CNN: Giffords to Resign from Congress

@hawkeye10,

What points have you made hawkeye?

You have provided a lot of unsubstantiated BS but no real points. Where was your outrage over Strom Thurmond only a few years ago when he was unable to make it to the floor to vote? Your misogyny is showing quite clearly. Your and Bill's little snarky exchange about men not doing this after I posted 3 historical examples of men doing just that including one where the man didn't make it there for almost 4 years was nothing but whistling past the graveyard while you both congratulated each other about how brave you were.

Your argument WAS shredded. You just refused to accept it and ignored the shredding.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I dont think that a man would ever do it, a man would put country first, if he could not do the job he would step aside .

Oh really? In addition to the examples parados has given, consider these...

Quote:

In 2007 Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota suffered a stroke and took nearly nine months off. He even won re-election after returning. Ted Kennedy suffered a brain tumor and was out for months, and Joe Biden had two brain aneurysms and was away for eight months in 1988.

Where do you get these crazy ideas about "what a man would ever do"? When Ceili called you out for attacking Giffords because she is female, I wasn't convinced that was the case. You could have been attacking her for being a Democrat and having political views you disagree with, or even because she is Jewish and you might have antipathy toward Jews, because you certainly seemed to be attacking the woman for personal reasons and attacking her on a very personal level.
But your latest remarks confirm what Ceili said, you really are attacking her because she is female, and you obstinately deny the reality that male members of Congress have taken extended leaves to deal with medical problems, and this has never been viewed as a significant issue in terms of their service to their country, or to their constituents.

Furthermore, no matter when Giffords had resigned in the past year, her district would have been left without any representation at all for at least 4-5 months because her vacancy could only be filled by a special election in her district. So, no matter how you look at it, you are quibbling about maybe a month, at most, in terms of recent precedents on the part of other members of Congress and how long their constituents lacked their services in Washington. In addition, Congress is not in session for a full calender year, and other, quite able-bodied members of Congress also miss a significant percentage of votes for less compelling reasons than was the case with Giffords.

You cannot claim you win an argument because you choose to disregard anything that contradicts your views. It's not that your view is "unpopular" it's that it's almost frivolous because it's so unsubstantiated and ungrounded in reality. You haven't demonstrated that her Congressional district suffered in any material way, or that it would have been better off if a special election had been held months ago, after a 4-5 month complete lack of any representation following her resignation, because a newly elected representative first has to assemble a staff and become acclimated to his or her new position. So how much real work could they have accomplished?
And, when your allegedly objective views are accompanied by unjustified assaults on the woman's character, you lose all credibility because you seem to be grinding your own personal ax, for whatever private reasons you might have.

You just don't know, or can't admit, when you've lost an argument simply because you failed to make an adequate case. You always look for some other way to explain it--people are too closed-minded to appreciate or accept your views, you are right and everyone else is wrong. For someone who allegedly claims to be a seeker of truth, you sure try to deny the truth when it comes to yourself and why your arguments get rejected.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Where was your outrage over Strom Thurmond only a few years ago when he was unable to make it to the floor to vote?

He has not been in office for NINE YEARS....and no evidence has been presented that he even missed a lot of votes, much less that he missed anything close to 99.9%. When I look at his voting record it looks like he missed few votes, even at the end.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?tab=votes&id=300157

Quote:

Your misogyny is showing quite clearly

Which is to say what, that you can not refute my points? I am after the truth here, not on presenting ideas that you find appetizing. If I am wrong then prove me wrong, if I am right then deal with the truth.

Quote:

Your argument WAS shredded. You just refused to accept it and ignored the shredding

Bullshit, the only argument that has been presented that Giffords did the right thing is that the gunman would have won if she resigned, but she did resign because of the gunman, and the gunman won when he caused the AZ-8 to become unrepresented, which happened over a year ago. That dog will not hunt. Is there another argument presented for me to shred that I have missed? The argument that the decision should be left to her is easily refuted because a space in Congress is not part of a welfare program, it is not about her, it is about the well being of the country and the well being of the country depends upon having a functioning Congress. Districts going unrepresented harms Congress, and should not stand. The argument that she should be given the chance to go recovered enough to do her job fails on the same grounds, and because with the extent of her injury there was no likelihood that she would get recovered enough to do her job, which is supported by the claims that she is in some kind of a miracle recovery and yet she can barely put together three words without a well rehearsed script.

So tell me again about how my argument has been shredded. It has not been....you are trying to claim victory and move on precisely because you can not refute an argument that you find repulsive.

The truth shall set you free.

4 Replies

@hawkeye10,

We have seen this self absorbed behavior from men, in the senate. It is repulsive.

