Blago impeachment, unethical??

[Gangularis]

I think it's obvious that the guy is a wind bag.. but is it really that uncommon for governors to do stuff like this? Isn't this the kind of behavior that lobbyists have bread into the system?

My main question, and the point I'm getting at is, do you think it was unethical of them to impeach him *before* he had been convicted of wrong doing?

 

[KingMerv00]

I don't have a major problem with it so long as there is good cause.

Impeachment is not the same as a criminal conviction. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In effect, removing an elected official from office is analogous to giving them a pink slip.

 

[Bikewer]

KingMerv is right, especially in Illinois. The federal criminal charges are irrelevant; all they have to do is show the guy as unethical or incompetent.
I believe they had adequate grounds for both...

 

[Gangularis]

I don't have a major problem with it so long as there is good cause.

Impeachment is not the same as a criminal conviction. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In effect, removing an elected official from office is analogous to giving them a pink slip.

Obviously it doesn't *require* proof beyond a reasonable doubt to impeach. I just asked if you thought it was unethical to do so before he was convicted of wrong doing.

KingMerv is right, especially in Illinois. The federal criminal charges are irrelevant; all they have to do is show the guy as unethical or incompetent.
I believe they had adequate grounds for both...

That makes sense.

 

[KingMerv00]

Obviously it doesn't *require* proof beyond a reasonable doubt to impeach. I just asked if you thought it was unethical to do so before he was convicted of wrong doing.

And I said:

I don't have a major problem with it so long as there is good cause.

The impeachment process has its own methods for determining fact so they don't need to wait for a criminal determination of wrongdoing. Criminal trials take a while so if Illinois delayed, they would be stuck with Blago for much longer than is necessary.

 

[Puppycow]

The fix wuz in! The fix wuz in!

Mr. I Think I'm a Hero In A Hollywood Movie, was correctly removed. I don't think it was unethical. I don't the same standards apply as for criminal cases. This is democracy. This is why impeachment exists in the first place, so we don't have to wait for a long, drawn-out criminal case that could take months or a year or more.

 

[Globert]

Unethical was his clinging to power. 59-0 twice. Once for hit the road, once to say never come back.

 

[RandFan]

I think it's obvious that the guy is a wind bag.. but is it really that uncommon for governors to do stuff like this?

I don't know how common or uncommon it is but I know running red lights is common. So is embezzlement and extortion. Hell, one only need look at our prisons to see crime is common.

What's your point?

My main question, and the point I'm getting at is, do you think it was unethical of them to impeach him *before* he had been convicted of wrong doing?

No. Of course not. Impeachment exists to solve the problem of someone who is not able to execute the responsibilities of his or her office due to incompetence or malfeasance.

It would really be unethical to allow such a person to remain in office. A finding of criminal activity isn't even necessary.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Unethical was his clinging to power. 59-0 twice. Once for hit the road, once to say never come back.

That's the vote from the state Senate. The article I read said that the House vote was "overwhelmingly" in favor of impeachment.

Does that mean someone actually voted no?

If so, I hope Illinois voters will take note of who those people were.

What possible good would it do to keep him in office?

 

[Globert]

House vote of 114-1

 

[Gangularis]

lol, who was the 1?!!

 

[KingMerv00]

lol, who was the 1?!!

This says Milt Patterson.

Rep. Milt Patterson (D-Chicago) was the lone vote against impeaching the governor. Patterson, from Chicago's Southwest Side, said after the roll call that he didn't feel it was his job to vote to impeach the governor. He declined comment on whether he approved of the job Blagojevich is doing.

I hope Mr. Patterson enjoyed being a Congressman. I don't see him winning his next election.

 

[Puppycow]

This says Milt Patterson.



I hope Mr. Patterson enjoyed being a Congressman. I don't see him winning his next election.

You'd be suprised. Ron Paul routinely gets re-elected despite being the only vote on the unpopular side of very lopsided votes.

ETA:
Political positions of Ron Paul

Ron Paul's nickname "Dr. No"[4] reflects both his medical degree and the insistence[5] that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."[6][7] This position has frequently resulted in Paul casting the sole "no" vote against proposed legislation.

 

[KingMerv00]

You'd be suprised. Ron Paul routinely gets re-elected despite being the only vote on the unpopular side of very lopsided votes.

ETA:
Political positions of Ron Paul

I just had an awful vision of Ron Paul as a Supreme Court Justice.

Meh, couldn't be that much worse than Thomas.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Patterson, from Chicago's Southwest Side, said after the roll call that he didn't feel it was his job to vote to impeach the governor.

What he thinks those other 114 representatives were confused about the job description?

 

[quixotecoyote]

And I said:



The impeachment process has its own methods for determining fact so they don't need to wait for a criminal determination of wrongdoing. Criminal trials take a while so if Illinois delayed, they would be stuck with Blago for much longer than is necessary.

From the tapes it sounded like he was guilty, but I didn't like that he was being judged by a group with a political interest in having him gone and it sounded like even if they would give him a fair hearing the rules made it hard to introduce evidence for his defense.

 

[Meadmaker]

I heard one talking head with claimed legal expertise (forgot who or what) say that although most of the press has focused on selling Obama's Senate seat, the actual crimes involved a huge amount of corruption involving less high profile corruption. From what I understand, this guy was really way overboard, and had been for a long time.

I'm reminded a bit of James Trafficante, the Congressman convicted of corruption a few years back. He was absolutely certain that what he did was no different than what all the other guys did. However, he, and Blago, appear to have crossed the line. Where other people might say, "Gee, I'd sure like to support you on that bill, but I'm not sure how the voters would take that. I'm already facing a tough reelection campaign. I'm just not sure," the truly corrupt ones say, "Tell you what. I'll vote for that bill if you put 3,000 bucks in my campaign fund."

They're both saying the same thing, but one of them is going to jail.

 

[Gangularis]

From the tapes it sounded like he was guilty, but I didn't like that he was being judged by a group with a political interest in having him gone and it sounded like even if they would give him a fair hearing the rules made it hard to introduce evidence for his defense.

yeah, i think that was the perspective I was sort of coming from.

 

[RandFan]

From the tapes it sounded like he was guilty, but I didn't like that he was being judged by a group with a political interest in having him gone and it sounded like even if they would give him a fair hearing the rules made it hard to introduce evidence for his defense.

Blago chose to seek political office. The possibility of impeachment wasn't a secret. The governor of a state has a great deal of responsibility and power that in the wrong hands can be seriously abused. This is a guy BTW, who campaigned on transparency and promised to clean up government and he followed a governor that is at this moment incarcerated. And he is on tape saying that you don't give away a senate seat because it's golden.

I think a politician should be impeached if he doesn't even avoid the appearance of improprioty. Hell, he did much more than that. No criminal is needed for us to form an opinion on this one.

Those that you are skeptical of didn't put Blago in prison. They resolved a problem that he clearly created. It's not fair to his constituents that this be treated as a criminal trial.

Finally, why did the Democrats have a political interest in having him gone? If it's because of the accusations then yeah, he did somethings that politicians shouldn't do if they need the support of people in their own party. I mean c'mon. This is no red letter day for Dem's in Illinois. I've no doubt they wish this never happened.

 

[Puppycow]

I agree with Randfan. I see impeachment as a tool of democracy. Just like we need some process to put the politicians in there, we need one to get them out if it turns out that they are extremely corrupt. Impeachment is that method. Everyone in Illinois has an interest in this. Just like a company can fire an employee without a full-blown criminal proceeding, the people need some method to fire their employee short of a full-blown criminal proceeding.