REV & Bill Cover The Special Session – People in Log Homes Shouldn’t throw Cans of Kerosene
Pete and his comrades in the GOP have a flimsy argument to make. An argument as likely to fall on their heads as Bonini’s rickety log home.
The Kathy fight moves across the green to Legislative Hall as the State Senate considers a resolution to remove Kathy McGuiness from office. We walk through the play by play before talking about what might be next in the legislative process.
Show Notes:
We need to thank Scot Goss for providing comic relief. 🙂
I’m looking forward to the Highlands Bunker spinoff Series – “Scott Goss is a Candy-ass Baby”
[Leg] Hall Monitor™️
I know Scott’s an easy punching bag and this site’s issues with him go back years, but is all this necessary? He’s a good guy who was just doing his job. Like it or not, the chambers do have a press policy; I happen to know of other outlets that have been denied seats at the table because they didn’t have official approval.
A friend
I had to put “goss” in the search box to see if DL had a longstanding grudge against the guy. His work at the NJ carrying water for Ramone and Lavelle completely slipped my memory.
Anyhoo, “He’s a good guy who was just doing his job.” I think REV makes it pretty clear that the thing he was reacting to was Goss’ petty martinet energy. And I doubt “…accomplish these duties with petty martinet energy” is in the job description.
If he can candy dish, it out then he can candy ass take it!
Since I was there for the interaction I can assure you it wasn’t what he did. It was how he did it.
He acted like a little twat. I’m sorry this is too much for you to handle.
Everyone tells me he’s a good dude. Well, he was a shitty reporter who now writes press releases and enforces petty arcane rules (“official approval”). Lol
Piss off. Thank you.
Harold, do you think being a bigger baby and telling me to stop will decease this or increase this?
Scott has a lot to learn from Sean O’Sullivan. Hehe
I mean, I’m not stupid enough to think a request from a random online will change your mind… or maybe I am, since I bothered to post it lol.
At any rate, you’re obviously welcome to do what you think is best. Just maybe keep in mind you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
My game isn’t fly catching so I’m good.
I feel like a lot of Delawareans adjacent to our brand of small time political power have a bizarre sense of entitlement. Like entitled to respect and obedience in some strange way. Goss being only an example of this ubiquitous phenomenon.
I don’t operate that way.
I’m very cool. And if you’re cool with me I’ll extended my coolness to you. Otherwise, I genuinely do not care.
While I am far, far from being an expert on the constitutional rules governing the General Assembly’s proceedings, I think there is a substantial question whether the Speaker of the House can refuse to “call in” the House members to sit to consider the Senate’s passed resolution to begin a process of removing the auditor.
Technically, the General Assembly remains currently in session under the “special session” called by either the leadership or Gov. on July 1, 2022. The chambers simply earlier recessed to the call of the President or Speaker because no further business was before either back in July, However, when the Senate took up the McGinness resolution, it was back being active during the session. And such action by the Senate, given that the GA is still is session, puts the whole GA back in active mode.
The kicker here ( I think) is that Art, II, sec 12 of the State Constitution prevents one house from adjourning (and hence not sitting) for more than 3 days without the consent of the other chamber. The idea behind the constitutional provision is that one house can’t go “missing” on the other while the GA is in session and the one house is acting on legislative matters, unless the active house has consented to the other chamber’s absence lasting more than than 3 days, At least on the federal level, such consent comes via a concurrent resolution,
Consequently, when the Senate went active last week and took up the McGinness resolution, the House can’t stay out past three days under section 12. It has to return to take up the Senate business that is being presented to the House, Only if the Senate consented to the House’s continued absence can the House continue not to act. I am not sure that the Senate gave any such consent,
As I said, I am not expert in this realm but I think the Speaker’s refusal to call in House members violated Art. sec, 14,. But I confess I the above is just a theory from text and purpose, Perhaps, those more knowledgable can explain why section 12 does not apply.
Otherwise, the Speaker’s statements and non-action run afoul of Section 12
Fascinating! Thanks for adding that to the mix.
Even if just a theory, this train of thought on the state constitution certainly has merit!
Yeah very interesting. There was a procedural thing at the very end before the Senate adjourned and BHL gaveled out. Something about the Pro Tem doing something (notifying the House?).
Bottom line though, what’s the mechanism for enforcing and why would Pete care. Carney and Pistol Pete are in stall mode.
Typo in last paragraph of my post, The governing provision is section 12 not section 14. The reference in the first sentence to the next to last paragraph should be to section 12.
If this is what it takes to get BOTH Gary Myers and Mike Matthews to comment, I say let’s impeach someone else!