Quote:

Since losing his re-election bid to a Democratic challenger in November, lame-duck Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., has cast only two votes on the House floor—for the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act and a condemnation of a French street named after Mumia Abu-Jamal. Meanwhile, he's skipped out altogether on the other 18 votes. Could he get in trouble for playing hooky?
Not by Congress. Only a congressman's constituents can punish him for truancy. Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives takes disciplinary action when a member fails to show up for work. Hypothetically, a politician could be elected to Congress and never show up for a single meeting or vote.
The two most common reasons for missing votes are ongoing political campaigns and illness. John Kerry famously missed 87 percent of the Senate's roll call votes in the first half of 2004, during his presidential bid. According to the Washington Post's database of votes missed, many of the House's biggest offenders in the last two years were involved in tight electoral contests, such as Harold Ford Jr., D-Tenn., who lost his bid for the Senate, and Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, who won the governorship of Ohio.
The congressman who made the fewest appearances in the 109th Congress is Rep. Lane Evans, D-Ill., who suffers from Parkinson's disease. (He chose not to seek re-election in 2006 after missing almost half of the session's votes.) Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., also had a good reason for missing more than 100 votes: He was in rehab.
In the past, some ill members of Congress have missed even more of the action. In 1969, two years into his fourth term, South Dakota Sen. Karl E. Mundt, a Republican, suffered a stroke and was unable to continue voting. He offered to resign, but only on the condition that South Dakota's governor appoint Mundt's wife to fill the vacancy. The governor refused, and Mundt retained the Senate seat, even while missing three full years of votes. He even remained on three committees until 1972, when the Senate Republican Conference stripped him of these assignments. Similarly, in the 1940s, Sen. Carter Glass of Virginia missed two years' worth of votes due to illness—he was87 and in failing health—but refused to retire even as newspapers from across his state pressured him to step aside.
If either house of Congress wanted to institute disciplinary action for absentee representatives, they would have to amend their rules of operation. But it's unlikely that members would vote to give themselves stringent attendance guidelines.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/12/capitol_hooky.html

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

If I am wrong then prove me wrong

I already did that. You just don't want to acknowledge it.

I proved you were wrong in saying that male members of Congress have never exhibited a similar pattern of behavior when dealing with medical problems or incapacity.
And, despite your having just posted information that also confirms that you were wrong on this point, you still fail to openly admit you were wrong, or to explain why you even made Giffords gender an issue.

I proved you were wrong in saying that Congress should have ousted Giffords from her seat--they have no authority, at all, to do so under such circumstances.

Quote:

So tell me again about how my argument has been shredded.

I proved you were wrong in implying that there would have been any substantial benefit to her Congressional district from an earlier resignation--it would have still left her district without any representation, not even a district office to serve their needs, for probably at least 6-7 months, given the time necessary for special primary and general elections, and the time necessary for a new representative to set up offices and come up to speed on the issues and pending legislation, and the new representative would likely have no committee appointments or any significant influence. You don't just fall into the job of being a member of Congress knowing how to do it--that learning process takes at least a few months. Her district would have been left without fully effective representation for close to the balance of her term, even if she had resigned months ago.

You failed to realize that Giffords could not have been immediately replaced, no matter when she resigned, and if she had resigned 11 months ago there would not have been any significant benefit to her district--nor were you able to show either how her district was materially disadvantaged by the decision she did make, or how it would have materially benefited had she resigned sooner. All you offered was pompous hot air about "duty" and "honor" and not a shred of actual evidence to support your argument.

In other words, none of your claims could withstand challenge.

Quote:

The truth shall set you free.

Not for you it won't, not when you can't face the truth about your own insubstantial arguments and why they get rejected.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

He has not been in office for NINE YEARS..

WHAT? That's your defense? It's been a while?

I see you are ignoring Glass who had almost 2 years with no votes
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=404594&tab=votes

You are also ignoring Tim Johnson who missed 100% of the votes for over 6 months.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300058&tab=votes

Giffords only had 2 quarters where she missed 100% of the votes.
Glass had 4 quarters where he missed 100% of the votes
Johnson had 2 quarters where he missed 100% of the votes.

Now feel FREE to go f** yourself - since you clearly want to avoid the actual argument that shreds yours. Men have missed votes more often than Giffords did.

Quote:

The argument that the decision should be left to her is easily refuted because a space in Congress is not part of a welfare program, it is not about her, it is about the well being of the country and the well being of the country depends upon having a functioning Congress.

And that is a complete BULL **** argument. A well functioning Congress is not one that removes members simply because some people think they won't recover. That would result in partisan chaos, Tit for Tat. Anytime a Congressman fell ill, it would result in partisan demands that they be removed and 24/7 FOX News stories with shady Drs, reporting how they can never recover or will miraculously recover. At least those in Congress have the sense to realize this and not try to remove one of their own.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The argument that the decision should be left to her is easily refuted because a space in Congress is not part of a welfare program, it is not about her, it is about the well being of the country and the well being of the country depends upon having a functioning Congress. Districts going unrepresented harms Congress, and should not stand.

