driving is ok, and considering she is supposed to be in charge of the department that is supposed to be the public integrity unit..... How can anyone justify having a unit ran by someone who obviously has a real integrity issue.

Is a DUI an integrity issue? I think that this would be a much stronger argument if she had been convicted of fraud, or theft, or false reporting. But a DUI? Criminal sure . . . but I'm not sure that it's a moral issue.

[BigRedBuster]

I guess I am just a little more against people who think drinking and driving is ok, and considering she is supposed to be in charge of the department that is supposed to be the public integrity unit..... How can anyone justify having a unit ran by someone who obviously has a real integrity issue.

So, if someone comes over to your house to watch a football game and they have a few beers then, get go home and get stopped and arrested and blow maybe .1, they all of a sudden have integrity issues?

 

They did something against the law and they obviously made a mistake putting themselves in that position, but we automatically question their integrity then and their morality?