Talking about ethical problems, did anyone catch this lovely little rules change just enacted by the Republicans. I guess when you have power you can get away with anything.
larry http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57294-2004Nov17.html House Republicans Act to Protect DeLay By Charles Babington and Helen Dewar Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, November 18, 2004; Page A04 Emboldened by their election success, House Republicans changed their rules yesterday to allow Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.) to keep his post even if a grand jury indicts him, and Senate GOP leaders continued to weigh changing long-standing rules governing filibusters to prevent Democrats from blocking President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees. Republicans were less brazen a month ago, when they held a tiny Senate majority and House members were more sensitive to criticisms of ethical lapses on Capitol Hill. But, basking in the Nov. 2 election that gave Bush a second term and expanded the party's House and Senate majorities, Republican leaders are showing a greater willingness to brush past Democratic objections, parliamentary traditions and watchdog groups' denunciations to advance their agenda. House Republicans, in an unrecorded voice vote behind closed doors, changed a 1993 party rule that required leaders who are indicted to step aside. Under the revised rule, an indicted leader can keep his or her post while the Republican Steering Committee -- controlled by party leaders -- decides whether to recommend any action by all GOP House members. The rule change applies equally to state and federal indictments. Republicans made it clear they will not act if they think their leaders are targeted by grand juries or prosecutors motivated by politics, which is the charge DeLay and his allies repeatedly have leveled at a grand jury based in Austin. The grand jury has indicted three of DeLay's political associates in connection with fundraising activities for a political action committee closely linked to DeLay. Democrats and ethics watchdog groups denounced the House GOP action. "Today, Republicans sold their collective soul to maintain their grip on power," said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said: "Republicans have reached a new low. It is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of business following the elections, House Republicans have lowered the ethical standards for their leaders." DeLay told reporters yesterday that he does not expect to be indicted but supports the rule change. Without it, he said, Democrats could "have a political hack decide who our leadership is" by engineering a baseless indictment. He said Democrats "announced years ago that they were going to engage in the politics of personal destruction, and had me as a target." DeLay said the charges being investigated in Austin by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, an elected Democrat, "are frivolous" and "have no substance." Earle, who says partisanship plays no role in his investigation, notes that he has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans during his long career. Republicans said neither DeLay nor Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) addressed the caucus meeting, which lasted several hours. Hastert later called the rule change "a good decision" that resulted in a "fair and equitable" standard. When House Republicans adopted the 1993 rule requiring indicted leaders to step aside, they were highlighting ethical problems dogging prominent Democrats. Meanwhile, in the Senate, where the GOP will hold 55 of the 100 seats in January, Republican leaders have sharpened their talk of changing rules governing the filibuster, a tactic that both parties have used over the years to block proposals that cannot muster 60 votes to shut off debate. Republicans are angry that Democrats have used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's most conservative judicial nominees. Changes to Senate rules usually require up to 67 votes if they are especially controversial. But there is one approach -- called the "nuclear option" because of its explosive potential -- that would require only 51 votes. Republicans could employ it at almost any time after the new Congress convenes in January. Under this rarely used procedure, the Senate's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Cheney, would find that a supermajority to end filibusters is unconstitutional for judicial nominees. Democrats would undoubtedly challenge this ruling. But it takes only a simple majority -- or 51 votes from the Senate GOP's new 55-vote majority -- to sustain a ruling of the chair. Some key Democrats have warned that such an approach would enrage even moderate Democrats who have qualms about judicial filibusters and destroy whatever comity remains. "To implement the nuclear option would make the last Congress look like a bipartisan tea party," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). Some Republicans also have qualms about the proposal, and it is not clear whether it would get a simple majority. Starting with a speech last week to the Federalist Society and continuing through the Sunday talk shows, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said Senate Republicans would no longer tolerate filibusters on judicial nominations. He hinted broadly that the "nuclear option" is under consideration as a last resort. "One way or the other, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," he said. But Frist has also talked about trying to reach some kind of accord with Democrats on handling nominations, and some believe that his threats, capitalizing on the Democrats' weakened clout, are aimed at achieving this result. At a news conference yesterday, he reiterated his opposition to judicial filibusters but declined to say if he wanted to provoke a constitutional fight over the issue. � 2004 The Washington Post Company On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:25:04 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Larry wrote: > > Any bets that its going to be overlooked. Also I would not be > > surprised at all if for the next congressional election, DeLay and his > > allies will be making a lot of use of their access to smear their > > opponents. > > > > I agree and it's one of the reasons I argued for people to vote for Mr. Kerry. > > It was/is my feeling that if Mr. Bush were elected we'd see a loss of > liberties and accountability and that's exactly what we're seeing > already: > > 1.) Ethics rules being waived, > 2.) tax privacy threats, > 3.) a religious Supreme Court threat, > 4.) an expanded Patriot Act, > 5.) The largest amount of Pork earmarks in history (>14,000 which is > 3X greater than under any admin) > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:137309 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
