Reply
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 04:08 pm
Be a reason for them to be forced to give up their seat/job?
I ask this because of the Tim Johnson illness. Not that I believe he should be forced to as long as there's a chance that he can fullfill his duties in a timely fashion. But, this question was asked on TV & I found it interesting. We have had Strom Weekend @ Bernies Thurmond being literally propped up in his Senate seat, now Billy KKK Byrd in almost the same situation, yet they are kept on.
So, should this practice change? Should we expect an able bodied (& mind) congressman/woman rather than a propped up, senile person?
How do you propose to tell when someone is no longer capable of fulfilling their job?
Is failing to vote with the President grounds for removal?
What the hell is incopacitation?
Re: Should Incopacitation Of A Congressman....Or Anybody
LoneStarMadam wrote:Be a reason for them to be forced to give up their seat/job?
I ask this because of the Tim Johnson illness. Not that I believe he should be forced to as long as there's a chance that he can fullfill his duties in a timely fashion. But, this question was asked on TV & I found it interesting. We have had Strom Weekend @ Bernies Thurmond being literally propped up in his Senate seat, now Billy KKK Byrd in almost the same situation, yet they are kept on.
So, should this practice change? Should we expect an able bodied (& mind) congressman/woman rather than a propped up, senile person?
LSM...What exactly is your game? First you babble that you are a conservative and now this. If you were truly a conservative you would be gleefully awaiting the removal of Johnson as a way for the Republicans to gain the upper hand. Really, I cannot for the life of me figure you out (for which I am quite grateful
).
By the way...what exactly is INCOPACITATION? Your subject title reads: Should Incopacitation Of A Congressman....Or Anybody... so I was wondering just what is incopacitation? Is it related in some distant way to incApacitation? Or is it just a Texas spelling?
I'm not sure what I think, re judgement of incapacity. While speech flees, sometimes the thinking mind remains and communication is possible with staff members who can proxy vote. I've seen that with some of my own associates who've had strokes. And sometimes speech does come back, even with vigor after a while. Yet I am at least partly in favor of moving on, depending on length and breadth of incapacity.
Granted a new senator is to be named, by law by the governor, it would seem honorable for the governor to choose a person of same party and similar opinions to the stricken senator. I wonder if that ever happens? I might question that the choice should be, by law, by the governor instead of by a quick election, but that is apparently already fact.
On the matter of power change, well, I've never thought 51-49 was all that safe a set of numbers, even though it is better than 50-50.
parados wrote:How do you propose to tell when someone is no longer capable of fulfilling their job?
Is failing to vote with the President grounds for removal?
Maybe if they're brain dead? Maybe if they have to have their staff tell them how to vote?
Your little quip of
failing to vote with the president, are you talking about Thurmond or Byrd?
Re: Should Incopacitation Of A Congressman....Or Anybody
Sturgis wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:Be a reason for them to be forced to give up their seat/job?
I ask this because of the Tim Johnson illness. Not that I believe he should be forced to as long as there's a chance that he can fullfill his duties in a timely fashion. But, this question was asked on TV & I found it interesting. We have had Strom Weekend @ Bernies Thurmond being literally propped up in his Senate seat, now Billy KKK Byrd in almost the same situation, yet they are kept on.
So, should this practice change? Should we expect an able bodied (& mind) congressman/woman rather than a propped up, senile person?
LSM...What exactly is your game? First you babble that you are a conservative and now this. If you were truly a conservative you would be gleefully awaiting the removal of Johnson as a way for the Republicans to gain the upper hand. Really, I cannot for the life of me figure you out (for which I am quite grateful
).
By the way...what exactly is INCOPACITATION? Your subject title reads: Should Incopacitation Of A Congressman....Or Anybody... so I was wondering just what is incopacitation? Is it related in some distant way to incApacitation? Or is it just a Texas spelling?
I shouldn't have to tell you this, but your blathering forces me to. Republican & conservative aren't necessairily the same thing, anymore than liberal & democrat are.
ossobuco wrote:I'm not sure what I think, re judgement of incapacity. While speech flees, sometimes the thinking mind remains and communication is possible with staff members who can proxy vote. I've seen that with some of my own associates who've had strokes. And sometimes speech does come back, even with vigor after a while. Yet I am at least partly in favor of moving on, depending on length and breadth of incapacity.
Granted a new senator is to be named, by law by the governor, it would seem honorable for the governor to choose a person of same party and similar opinions to the stricken senator. I wonder if that ever happens? I might question that the choice should be, by law, by the governor instead of by a quick election, but that is apparently already fact.
On the matter of power change, well, I've never thought 51-49 was all that safe a set of numbers, even though it is better than 50-50.
I doubt very much that a governor would name someone out of his party, honorable or not. I doubt that it's ever been done. NJ comes to mind, that was really quirky.
The last report i heard on Johnson doesn't seem to indicate that SD will have a need to name someone else to take Johnsons seat. I hope he does survive & is healthy.
However, I had strong doubts about Thurmonds soundness & am having doubts about Byrds mins too.
You're off your meds again, aren't you?
Proving once again that a mins is a terrible thing to waste....
Sturgis wrote:You're off your meds again, aren't you?
You're off your rocker, still, aren't you?
blacksmithn wrote:Proving once again that a mins is a terrible thing to waste....
& there you go, wasting away.
LoneStarMadam wrote:Sturgis wrote:You're off your meds again, aren't you?
You're off your rocker, still, aren't you?
Of course. Odd thing is I've never liked rockers. Rocking chairs are the cause of more cat crushings than people are aware of and so in a rare moment of kindness, I refuse to have a rocking chair in my home.
Rocking chairs-- the land mins of furnishing.
Sturgis wrote:You're off your meds again, aren't you?
Actually, it's already 3:48 in Texas, she has probably been on her "meds" for some time already.
Re: Should Incopacitation Of A Congressman....Or Anybody
LoneStarMadam wrote:Be a reason for them to be forced to give up their seat/job?
I ask this because of the Tim Johnson illness. Not that I believe he should be forced to as long as there's a chance that he can fullfill his duties in a timely fashion. But, this question was asked on TV & I found it interesting. We have had Strom Weekend @ Bernies Thurmond being literally propped up in his Senate seat, now Billy KKK Byrd in almost the same situation, yet they are kept on.
So, should this practice change? Should we expect an able bodied (& mind) congressman/woman rather than a propped up, senile person?
Some can't seem to follow a simple question, make a comment of any worth. A pity too that they have the mind span of an amoeba.
From what I heard, only death or resignation will remove him from office. Apparently, in 1969, another SD senator was laid up for almost his entire term. Only difference will be the voting. 50-49.
get him just awake enough to give power of attorney to another Democrat Senator or his wife... and then recuperate at his leisure with those proky government benefits..... yeah..... that's the ticket.
Interesting re the 50-49, McG, and interesting B-P, I was wondering about that.
If a senator is very disabled re command of all issues (fill in your own snort here), but still mentally competent, I could see it as appropriate for the senator to pick the replacement.
McGentrix wrote:From what I heard, only death or resignation will remove him from office. Apparently, in 1969, another SD senator was laid up for almost his entire term. Only difference will be the voting. 50-49.
I just heard on the news that Johnson will resign, the person that made that statement wouldn't give any details.
51-49, no matter which controls the senate, it's going to be rough as herding cats.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace