Yes, I would complain if McCain did the same thing. Ive already seen the history on this. If you recall, I don't care much for RINO's like McCain anyway. How can you believe I would react differntly.i bet you would be all over this issue if mccain had won and he wanted to appoint a senator
the ethical way to fix this would be just to recind the pay hike and there is precedent for that. and guess which party started that precedent?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ible_for_post/
I say all involved in the past and present are disrespecting and violating the cons utiuon. You know, those same people who have sworn to uphold the cons ution. They should be above question on the issue.
Yes, I read the history on the subject. They all should have been held accountable in the past. They should not be able to follow the same thing just because the legality wasn't challanged in the past.
Reinding the pay hike is not the answer. It is still illegal. The only ethical thing to do is withdraw the nomination on legal grounds, then ask for an amendment.
. I'm not really against Hillary being SoS. I don't think she's the right person. I think she's too arrogant and self centered for the job. I also believe she's better than other potential Obama picks. I am simply tired of people trampling on our cons ution.
So.
You prove yourself to be a partisan .
Only people with agendas take things out of context.
I included the context. It's not my fault you contradicted one statement with the next one.
And there is nothing partisan about my argument. I'm fine with either party's using the Saxby fix. Once again you have proven you have no idea what you are talking about.
Hillary's campaign team was shrewed, rude, and over-the-top....see, she will make a fine SOS
Who do you think you're fooling? Maybe Boutons...
I am fooling no one, because I have nothing to hide here. I am completely for the Saxby fix. It absolutely satisfies the spirit of the Cons ution.
I'm fairly neutral on the issue of Hillary's being SoS, though it does strike me as an odd choice.
What I forgot to say is that I believe a cost of living raise should not be considered an increase. I personally think that is the proper approach to take. I agree the spirit of the law and the black and white are two differnt things. That is one reason I am skeptical of most new laws. Loopholes and unintended consequenses. Still, without actually being to acertain the founders intent, the black and white of the law must stand.
The pay has been increased. The Saxby fix cannot erase a fact already past. It doesn't matter if she gets the old rate. The rate increase is now fact.
The founders' intent is completely obvious here. They wanted to avoid members of congress being able to invent cushy patronage jobs or massively increased salaries for existing jobs to which they could subsequently be appointed. The former does not apply here and the Saxby Fix negates the latter.
When I read a link on the original record, it only passed by one vote to have it as read. They went from June until September trying to resolve this. There was not clear consensus on the intent. I would like to assume as you do. I just see it the opposite. One revision had the phrase “on the ineligibility of the members during the term for which they were elected” without the “or emoluments” attached, the vote was 8 yes 2 no 1 undecided. Adding the “created or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased” barely passed. The vote was 5 yes, 4 no, 1 undecided.
Now their intent is even more clear.
Thanks for the votes.
US Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_Supr..._06072010.html
Guess our cons ution needs some updating. :shrugs:
Nice slap, supreme court.
And this is a conservative court regardless of the dem/rep count.
But really, pursuing this type of ambiguous technicality is truly for people with no life. Therefore I'm unsurprised Wild Cobra would be all over it.
Sooooo basically when I, as others noted as well, said here:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...54&postcount=9
That there was precedent, and this is simply pretty much a non-issue, then the SCOTUS seems to agree with that. yay.
Well, i cannot be shown right or wrong is the case isn't being heard.
Someone, likely several someones, read the case and determined that it didn't have enough of a merit to warrant the SCOTUS' time.
That says volumes, even if you are technically correct.
Are you ing stupid?
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. SC didn't touch the merits.
Merit? I doubt it, technically, it would set precedent. I would think most people, including myself, don't think what is considered a cost of living increase is important enough. the supreme court can only take so many cases, and most have to be denied a hearing. I'm sure there are far more important issues.
Jurisdiction? Where is that said?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-clinton-post/
I figured the standing issue would stop most cases before they began.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
