Yes, because if there’s anything the last 10 years of politics has taught us is that the Democrats need to care more about precedent than holding elected officials accountable
“The chief executive officer of every city and the chief or
commissioner of police, commissioner or director of public safety or
other chief executive officer of the police force by whatever title he
may be designated, of every city may be removed by the governor after
giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an
opportunity to be heard in his defense. The power of removal provided
for in this subdivision shall be deemed to be in addition to the power
of removal provided for in any other law. The provisions of this
subdivision shall apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of
any general, special or local law, ordinance or city charte”
I added emphasis to a critical bit you missed. He needs to be able to defend himself against the charges presented. Everyone here is pushing for her to remove him without this. It’s a bad precedent.
The rule of law is important, that’s the entire point. It’s being flouted openly in all corners or our government. I can support a just government, but we do not have one, and we do not stand a chance of instating one without removing the openly corrupt one that we have in place. Simple as that.
If you believe the rule of law is important than you need to actually follow the laws you have on record. We don’t want to make it acceptable for a governor to remove a mayor because they feel like it.
You advocate for an unjust action so do you really believe in a just government and rule of law? You are willing to flout them in this case.
We don’t want to make it acceptable for a governor to remove a mayor because they feel like it.
“Because they feel like it?” Are you unaware of the charges against him or something? This isn’t based on feelings it’s based on the crimes he’s committed while in office that he and Trump are trying to sweep under the rug.
The notion that he should be removed without a trial or opportunity to defend himself is in fact illegal. Hochul has to let Adams defend himself against the charges.
The “they feel like it” would be for the next time not this situation. This is why it is important to nit create bad precedents like this
The Supreme Court is compromised. The Federal courts are partially in the hands of MAGA placeholders. Trump is attempting to nullify the constitution by executive order. There is no rule of law.
It’s justice outside the formal system or no justice at all. Standing by idly and allowing elite impunity is not an acceptable approach.
The thing is if you want to maintain rule of law then you need to follow those rules. You can’t just decide to ignore it when you want to but then pretend you have any legitimacy. That would make you no different than any other dictator.
That’s where we disagree. If there’s plenty of evidence then we can’t always wait on our justice system where the rich and powerful can use their resources to stall almost indefinitely. In this case, he will likely serve the remainder of his term without any repercussions.
And that disagreement is whether we should follow the rule of law. You are advocating ignoring the law because it would grant you your preferred result and that is never ok.
Is the law being more closely followed by letting him remain in office despite taking bribes? I suppose in your opinion Trump is perfectly fine to do whatever he wants now that the “rule of law” says that he can.
YES because the law states he must have the opportunity to defend himself against charges. Failing to provide him that opportunity is never acceptable in a society that follows the rules of law.
The governor removing a mayor from office who has not been convicted of a crime is a bad precedent.
Yes, because if there’s anything the last 10 years of politics has taught us is that the Democrats need to care more about precedent than holding elected officials accountable
Is extra judicial punishment ever acceptable? It’s sad how many people on this site seem to think so.
If you were being investigated by the FBI for corruption and openly pulled a quid pro quo with a political figure, would you still have a job?
Such a removal would not be extra judicial: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBO/33
“The chief executive officer of every city and the chief or commissioner of police, commissioner or director of public safety or other chief executive officer of the police force by whatever title he may be designated, of every city may be removed by the governor after giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. The power of removal provided for in this subdivision shall be deemed to be in addition to the power of removal provided for in any other law. The provisions of this subdivision shall apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any general, special or local law, ordinance or city charte”
I added emphasis to a critical bit you missed. He needs to be able to defend himself against the charges presented. Everyone here is pushing for her to remove him without this. It’s a bad precedent.
He gets to respond to the charges. But it’s not a trial or any kind of judicial proceedings. It is solely a political process, as is impeachment.
It is not only acceptable but is required when the judicial system is compromised how it is.
So you don’t believe rule of law is important? If you believe what you claim you cannot support any form of a just government.
The rule of law is important, that’s the entire point. It’s being flouted openly in all corners or our government. I can support a just government, but we do not have one, and we do not stand a chance of instating one without removing the openly corrupt one that we have in place. Simple as that.
If you believe the rule of law is important than you need to actually follow the laws you have on record. We don’t want to make it acceptable for a governor to remove a mayor because they feel like it.
You advocate for an unjust action so do you really believe in a just government and rule of law? You are willing to flout them in this case.
“Because they feel like it?” Are you unaware of the charges against him or something? This isn’t based on feelings it’s based on the crimes he’s committed while in office that he and Trump are trying to sweep under the rug.
The notion that he should be removed without a trial or opportunity to defend himself is in fact illegal. Hochul has to let Adams defend himself against the charges.
The “they feel like it” would be for the next time not this situation. This is why it is important to nit create bad precedents like this
The Supreme Court is compromised. The Federal courts are partially in the hands of MAGA placeholders. Trump is attempting to nullify the constitution by executive order. There is no rule of law.
It’s justice outside the formal system or no justice at all. Standing by idly and allowing elite impunity is not an acceptable approach.
The thing is if you want to maintain rule of law then you need to follow those rules. You can’t just decide to ignore it when you want to but then pretend you have any legitimacy. That would make you no different than any other dictator.
“They go low, we go high” has been so extremely useful in the last 10 years or so.
Yes? Don’t you think Trump should have been removed from office in his first term?
Yes, after his first impeachment he should have been removed the difference is Trump had due process and faced an inquiry whereas Adams has not.
we shouldnt be punishing people over allegations no matter how compelling the evidence is.
That’s where we disagree. If there’s plenty of evidence then we can’t always wait on our justice system where the rich and powerful can use their resources to stall almost indefinitely. In this case, he will likely serve the remainder of his term without any repercussions.
And that disagreement is whether we should follow the rule of law. You are advocating ignoring the law because it would grant you your preferred result and that is never ok.
Is the law being more closely followed by letting him remain in office despite taking bribes? I suppose in your opinion Trump is perfectly fine to do whatever he wants now that the “rule of law” says that he can.
YES because the law states he must have the opportunity to defend himself against charges. Failing to provide him that opportunity is never acceptable in a society that follows the rules of law.
Precedent is a tool of the weak. In government, law and enforcement is what matters.
Well that is certainly the totalitarian perspective for sure.