Well, that's not what the Constitution says...she was duly elected and sworn in as a member of Congress, and her job description did not include conditions, like how many votes she had to cast

Neither Congress nor the state of Arizona had any legal authority to remove her from her seat because of her medical problems. Again, you are simply ignore of the applicable laws in this case, which render your arguments without any merit at all.

The decision regarding resignation was legally only hers to make. She committed no impeachable offenses. She was elected to a term of office, and she was legally entitled to hold her seat for the balance of her term. You failed to read, or understand, the material I previously posted regarding incapacitation on the part of a member of Congress.

Quote:

So tell me again about how my argument has been shredded. It has not been....you are trying to claim victory and move on precisely because you can not refute an argument that you find repulsive.

How many times do you want to hear how your argument has been shredded and have that demonstrated to you. Laughing

Your argument isn't repulsive, it's more of a joke. All of your points have been successfully challenged, a good deal of what you have asserted is inaccurate and has been refuted, and yet you still persist in claiming some sort of victory. So, this is just about your ego? Right or wrong you must declare yourself the winner?

Your need to insist that you are right involves so much denial on your part, that all you are proving is how desperate you are not to admit failure, even when you don't have a leg to stand on.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Neither Congress nor the state of Arizona had any legal authority to remove her from her seat

As a matter of fact congress does have the power to removed a member and or not seat a member and had done so in the past.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Below is the link to the congressional research service that explained that congress does indeed have the power to removed a member by 2/3 vote under article one section 5 clause 2 of the constitution.

I could not cut and past the article so you will need to go to the link.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*PL%5B%3A%230%20%20%0A

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Lord a link to a congressional research service paper get a vote down on this thread!!!

Maybe if you pretend that article one section 5 clause 2 does not exist in the constitution it will disappeared by magic and Firefly will be right......LOL

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Here is the part of the constitution that give the power to removed a member by 2/3 of congress.

Let see some more votes downs............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Rules

Clause 2: Rules Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
Each House can determine its own Rules (assuming a quorum is present), and may punish any of its members. A two-thirds vote is necessary to expel a member. Section 5, Clause 2 does not provide specific guidance to each House regarding when and how each House may change its rules, leaving details to the respective chambers.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Awesome, now show us were the word 'democracy' is used in the constitution
and also were it states citizens have the right to vote in a presidential election.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

read Federalist no 10 , you will be enlightened re the fundamental differences and similarity between a democracy and a republic

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Here is the part of the constitution that give the power to removed a member by 2/3 of congress.

Sorry, Congress does not have the power to have a member removed from their Congressional seat, and to have the office declared vacated, on the basis of a member's medical problems or incapacity.

You don't seem to understand the issue. You are posting irrelevant nonsense.

Giffords was elected to a term of office and she was legally entitled to remain in office for that entire term, despite her medical problems, just as others have done in the past.

Quote:

There is no specific protocol, procedure, or authority set out in the United States Constitution, federal law, or congressional rule for the Senate (or the House) to recognize "incapacity" of a sitting Member and thereby declare a "vacancy" in such office.

Under the general practice and operations in the Senate (as well as in the House), personal "incapacity" of a sitting Member has not generated proceedings to declare the seat vacant, and sitting Members of the Senate (and the House) who have become incapacitated, and who have not resigned, have generally served out their terms of office.

and a vacancy with respect to such a sitting Member would generally exist only by virtue of resignation, death, acceptance of an incompatible office, or expulsion.

. . https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:dpq-nFX--ScJ:opencrs.com/document/RS22556/2006-12-15/download/1002/+incapacity&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh0axhFQjFBU-v_rJOoP9jwq0Psl2BI9RDdXJeTKv_ezR0CXuL7uG37m41cfMUrYIxXHR85JSCy-pauBQTGPc6cdj3bLpXNqDJRjTUsGg8stI8axb8sTu-ZMItVWCyqtIA-jhd_&sig=AHIEtbQ2_qAyULwfhctrdEu7iVxIFmUdew&pli=1

The Congressional seat was Giffords to keep for her term of office unless she decided to resign from it sooner.

Hawkeye was simply incorrect in his insisting the House should have ousted her--under the circumstances, they would have had no authority to do so, which also makes you wrong in trying to support his claim.

The reality is that sometimes members of Congress become disabled or incapacitated as the result of medical problems, and to have this happen as the result of an assassination attempt is all the more tragic.

Sen. Mark Kirk suffered a serious stroke and has had two brain surgeries all within the past week. His political future, and his ability to attend to the duties of his office, is decidedly uncertain at present, as is the amount of time he will be away from Washington while he recovers.

