Georgia Republican go after Prosecutors…..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/08/georgia-prosecutors-threaten/

This is just LUNACY. We have elected officials now trying to remove criminal procurators for political purpose and gain. It’s is a VERY dangerous slope here folks.

To me this seems like a cut and dry separation of powers case, but it may actually allow the Georgia legislature to stop the prosecution of Trump long enough for him to be able to skirt the law. We can all have our opinions of whether we believe the case agains Trump is right, or valid, or even ethical, but this is Avery dangerous step the Republican Party is taking. They think the legislature should have the right to control the judicial branch of government, and this is new territory here as they really believe that politicians should be above the law (as long as they are of their party)

 

Why is an opinion article in the current events!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

It IS a separation of powers issue but it isn't Legislative v. Judicial.
DA's and Attorney Generals fall under the executive branch, not the judicial branch.

While the legislative branch does have some oversight authority on the executive branch, it should not have the ability to shut down investigations and prosecutions on terms as vague as these.

 

The Neo Republican Party keeps pushing further and further into fascism. They will keep doing so until they are stopped by the people and looking at what their base is not only allowing but openly cheering it…

Hopefully millennials and gen Z are paying attention or it might be too late by the time gen alpha can do anything.

 

So you all must have a serious problem with DAs being a lackey accountable to the political governor. What do you plan on doing about that?

 

When we have the legislative body, or any other part of the government, able to dictate to the other parts, it is not good.
Our government is complicated, but the separation of powers is critically important. We may not like the appointees or the elected officials, but there are mechanisms in place for that, like voting every cycle.
If the legislative body is allowed to control everything, including elected offices, it will resemble a dictatorship, and I don't know anyone who wants that, really.
I will say this, from a "centrist" point of view: the Republican party is getting a little desperate looking. Their constituents don't like some of the politicians or policies so instead of seeing if they can get someone else voted in next cycle, they want to dictate who does what and consequently, policies.
It will turn off the centrist voters. IOW, they are digging their hole deeper.
I've expressed the Republican problem multiple times on this board, IMO, so I'll spare you that, but this isn't a winning strategy overall, over time.

 

Do you think term limits could solve this problem?

 

In some cases, yes.
It's a tricky problem. I have a theory, of having officials designated to represent the people selected randomly instead of by election. Sort of like the jury system.
We would get some nutballs for sure, but we are already getting them.
Serve your term, out you go, in with the next group.
Just a thought...............

 

Interesting. Who would "select" them?

 

Keep in mind, just spitballing here....
Randomly, like a jury is selected, or like a grand jury. Maybe in larger numbers to even things out, and there would have to be an elected body able to oversee things, but maybe in place of the House of Representatives, keeping elected Senators. I find that average people actually can make pretty wise decisions as a group when needed, even those who you wouldn't think could.
Again, just some random thoughts.

 

I was just about to mention that. In NY there have been calls over the last several months by libs and cons for the governor to fire Bragg because of his soft on crime approach.

 

If an elected official is really screwing up, there does need to be a check and balance in place, but we also need to be careful of that, and only pull that cord when it gets really bad. Hard to say who should make that call, but I would say not left up to one person.
There are screwups in every part of our society, top to bottom. Doctors, lawyers, ditch diggers, electricians, etc., and yes, politicians.
Politicians probably get the most attention, though. They are also some of the few who are elected by the public.

 

"Spitballing" can be enlightening. I'm sure you've thought this out and are able to recognize some of the bugs that would need to be worked out still. I'm thinking your idea would amount to pulling names out of a hat (correct me if I'm wrong.) The problem with that is how is it decided whose name gets tossed in; is there a limit to how many; and who gets to pull the names out of the hat? There's problems with all three. Our jury system relies on who votes. Take away that and you have the additional problem of jury selection. Should anyone serve on a jury? That can be troublesome also.

