Politics get petty in North Carolina

Overheal · 16-12-2016 11:54pm #1

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/16/505872501/north-carolina-governor-signs-law-limiting-power-of-his-successor

Politics have been downright filthy in NC for the last year or two. First the bathroom bill, but more recently the state legislature before the election tried to suppress the vote before being blocked by the courts. After Election Day it seemed the democratic opponent won by 10k votes. The GOP governor however refused to resign until a recount verified the result. So now naturally this week the legislature held emergency sessions to strip powers away from the incoming governor. These measures were just signed into law by the lame duck governor.

The changes include removing a fifth senate from the state election board so the democrats would not have majority control of it; it also expands appellate court power and it requires that judicial candidates have their party affiliation broadcast on election ballots.

Today the legislature also finished a new bill on its way to the governors office that will require the state senate to confirm all of the governors cabinet appointments, would reduce the number of positions in the executive branch, removes the power of the governor to appoint NC University trustees and limits his ability to govern public schools.

In case you hadn't guessed it, the state legislature is firmly held by the Republican Party.

If this isn't unconstitutional either by state or federal constitution, and goes legally unopposed, it is awfully disturbing. The precedent it would set is worrisome: your gang loses a democratic election so you change the rules to make him a figurehead when he comes on.

The NC legislature is cancerous: a city passes a bill to let LBGTQs use any bathroom they like without harassment, so the state body signs a bill to invalidate all city ordinances just to neutralize it. Every time they lose by the rules they just change the rules.

Manic Moran · 19-12-2016 5:51am

In fairness, the concept of State supremacy (or Federal Supremacy) isn't unique to North Carolina, there is a long history of it in pretty much every State of the Union.
Nothing stopping the Democrats changing the rules if they take over the House. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander, after the Democrats went nuclear in Congress, to stop Republican fillibustering, they are now helpless to prevent various Trump appointees. No doubt in a few years, NC will find things turned about.

Amerika · 19-12-2016 2:46pm

I’d bet my last plug nickel if the shoe were on the other foot, politically, that NC Democrats would be hailing such a move as a legitimate constitutional form of checks and balances.

ECO_Mental · 20-12-2016 2:46pm

Amerika wrote: »

I’d bet my last plug nickel if the shoe were on the other foot, politically, that NC Democrats would be hailing such a move as a legitimate constitutional form of checks and balances.

But have they? its like the good old days of Bertie and Charlie here and all the FF'ers saying sure if you were in power you would have done the same and scammed the country thats a B***S1T excuse.

If the OTHER shoe was on the other foot would you be up in arms crying oh them dems corrupts as hell look at them taking the ball after the match was lost so no one can play now

we need them all in prison you would be saying....

its shameful stuff really

Amerika · 20-12-2016 3:26pm

ECO_Mental wrote: »

But have they? its like the good old days of Bertie and Charlie here and all the FF'ers saying sure if you were in power you would have done the same and scammed the country thats a B***S1T excuse.

If the OTHER shoe was on the other foot would you be up in arms crying oh them dems corrupts as hell look at them taking the ball after the match was lost so no one can play now we need them all in prison you would be saying....

its shameful stuff really

I would advise against such maneuvers as I'd be mindful that 'paybacks a bitch.' I've said so many times here. At some point control will go from one political party to another, and with precedent set, can you blame the other party from doing the same thing?

Brian? · 20-12-2016 5:01pm

Amerika wrote: »

I’d bet my last plug nickel if the shoe were on the other foot, politically, that NC Democrats would be hailing such a move as a legitimate constitutional form of checks and balances.

Are you so blinded by partisan politics you can't even condem the actions of GOP politicians when they're flat wrong?

You're using the hypothetical actions of non existent legislators to support wrong doing? Or do you believe they are right to do what they're doing?

Amerika · 20-12-2016 5:40pm

Brian? wrote: »

Are you so blinded by partisan politics you can't even condem the actions of GOP politicians when they're flat wrong?

You're using the hypothetical actions of non existent legislators to support wrong doing? Or do you believe they are right to do what they're doing?

It's politics, baby! I don't agree with what they are doing, but I accept reality. And Democrats will start to do similar where they have control. But that's politics and short term actions have long term consequences. Remember when Harry Reid and the Democrats in control of Congress changed the rules on many things to simply have a majority vote needed to get things done and avoid the Filibuster? I warned when political power changed hands the same rules will continue by the other party to their benefit. That the time to stop these sort of things was before they were enacted, not when power changes hands. Looks like the Democrats are regretting their actions now.

eire4 · 20-12-2016 6:38pm

Amerika wrote: »

I’d bet my last plug nickel if the shoe were on the other foot, politically, that NC Democrats would be hailing such a move as a legitimate constitutional form of checks and balances.

