It is happening at the state level too. In Wisconsin, the gerrymandered (google it for background on Wisconsin) legislature has chosen to not conduct hearings on governor appointees, with the result that holdovers from prior administrations can remain in office indefinitely.
""(T)he expiration of Prehn's term on the DNR Board does not create a vacancy. Prehn lawfully retains his position on the DNR Board as a holdover," wrote Chief Justice Annette Ziegler for the majority. "Therefore, the Governor cannot make a provisional appointment to replace Prehn." [1]
I wouldn't go so far as "Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available." unless you're a Wisconsin resident monitoring the activity of the legislature and know things that the rest of us don't.
My knee-jerk reaction is a less-extreme version of yours, more along the lines of Vos not being willing to do anything that would assist a Democrat but (hopefully) not actively seeking to disenfranchise him. I think that's probably supported by the fairly well-known acrimony between the Republican majority and Democratic minority in Wisconsin's legislature and politics in general (e.g. [Dem elected governor? Strip rights from the governor's office before he's seated!])
In the state of Wisconsin, numerous stories point to Governor Walker's staff vetting hires based on their political activity. For example, withdrawing a candidate they proposed for a governance position with the University of Wisconsin because they subsequently learned he had signed the recall position (for the sake of a family member and their job; the candidate is actually a staunch Walker supporter, himself).
(This being my and many others' determination based upon detailed accounting of the story, despite subsequent PR spin to the contrary.)
It's widely suspected that Governor Walker has ambitions for a 2016 run for the Presidency. Or maybe 2020.
One has to wonder what such an Administration might get up to with respect to surveillance results feeding bias.
"Conservative" or "Liberal". I don't want that power in either hands.
And in the 4 years where the seats are empty? Or the year where the state can pass no state level legislation? (Both of those actually happened, hence the immense popular support by the states for adopting the 17th amendment)
Not to mention that the holdover/compromise from the original way things worked (replacement appointment by the Governor) resulted in perhaps the most famous recent example of executive misconduct by a Governor: Rod Blagojevich.
This is nothing to do with government worker competence. Undoubtedly, the governor has been advised that there is no case. It's legal harassment, and a sign of (a) a structurally flawed system (the executive should be in no position to make this sort of threat in the first place) and (b) a sick political system (even if the executive is legally able to make such a threat, it should be politically impossible for them to do so).
Sounds like Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn was doing a pretty good job. Why couldn't she be installed permanently?
I don't understand why these kind of shenanigans have to go on, there is no way a progressive leader can honestly argue a former lobbyist is going to best represent the people against an industry.
added: (sheesh)
Republican Senator Ted Cruz removed a hold on Wheeler's nomination after the nominee reassured him that regulation of campaign funding disclosures, without Congressional action, was "not a priority."
These two are former state AGs and IMHO their kind should be barred from being part of any important deliberative body, they are prosecutors with strictly punitive mindset in a legislative body that is also supposed to encourage entrepreneurship and look after national interests, and at any rate everyone should be wary of grandstanding and populist pronouncements by elected officials.
In this case, it seems that Walker was nominating someone for a state position, and decided not to after finding that person signed a petition to recall him. That's not exactly being retaliated against by state officials, that's just politics. Of course you're going to appoint people that you like. That why, for thing that matter, we vote directly.
You're approaching this backwards, probably because you're hoping it will allow you to continue to be dismissive without having to put forward an argument of merit based upon the facts.
You're also missing the obvious. He could have just retired if he believed this so strongly yet was unable to _convince_ the legislature to pass the law. He clearly wants the job more than he wants his popularity. That is a person who cannot be trusted.
Have you read the accounts of people in Wisconsin having their signature on the "Recall Walker" petition begin retaliated against by state officials? This is the most well-known case, but not the only one.
Read a little about the previous DA. Seems like a piece of work. It's surprising to me because I didn't think DA's in other states were quite as corrupt as some of the DA's we've had in Wisconsin are, but apparently Pennsylvania has the corrupt DA problem too.
And I agree with that. What I don't agree with is why this is happening. And even if we look past this particular instance, should we not also be dissolving The Villages and whatever other special districts exist? Why just this one that opposes the Governor?
It is happening at the state level too. In Wisconsin, the gerrymandered (google it for background on Wisconsin) legislature has chosen to not conduct hearings on governor appointees, with the result that holdovers from prior administrations can remain in office indefinitely.
""(T)he expiration of Prehn's term on the DNR Board does not create a vacancy. Prehn lawfully retains his position on the DNR Board as a holdover," wrote Chief Justice Annette Ziegler for the majority. "Therefore, the Governor cannot make a provisional appointment to replace Prehn." [1]
[1] https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-supreme-court-rules-former-hea...
reply