The problem I see with the current process is that the Republicans and Democrats have a monopoly on who gets elected. -- one or the other of just the two. And based on the dissatisfaction with both, they are willing to change hands just so long as they stay in power. This gives the appearance that the voters are really controlling their elected officials, hen in fact nothing much really gets done for them. By the time anyone new settles in they have to turn around and start running again. So it becomes ore important toehold onto power than to exercise their power to better our world. If they knew from the start that no matter how long they had to serve it would be all over when their term expired, they could focus on nothing but what's best for us. This would also have an effect on lobbying. What good is lobbying if you know there's little chance of influencing someone who won't need your donations again?

I'm just spitballing myself.

 

My view is that the major parties, Dems and Reps, have gotten so used to one or the other in power. They will do anything it seems to gain or keep that power.
I was trying to think of things that would mitigate that. The reality is that probably 90% of Americans have views that don't exactly line up with either party all the time, we each have individualistic ideas about how things should be, but don't always follow "the party line", so I think there is a lot of room in the middle for compromise that the two party system doesn't want to address.
As voters, we could make more changes for the better, but unfortunately most people don't take the time to find out things or maybe don't even want to know, it's easier to let someone else tell you how to think.
I think we have one of the greatest countries in the history of the planet, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved, in fact, it needs to be constantly, which is why it is one of the greatest. If and when we see something screwed up, we have the power to address it.

 

Pleasure reading your thoughts on this. I can't find anything I disagree with.

 

Sometimes the process can be, shall we say, challenging? lol
I mean, look at this small microcosm of our society, this message board.

 

We have prosecutor's levying charges for political reasons. You can't be mad if someone calls them on it.

 

How they got the job is of no bearing over separation of powers. Appointed or not, the executive branch cannot exert power, nor authority over decisions of the judicial branch. On that we agree.

Thanks

 

This is a very scary time in America.

This isnt about conservative or liberal values, this is about the Republican Party not only refusing to hold their leader accountable, but they are literally using their power to stop anyone else from holding him accountable, The party of “law and order” spent 4 years investigating their political rival Hillary Clinton, not because she actually did anything wrong in Benghazi, but because of what she claimed was the motive for the attacks.

What they learned in doing that is that they can ruin a politician, and they are deathly afraid that if they are allowed to try him, that it will bring down many of them with him, but more importantly, it will show the Republican Party isn’t who they profess to be, and will hurt them significantly in future elections.

We all know that Trump did what he is accused of. He tried to use the power of the office to change the election, and that he lied, and many current republican legislators and others were complicit in. The only real debate anymore from the right has been: “Its not really illegal”

 

Oh FFS.

If there is no merit to the charge then it should be easy to defend right ?

But we all know he did these things. To deny it is ridiculous. He tried to get Georgia to “find 11,781 votes ! Its on Tape!

 

Georgia prosecutors aren't elected?

You don't want accountability for rogue prosecutors?

Well, lots of folks do. And so do the elected legislatures.

Abbott: Can't wait to start DeSantising woke prosecutors

 

These politically motivated prosecutors have no place doing what they do. Their witch hunting days for poltical gain without repercussion are over.

 

The drafters of the Constitution of the United States of America expressed concern over the power of 'factions'.* Their sole restraint was faith in the ethics and morality of those elected to high government positions. That, in turn, rested on the fact that a limited portion of the general population was responsible for electing them.

Times, and legislators, have changed. 'Safe' seats and party control over candidates have provided elected politicians with a high degree of freedom from responsibility to the voters.

We see the results.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

* See the Federalist Papers.

 

Does anyone else find it ironic that because they are upset over so-called "witch hunts" the Republicans are now engaged in an actual witch hunt?

 

You probably should have read the bill before trusting WAPO opinionated idiocy. This isn't going to affect any sort of trial of Trump in Georgia in the slightest. Unless of course the prosecutor falls under one of the categories listed? Which btw isn't vague at all.

LINK: Georgia General Assembly - HB 231 (ga.gov)





Your own article links to an article that explains what the bill is about. Which is about putting an end to prosecutors purposefully refusing to prosecute offenses that they're supposed to be prosecuting.

LINK: GOP-controlled Georgia House pushes through bill to create oversight of county prosecutors - Georgia Recorder

Indeed any disciplinary action taken by the panels will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. As noted in the link from the Georgia Recorder and you can read for yourself in the bill, which I linked to above.