Really well then when Bruce Rauner became governor of Illinois replacing a Democrat how come the Democratic controlling Illinois legislature did not rush through measures to neuter Rauner.
Reality is you cannot defend what is a disgusting act of political sabotage by Republicans so you try and deflect and say ahh they would have done the same if the boot was on the other foot. The fact is what the Republicans have done in North Carolina is wrong and is a dangerous and scary precedent I have to say as well. To say what they did is wrong is not a partisan point but you it seems cannot look beyond Republicans good Democrats bad.

vetinari · 21-12-2016 12:26am

Not much point arguing with Amerika.
He like many other republican followers are ok with whatever a republican politician does. Outrage is reserved only for Democrats.
The usual rationale is that a republican politician will be more in line with their interests than a democrat ever could be.
There's no "objectivity" with these folks. It's all just one big zero sum game.

Billy86 · 21-12-2016 10:45am

Brian? wrote: »

Are you so blinded by partisan politics you can't even condem the actions of GOP politicians when they're flat wrong?

You're using the hypothetical actions of non existent legislators to support wrong doing? Or do you believe they are right to do what they're doing?

You're responding to the same poster who has been trying to argue that gerrymandering is a good thing.

vetinari wrote: »

Not much point arguing with Amerika.
He like many other republican followers are ok with whatever a republican politician does. Outrage is reserved only for Democrats.
The usual rationale is that a republican politician will be more in line with their interests than a democrat ever could be.
There's no "objectivity" with these folks. It's all just one big zero sum game.

Republican party first, their actual country a very, very distant second. It's a scary indictment of the two party system and what it can bring about.

Amerika · 21-12-2016 3:47pm

eire4 wrote: »

Really well then when Bruce Rauner became governor of Illinois replacing a Democrat how come the Democratic controlling Illinois legislature did not rush through measures to neuter Rauner.
Reality is you cannot defend what is a disgusting act of political sabotage by Republicans so you try and deflect and say ahh they would have done the same if the boot was on the other foot. The fact is what the Republicans have done in North Carolina is wrong and is a dangerous and scary precedent I have to say as well. To say what they did is wrong is not a partisan point but you it seems cannot look beyond Republicans good Democrats bad.

Everything isn’t all or nothing in politics, ya know.

Back in 2009 Senator Ted Kennedy was gravely ill with brain cancer. He got Massachusetts lawmakers to change the law that mandated special election be held at least 145 days after the seat becomes available. But back in 2004 he championed a succession law revision that required this special election. The very same law he wanted changed in 2009 to the Democrat's benefit. In 2004 Senator John Kerry was running for President, and Mr. Kennedy wanted the law changed so the Republican Governor at the time, Mitt Romney, could not name Mr. Kerry's replacement. Pure partisan politics… not principle. But I guess since it was done by the Democrats, it’s all good, right?

Harry Reid got the rules changed to have a simple majority needed for federal court appointments, but left out SCOTUS appointments. I guess Republicans can take it to the next level of Harry’s maneuvers and add the final set of appointments... SCOTUS. That would be really bad, right? What the Democrats did was good, but if the Republicans do it it’s bad, I figure. I hope the Republicans don’t follow through on Reid’s tactics and include SCOTUS appointments as it will have a negative affect when power changes hands again. Actually, I hope Republicans change the rules back... but then again, Democrats will probably just reverse them back when in power again.

Democrats have no shame!

AbusesToilets · 21-12-2016 5:27pm

I'm grateful that the courts mandated a new election next year, with properly drawn districts free of gerrymandering. Hopefully that will survive appeals and be enforced.

Overheal · 21-12-2016 6:38pm

Amerika wrote: »

Democrats have no shame!

Given the narrative of yours in this thread I find that statement densely ironic.

vetinari · 21-12-2016 6:55pm

Thanks Amerika for proving my point.
Unable to talk about the topic in this thread without bringing up something to do with Ted Kennedy in 2009

Amerika · 21-12-2016 7:50pm

vetinari wrote: »

Thanks Amerika for proving my point.
Unable to talk about the topic in this thread without bringing up something to do with Ted Kennedy in 2009

I addresses what the Republicans did. But I've come to believe no one reads or believes anything I say here, and simply just sees their own blind rage. I often use strategy and tactics to make my point. My opponents tend to have a tough time arguing when I point out something their favored political party similarly have utilized - that people here are criticize Republicans for. I usually get the simplistic response of something like ‘there he goes again.’ Makes me laugh.

