Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Life after Souder and Gomorrah: Now what?

1. While I have no doubt that Mitch Daniels is making a good faith effort to do the right thing with regards to the special election, ideally the governor of a state should not have that kind of discretion. As we have seen in Illinois last year, this is a power that can be abused. While Daniels won't get to directly appoint Souder's replacement, there is a lot at stake in regards to the timing of when the special election is to take place. Sometime in the near future, the General Assembly should make ironclad rules about the replacement of Senators and Representatives so that the governor won't have to make a judgement call and won't be subject to second guessing.
2. Whether they are married or not, no elected official should be allowed to have a romantic or sexual relationship with a staff member. There are already rules against employing a spouse or family member, but Congress did not have a rule in place for what Souder did. If this happened in the private sector, he could have been liable for sexual harassment for taking advantage of a subordinate.

3 comments:

Daddy said...

1. Why would one has no doubts about Mitch Daniels is making a good faith decision, unless one has a full faith in him? And why one would have full faith in him, giving his handing of school financing, our property/highway sale/lease, and court/judges nominations/rubber-stamping?
2. In civilized countries, an elected official pledges to follow the rules of the law, whether he/she likes them or not.
3. Why do you think that he took advantage of her? Why a personal relationship should be an looked at as a commercial transaction and not just a pleasure one?

Robert Enders said...

1. I said that because at this time there is no substantial evidence to suggest that he has an ulterior motive.
2. Elected officials in the US pledge to uphold the Constitution. Whether or not they do so is another matter.
3. I didn't say that he did take advantage of her. Souder said that the relationship was "mutual", as in both of them wanted it to happen. Let's say he believes he is telling the truth. In a private sector harassment case, the subordinate could still claim that she felt intimidated. Then it boils down to who the judge or jury believes.

Daddy said...

Since he answered her question about abstinence on youtube, that everyone can have a chance to see, I do not think either of them have a chance in front of an impartial judge, besides being quoted for a contempt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj0i17nCTFo

Consider reading question-comments too.