Does he have to get FOUR slaps on the wrist from the Ethics Comitte in one week isntead just the three he usually gets?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54572-2004Nov16.html
Rules for thee but not for me
When you're in power, apparently, you can just change the rules whenever you don't want to follow them anymore. That's what House Republicans appear to be doing to protect their leader Tom DeLay in the event the indictments that seem to be contagious in his circle of Texas friends and colleagues spread to him. Last night, House GOP members proposed changing congressional rules to allow leaders to stay in their posts even if they're indicted by state grand juries. Today, the rule change is expected to gain approval at a closed door meeting.
The best part: This rule was adopted more than 10 years ago when House Republicans wanted to show how corrupt Democrats were and that Republicans "held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats," as the Washington Post put it. With trouble brewing in DeLay's circle of political associates now, though, Republicans are quick to move to change the rule so they don't actually have to hold themselves to the same standard they applied to Democrats.
Democrats and congressional watchdog groups are criticizing the proposal, but it probably won't do any good. Nancy Pelosi said last night, according to the Post: "If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing."
Apparently, the change is because the Ethics rules are being used as sort of a "keep throwing stuff until something sticks". Certianly a reason to change the rules.
Pesti: In Lay's case, it's keep brekaing the law until you get caught.
Major League A**hole
Pesti How's it a keep throwing stuff until something sticks when the guy investigating him has a history of indicting more dems than republicans. Keep throwing something till something sticks was the republicans aginst Clinton back in the 90s.
Yeah Pesti. I really think you should read The Hunting of the President.
DeLay is still a major league a**hole.
I just love saying that!
Does anyone else think DeLay gives the perfect argument for the creation of some independent institution for the policing of House ethics? The current structure seems utterly ineffective.
Article I. Section 5 states that the Senate and the House have the sole power to police themselves. Specifically it reads:
Clause 1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
And if that doesn't work, all house members are subject to popular review in two years.
Yeah but if the good ol boy network looks out for each other like they are doing now.....And using scare tactics and payoffs to stay in power wouldnt be above someone like delay. Independent review is a good idea.
So Congress can overturn their verdict, if it wants to and the people re-elect him in 2006? Independent review is meaningless. Any decision to remove a rep must come from Congress, and any move to keep him off must come from the people. Again, if the Union survived the beating of a New England Senator by a Southern Representive and his re-election...