Like you just did.

gosplan · 21-12-2016 8:33pm

Amerika wrote: »

I’d bet my last plug nickel if the shoe were on the other foot, politically, that NC Democrats would be hailing such a move as a legitimate constitutional form of checks and balances.

Just my 2c but it's astonishing how many of your posts are basically some version of

... they'd do the same
... she was worse
... he was worse
... they would be worse

Can we no longer judge something on it's own merits.

Are we so partisan now that anything your 'side' does is justifiable, in the worst cases because others would do the same?

This isn't politics. You're a sports fan.

KingBrian2 · 21-12-2016 9:00pm

North Carolina is a very conservative state. Typical of the Deep South. Needs to really move on like the rest of America has. Sure even Ronald Reagan was no homophobe.

Amerika · 21-12-2016 9:29pm

gosplan wrote: »

Just my 2c but it's astonishing how many of your posts are basically some version of

... they'd do the same
... she was worse
... he was worse
... they would be worse

Can we no longer judge something on it's own merits.

Are we so partisan now that anything your 'side' does is justifiable, in the worst cases because others would do the same?

This isn't politics. You're a sports fan.

Yes, certain ones are, and justifiably so when the goal is to target hypocrisy of a poster or post.

Overheal · 21-12-2016 9:56pm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

North Carolina is a very conservative state. Typical of the Deep South. Needs to really move on like the rest of America has. Sure even Ronald Reagan was no homophobe.

You've clearly never been to North Carolina.. it's a split state if anything.

KingBrian2 · 21-12-2016 10:25pm

Overheal wrote: »

You've clearly never been to North Carolina.. it's a split state if anything.

Don't plan to especially given the track record of discrimination.

22-12-2016 11:38am

Defend that one Amerika.

Amerika · 22-12-2016 2:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Defend that one Amerika.

I enjoy visiting North Carolina, especially Lake Gaston, and the Raleigh-Durham area isn’t much different from other smaller metropolitan areas here in the US. It has a rich diversity. proud history, and I’ve found people there (of all races) are much more polite and friendly than a lot of places here up north. When visiting, I haven’t found discrimination any different than most of the rest of the country, and I’ve traveled quite extensively in the US while working with the major airlines. Sometimes I have a bit of a problem with the dialect, though. What I really like is the laid back attitude there.

Like so much misinformation put out here in characterizations, whether it is geographical, racial, or political, it does a disservice to pigeonhole things without experiencing them firsthand. But I realize it is often human nature to do so. What I have mostly found, no matter where I go in the US, is individual people are good... groups not so much at times.

22-12-2016 2:23pm

Amerika wrote: »

I enjoy visiting North Carolina, especially Lake Gaston, and the Raleigh-Durham area isn’t much different from other smaller metropolitan areas here in the US. It has a rich diversity. proud history, and I’ve found people there (of all races) are much more polite and friendly than a lot of places here up north. When visiting, I haven’t found discrimination any different than most of the rest of the country, and I’ve traveled quite extensively in the US while working with the major airlines. Sometimes I have a bit of a problem with the dialect, though. What I really like is the laid back attitude there.

Like so much misinformation put out here in characterizations, whether it is geographical, racial, or political, it does a disservice to pigeonhole things without experiencing them firsthand. But I realize it is often human nature to do so. What I have mostly found, no matter where I go in the US, is individual people are good... groups not so much at times.

I meant the double cross done last night.

Amerika · 22-12-2016 3:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I meant the double cross done last night.

Oh, your question was unclear. Looks like the GOP has egg on their face. They should have made sure they had enough support to rescind the law before making the ‘deal.’

Permabear · 22-12-2016 6:18pm

This post has been deleted.

Billy86 · 22-12-2016 6:34pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah, because most of the people who wanted to see Clinton or Sanders in office were completely ok with what happened in the primaries, have no issues with some of the US military actions in the middle east, were completely ok with what Anthony Weiner got up to, tried to pass off keeping Guantanamo open as 'a good thing' and so on and so on.

Given your claim that "most of the other posters on the Boards Politics forums are okay with whatever a Democratic politician does" you will easily be able to find proof of the above, right?

vetinari · 22-12-2016 11:20pm

I find most democrat leaning people are able to stay on a topic a lot better than a lot of Trump supporters. Most Trump supporters here deflected any criticism of Trump immediately onto Hillary during the election.

