Governor Rod Blagojevich is now Ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich.

[taks]

not sure what you mean by that, but strawman arguments are your favorite. one of these days you might actually understand what that means, but i won't hold my breath.

 

show me where i EVER said anything about ex-post facto as my argument? really, show me. also, while you're at it, show me how blago's argument has anything to do with ex-post facto. really, i'm curious.

 

taks

[taks]

If anyone is merging two separate ideas, it's taks.

you're the one that brought up ex-post facto, not me.

 

Impeachment/removal of public officials is not the same as criminal trials.

look up the definition of impeachment. it is the government analogy to indictment.

 

It is used sparingly, but I don't see how the current impeachment in question was wrong. It seems perfectly legitimate to me.

while you're at it, try to read CAREFULLY what i said... i only said he MIGHT have a legal case, but i wouldn't count on it. at most i think his treatment was unfair.

 

really, are any of you idiots capable of actually debating what i said, not what you think i said?

 

really, it is a shame.

 

taks

[Trenitay]

Why can't anyone bring anything else up in an argument? If you just keep arguing the same point the argument becomes a circle. Just because you didn't bring it up doesn't mean everyone else can't.

 

Btw, when someone thinks you say something that's what they're going to argue. I'm sure you're not right 100% of the time. It's not necessary to call everyone an idiot over a misunderstanding.

[Humodour]

I'm sure you're not right 100% of the time. It's not necessary to call everyone an idiot over a misunderstanding.

 

Basically any time taks gets into an argument (which is fairly often, since he doesn't believe he's ever wrong), 2 things happen:

1) He blindly calls your argument a straw man

2) He calls you an idiot for disagreeing with him

[Enoch]

Impeachment/removal of public officials is not the same as criminal trials.

look up the definition of impeachment. it is the government analogy to indictment.

Criminal procedure rights don't follow "analogies" (if they did, a corporate board meeting to discuss the dismissal of a CEO might well implicate them as well), they follow the 14th Amendment's "Life, Liberty, and Property." As pretty much every court has read these terms in the past, the right to continue in an elected office does not qualify under any of these 3 concepts. (But, as I mentioned a few days ago, the right to run for an elected office for which you meet the pre-defined qualifications almost certainly does quality as a 14th Amendment liberty, so I think Blags has a case with respect to the lifetime ban on Illinois public office.)

 

Ultimately, yeah, the process does feel a little unfair, largely because there was nobody in the legislature who was sticking up for the Gov. But a slightly-unfair-seeming impeachment doesn't really bother me so much in that situation. If a Governor has zero support in the legislature, he's going to be the least effective governor imaginable, so it doesn't really bother me that there is a lower bar for tossing a Governor in that situation out of office. Consider it something like a vote of extreme no-confidence.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Enoch