Quote:

Yesterday, Senator Kirk’s neurosurgeon, Dr. Richard Fessler of Northwestern Memorial Hospital, stated that “prospects for the mental recuperation of Senator Kirk were good but recuperation on the left side of his body is not great.”
http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-chicago/chicago-s-political-reporters-discuss-the-future-of-senator-mark-kirk

Quote:

Illinois Senator Kirk talking following stroke
Tue, Jan 24 2012
By Eric Johnson

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, who suffered a stroke over the weekend and had part of his skull removed to relieve brain swelling, is alert and talking but has a long recovery in store, his doctor said on Tuesday.

The 52-year-old Republican had breathing tubes removed and responds to questions, sometimes in longer sentences when not under sedation, said Dr. Richard Fessler of Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

"He was asking for his Blackberry, so he's thinking about communicating and thinking about work," Fessler told reporters. Doctors refused the request for his phone.

Fessler said Kirk's recovery would likely be "a long haul," beginning with a week in the hospital's intensive care unit so doctors can keep an eye on his brain swelling.

Surgeons will then replace a 4- by 8-inch section of his skull that was removed to prevent damage due to the swelling. After that, Kirk will face a period of rehabilitation at the hospital.

Kirk, a Naval Reserve intelligence officer, was slurring his words due to paralysis on the left side of his face, which should improve with therapy, Fessler said.

He suffered an ischemic stroke, caused by a blocked carotid artery, that affected the right side of his brain, which controls the left side of his body.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/24/us-senator-kirk-stroke-idUSTRE80N25520120124

Senators can be replaced more quickly than Congressional representatives, should they resign, because the governor can appoint a replacement in Kirk's case, while a member of the House can only be replaced by a special election in their district--a process that requires several months.

But I really doubt that three weeks from now, or even three months from now, that there will be outside pressure on Sen. Kirk to resign, even though he faces a lengthy period of rehabilitation and recovery with an uncertain outcome.The choice of whether he will resign, and if he will resign, will rest with him, just as was the case with Giffords and many others. That's just the way the system works.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

24th Amendment
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

It's kind of hard to protect a right if it doesn't exist Spurt.

0 Replies

@parados,

That no man would pull the self indulgent stunt that Giffords pulled is a side arguement, and I see that there have been a couple....all so far as I know in the Senate where the result is the the citizens got half their representation rather than none as was the case in the House for the AZ-8.

Be aware that being absent for 6 months and comming back is a world away from being absent for a year and then not comming back.....the AZ-8 suffers for a three times as long period as they will not get their vote till July now, and the absence was pointless. I thought you might be a smart enough guy to figure that there is no equality here, but I over estimated your intelligence.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Wow.. Now you are trying to justify your misogyny by suggesting that one vote in the House isn't the same as one vote in the Senate. You do realize that Giffords vote in Congress carries less weight being 1 of 435 compared to 1 out of 100 in the Senate.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

That no man would pull the self indulgent stunt that Giffords pulled is a side arguement

No, it's a settled argument--male members of Congress have been away from Washington for considerable lengths of time due to medical problems.

That you chose to describe recovery from injuries due to a bullet passing through her brain, as the result of an assassination attempt, as "a self indulgent stunt" explains why your position lacks credibility, Hawkeye. You aren't debating anything, you are grinding some personal ax of your own toward this woman, for whatever personal reasons you have, and you ooze resentment of this woman simply because she was forced into a medical leave due to circumstances totally beyond her control. Your personal resentments, and your personal notions of "duty" and "honor" are not valid issues in an objective discussion of whether a member of Congress should be compelled to resign or vacate her seat, particularly when precedents, on the part of other members of Congress, suggest otherwise.

Whether you like it or not, she was elected to a term of office and she had the legal right to remain in that office until she decided to resign it. And there would have been no way to immediately replace her no matter when she resigned. Her district would have been without an effectively functioning representative, and without functioning Congressional district offices, for at least 7-8 months following her resignation, no matter when she resigned. And that fact alone, shoots down most of your argument.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Sorry, Congress does not have the power to have a member removed from their Congressional seat, and to have the office declared vacated, on the basis of a member's medical problems or incapacity.

You don't seem to understand the issue. You are posting irrelevant nonsense.

Bullshit congress and only congress not the courts had the power to decide what standards to used in unseating a member.

2\3 vote and the member is gone for any reason or no reason.

A constitution lawyer or expert you are not...............

Just because congress had not used this power on members for medical reasons in the past does not mean that they can not do so at their whim!!!!!!

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Self indulgent?
Look at this site, it's the timeline of her sitting back eating bonbons.
http://theweek.com/article/index/211974/gabrielle-giffords-miraculous-recovery-a-timeline
At which point she could still barely walk or make a full sentence, but yeah, she was just getting her nails done.... Asshole.

0 Replies

CNN: Giffords to Resign from Congress

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know