Regards North Carolina, it seems the legislature couldn't bring themselves to repeal the law. Dumb mistake as it will keep costing them millions in lost business.

22-12-2016 11:30pm

Amerika wrote: »

Oh, your question was unclear. Looks like the GOP has egg on their face. They should have made sure they had enough support to rescind the law before making the ‘deal.’

I think you're getting that the wrong way around. The GOP got "their way".

AnGaelach · 23-12-2016 8:58am

vetinari wrote: »

Thanks Amerika for proving my point.
Unable to talk about the topic in this thread without bringing up something to do with Ted Kennedy in 2009

The entire thread was worried about partisan politics and blaming Republicans for setting a precedent - but when he highlights that the Democrats have already done similar things, the argument goes from precedents to ethics? Pick an argument please.

Personally, I find it abhorrent that either side deliberately tries to hobble the other but that's the name of the game nowadays unfortunately.

AnGaelach · 23-12-2016 9:00am

vetinari wrote: »

Regards North Carolina, it seems the legislature couldn't bring themselves to repeal the law. Dumb mistake as it will keep costing them millions in lost business.

I don't understand this argument. Why should the legislature be cowed by investment? Are you a fan of corporate lobbying and political donations, or are you just using it as a shtick out of convenience?

vetinari · 23-12-2016 5:41pm

AnGaelach, I think it's dumb that they haven't repealed the law as they probably never would have passed it in the first place had they realized the amount of investment North Carolina would lose. They thought they could play to their base and stoke fears about transgender people with no economic consequences.

vetinari · 23-12-2016 5:45pm

AnGaelach wrote: »

The entire thread was worried about partisan politics and blaming Republicans for setting a precedent - but when he highlights that the Democrats have already done similar things, the argument goes from precedents to ethics? Pick an argument please.

Personally, I find it abhorrent that either side deliberately tries to hobble the other but that's the name of the game nowadays unfortunately.

Precedent to me would be showing an example of something relevant to the discussion at hand. Merely providing an example of something dubious done at one point in time is absurd. Rod Blagojevich was a Democrat. You could just keep saying "but Rod Blagojevich" in these situations.

Overheal · 23-12-2016 6:22pm

Amerika wrote: »

Everything isn’t all or nothing in politics, ya know.

Back in 2009 Senator Ted Kennedy was gravely ill with brain cancer. He got Massachusetts lawmakers to change the law that mandated special election be held at least 145 days after the seat becomes available. But back in 2004 he championed a succession law revision that required this special election. The very same law he wanted changed in 2009 to the Democrat's benefit. In 2004 Senator John Kerry was running for President, and Mr. Kennedy wanted the law changed so the Republican Governor at the time, Mitt Romney, could not name Mr. Kerry's replacement. Pure partisan politics… not principle. But I guess since it was done by the Democrats, it’s all good, right?

Harry Reid got the rules changed to have a simple majority needed for federal court appointments, but left out SCOTUS appointments. I guess Republicans can take it to the next level of Harry’s maneuvers and add the final set of appointments... SCOTUS. That would be really bad, right? What the Democrats did was good, but if the Republicans do it it’s bad, I figure. I hope the Republicans don’t follow through on Reid’s tactics and include SCOTUS appointments as it will have a negative affect when power changes hands again. Actually, I hope Republicans change the rules back... but then again, Democrats will probably just reverse them back when in power again.

Democrats have no shame!

Under very different circumstances from the looks of it: The law required the election for the vacant seat to be held 145-160 days on a Tuesday, from the point of vacancy. A Republican suggested that because this would mean the primaries for the seat would occur over the holidays, so he wanted the law changed to push up the date to November for the vote. Just before his death Kennedy did want to amend the law so a Governor could appoint someone to the seat, who would only serve until a vote was held and that person would be disqualified from running for the seat. This doesn't seem like a suspension of the belief that the governor should not appoint someone to the vacancy for any indefinite time until an ordinary election. The wrinkle there was that John Kerry was the senator in 2004 and if he had won the Presidency, his seat would have been vacated. The lack of this elections rule in MA would have meant the governor would appoint someone to fill the rest of Kerry's term which would not have expired until January 2009. That's a lot different than appointing someone to 'regent the seat for a couple months while elections for it are taking place.

