tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post2663647749389992051..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Where are the goo-goos on Morales?Rick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-65204862001170638062007-11-22T02:39:00.000-06:002007-11-22T02:39:00.000-06:00I think the real problem that many seem to be miss...I think the real problem that many seem to be missing is not that Morales is voting on a proposal that would provide her with benefits (which is an ethical problem in its self), but that she introduced a proposal that would directly benefit her. <BR/>If she is voting to approve a contract with the teachers union there may be a conflict in that her partner will benefit, but all she is doing is approving or disapproving of the deal. The contract is not negotiated by her, but rather by a labor negotiator and the union. Therefore she is only providing oversight on the contract and not directly involved in negotiating additional benefits. <BR/>However, in this situation she is the one proposing the creation of additional benefits for herself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1265581075662520832007-11-21T20:34:00.000-06:002007-11-21T20:34:00.000-06:00Morales and her partner would already be getting b...<I>Morales and her partner would already be getting benefits so of how much more benefit would this be?</I><BR/><BR/>More precisely, Morales and her partner already get the bennies WHILE MORALES IS ON THE BOARD.<BR/><BR/>When Morales leaves the Board, (and she will, eventually) Morales will not receive the bennie any more.<BR/><BR/>UNLESS she is still "married" to the MPS principal, who is entitled to lifetime health insurance--and the bennie is extended to "partner" Jennie.<BR/><BR/>That's why it's the Jenny-Bennie.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-28584293737627980502007-11-21T18:08:00.000-06:002007-11-21T18:08:00.000-06:00Hey lib (anonymous), you're getting tears on your ...Hey lib (anonymous), you're getting tears on your skirt.<BR/>Her name is Justice Ziegler.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-72239080034973574182007-11-21T17:05:00.000-06:002007-11-21T17:05:00.000-06:00Rick said:"It would be a significant case if she w...Rick said:<BR/>"It would be a significant case if she were sanctioned for a charge that was not brought, i.e., not admitting the violation during the campaign. That would raise some rather challenging constitutional questions and would be a real boon for people like me."<BR/><BR/>I think many people are under the impression that this violation is part of the complaint. Even if its not a part of the complaint, it certainly was brought up by the panel and there is a Supreme Court rule that was violated by not admitting the conflict. <BR/><BR/>Allowing judges to get away with breaking rules with minimum concern of consequences is a very large problem for the Supreme Court. You may want to minimize it but not everyone is falling for that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-57682836587021129622007-11-21T15:49:00.000-06:002007-11-21T15:49:00.000-06:00The pending Ziegler scandal decision is probably o...<I>The pending Ziegler scandal decision is probably one of the most important decisions the Supreme Court will make.</I><BR/><BR/>Really? I think it's unusual and awkward but not all that important. It's clear that she broke the rule and there is no chance that the Court will say otherwise. The agreed to reprimand seems to be in line with violations of this type and there is no chance that the court will do more than that. If you think there is much chance that Justice Ziegler will be off the court, I think you're wrong.<BR/><BR/>It would be a significant case if she were sanctioned for a charge that was not brought, i.e., not admitting the violation during the campaign. That would raise some rather challenging constitutional questions and would be a real boon for people like me.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-52186530443436539942007-11-21T15:27:00.000-06:002007-11-21T15:27:00.000-06:00I don't support the domestic partner benefits prop...I don't support the domestic partner benefits proposal but your argument is a red herring. <BR/><BR/>Morales and her partner would already be getting benefits so of how much more benefit would this be? <BR/><BR/>The pending Ziegler scandal decision is probably one of the most important decisions the Supreme Court will make. Your minimizing it is pathetic in my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-51265018058873756422007-11-21T14:47:00.000-06:002007-11-21T14:47:00.000-06:00This has never been about ethics, it is about a po...This has never been about ethics, it is about a political agenda. Both of these groups are liberal watchdog groups who go after anyone who does not have the same political thought as them. I did not read anything from them regarding Jim Doyle, and I doubt they will write anything about this. Annette Ziegler does not fit their profile, that is way they are attacking her. I am not even that political and I can see that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com