Rick Perry indicted on abuse of power

[pbrower2a]

Elected officials have no right to interfere in judicial proceedings. When such happens one of the cornerstones of classical liberalism, to wit an independent judiciary, is shattered.   

[pbrower2a]

I don't believe this one will be particularly harmful. The belief that the following prosecutor should resign after her arrest for drunk driving does not seem controversial.

I'll take you one further: this will end up helping Perry. What he did isn't just uncontroversial, it'll be applauded, especially by Republican primary voters. Perry can legitimately claim to be unfairly targeted by liberals for the kind of executive behavior they like. And it all would have gone completely unnoticed but for this indictment. This is the DA's oops.

It's sickening but true. Right-wingers tolerate much roguishness in their political heroes that liberals would never tolerate. They could tolerate that George W. Bush could mock someone who begged him to commute a death sentence. They could tolerate that aides of  former Senator George Allen could beat a heckler or that Senator David Vitter could have his name in the client list of a DC madam. They could tolerate Karl Rove outing a CIA operative as revenge against a diplomat who contradicted the alleged justification for invading Iraq in 2003 (Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen deservedly rot in a federal Supermax for exposing American agents, but it is fine for Karl Rove to do so).  They can tolerate the borderline insanity of people who accuse Barack Obama not truly being an American.  They tolerate lies, diplomatic bullying, and warmongering. They see nothing wrong with the drain-and-dump business practices and pathological narcissism of Mitt Romney. 

Here's a 2006 book review of John Dean's Conservatives Without a Conscience. I warn you that it comes from the People's World, a Communist publication. The review is OK until it starts discussing the class struggle.  But it is a book review:

http://www.peoplesworld.org/conservatives-without-conscience-an-insider-views-the-gop-s-ominous-politics/

A long PDF on people like Rick Perry and the sorts of people who vote for his type:

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

[pbrower2a]

I don't live in Texas, so I have my own filter. Texas has some strange politics.

Elected officials have no right to interfere in the judicial process for partisan ends. A state governor may use pardons and commutations as permitted by the State constitution, but that is as far as it goes. The governor cannot fire a judge or diminish his pay (which is a constructive firing) for political purposes.

An indictment has been made, and that does not itself imply guilt -- just that a case for prosecution exists. That is all.

[pbrower2a]

I don't live in Texas, so I have my own filter. Texas has some strange politics.

Elected officials have no right to interfere in the judicial process for partisan ends. A state governor may use pardons and commutations as permitted by the State constitution, but that is as far as it goes. The governor cannot fire a judge or diminish his pay (which is a constructive firing) for political purposes.

An indictment has been made, and that does not itself imply guilt -- just that a case for prosecution exists. That is all.

It's good to see that someone gets it. I keep seeing this really, really nasty meme that it's okay to blatantly break the law if you're doing to to "punish" a wrong-doer (alleged or otherwise). Does anyone think that what Perry did would have been just dandy if he'd done it because the person he was targeting was hispanic? Or gay? Or Muslim? The ends DO NOT justify the means - if a civilization start ignoring its own laws because it think that is true, then its doomed.

There are two aspects here. How bad does it look for Perry? Did he break the law?

The DA's drunk driving arrest/ behavior fits both discussions. Primarily we've talked about the former, but it's still relevant for the latter.

As Governor, Perry has veto powers. And he is also able to say that he will use the veto powers under certain circumstances.

He wouldn't be able to use the veto powers to remove someone for being gay, Muslim or Hispanic. However, a prosecutor serving three weeks in jail for drunk driving, who is videotaped trying to pull rank on the officers around her, is not the moral equivalent of someone who is a victim of discrimination. She did something that's clearly wrong.

She was not removed for DWI. She was allowed to remain in office. Even if such is a mistake, it is not the prerogative of the Governor to deny the due payment for her work; such is not within his power.  That the attempt to deny payment for her office is done for what looks like a protection of the economic interest of the Governor's cronies makes the veto look like an abuse of power severe enough to allow an indictment. The Governor has veto powers, but if he uses them for corrupt purposes he may commit a crime.

Judges are not personally responsible to elected officials. Remember: an independent judiciary is a cornerstone of liberal democracy (in the classical sense). It does not allow judicial misconduct or grossly-incompetent performance... or blatant non-performance of duties.