Amerika · 23-12-2016 6:28pm

Overheal wrote: »

Under very different circumstances from the looks of it: The law required the election for the vacant seat to be held 145-160 days on a Tuesday, from the point of vacancy. A Republican suggested that because this would mean the primaries for the seat would occur over the holidays, so he wanted the law changed to push up the date to November for the vote. Just before his death Kennedy did want to amend the law so a Governor could appoint someone to the seat, who would only serve until a vote was held and that person would be disqualified from running for the seat. This doesn't seem like a suspension of the belief that the governor should not appoint someone to the vacancy for any indefinite time until an ordinary election. The wrinkle there was that John Kerry was the senator in 2004 and if he had won the Presidency, his seat would have been vacated. The lack of this elections rule in MA would have meant the governor would appoint someone to fill the rest of Kerry's term which would not have expired until January 2009. That's a lot different than appointing someone to 'regent the seat for a couple months while elections for it are taking place.

So the law was changed both times for politics that favored the democrats, and not for principle.

Overheal · 23-12-2016 6:32pm

Amerika wrote: »

So the law was changed both times for politics that favored the democrats, and not for principle.

It did favor the principles: Once so that a governor couldn't appoint a position which is meant to be voted in by the electorate, for 4-5 years, the other so that an election would not have to be fast-tracked and the electorate could make an informed decision without also being swept under the holidays. To wit: a Republican won that election.

Amerika · 23-12-2016 7:58pm

Overheal wrote: »

It did favor the principles: Once so that a governor couldn't appoint a position which is meant to be voted in by the electorate, for 4-5 years, the other so that an election would not have to be fast-tracked and the electorate could make an informed decision without also being swept under the holidays. To wit: a Republican won that election.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. It was done both times to the benefit of Democrats. And ObamaCare might not have become law without that democratic senator gotten by changing the law.

Overheal · 23-12-2016 8:00pm

Amerika wrote: »

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. It was done both times to the benefit of Democrats. And ObamaCare might not have become law without that democratic senator gotten by changing the law.

You can spin it how you like I guess, but given they both times did things to the benefit of the electorate.. admit it: if Republicans did the same thing you'd applaud it.

Chuchote · 23-12-2016 8:12pm

Amerika wrote: »

It's politics, baby!

I thought the point of politics was that the electorate voted in a group of electors who would discuss and pass laws for the good of the polity? In grown-up countries, anyway.

Amerika · 23-12-2016 8:43pm

Chuchote wrote: »

I thought the point of politics was that the electorate voted in a group of electors who would discuss and pass laws for the good of the polity? In grown-up countries, anyway.

The group of electors that the electorate vote into office usually always view the laws their party passes is for the good of the polity.

Democrats thought ObamaCare was for the good of the polity even though the majority of people opposed it. They thought, as they often do, that they know what is better for us then we do ourselves. Therefore it was for politics and not principle.

Overheal · 23-12-2016 8:48pm

And mixed feelings were had by all about it. What does it have to do with North Carolina.

Permabear · 29-12-2016 10:43am

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again · 30-12-2016 7:22pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah I think the partisanship is extremely obvious at times, another example would be the use of the filibuster I've seen literally the same people applaud its use against restrictive abortion laws whilst saying it breaks the system when its used against gun control acts.

The same goes for holding groups accountable for their views, which large demographic has been shown to have the most negative views on Gay marriage, African American Protestants, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat though so its never brought up unlike the reactionary socially conservative blue collar whites (who are actually more socially progressive but much more likely to vote Republic).

Billy86 · 30-12-2016 7:36pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your original statement: "As opposed to most of the other posters on the Boards Politics forums, who are okay with whatever a Democratic politician does, reserving their outrage only for Republicans?"

Your post above has nothing to do with posters on this board, please feel free return the goalposts at your earliest convenience.

ECO_Mental · 31-12-2016 10:02am

OMG this McGrory dude is such a shamless bitter corrup looser. It is getting worse the lenghts this arsehole is going to undermine the new govener, this dude needs to go to jail.

Appreantly there were 24 districts that were racially gerrymandered and this was proven by a federal court. There wasnt time to redraw them before this election but they were to be done asap ( in the next couple if months) anyway this a-hole is applying to the supreame court to get a stay on this until 2018 so the GOP can hold on to the majority they have now.....

He also made a load of state board appointees last min for his cronnies. the GOP should be ashamed..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/30/n-c-s-outgoing-gop-governor-appears-to-make-one-last-attempt-to-stick-it-to-the-democrat-who-beat-him/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_northcarolina-705pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.92ffe454a147

Politics get petty in North Carolina

Comments