The_CerealDefense t1_j2sqsll wrote
Reply to comment by NetQuarterLatte in George Santos' ex-boyfriend says he stole his phone, never went to work by mowotlarx
Recalls generally are just a political nonsense tool in the US unfortunately. Not that Santos should be in office, and this is the exact type of thing a recall is supposed to be able to fix, but recalls across the board are mostly a bad idea because it essentially turns your entire tenure into a constant political campaign among other negatives. It’s got pros and cons
Anyways I think you specifically cannot recall federally elected people only state.
mission17 t1_j2svcra wrote
You’re absolutely correct. Also worth noting this user has been pretty open about their affinity for recalls coming from the particular desire to push out the Manhattan DA whose policies they don’t care for because they’re not right-wing “hard-on-crime” enough.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2swxkm wrote
The DA office is distinct from other elected offices.
And the lack of rights to fire DA Bragg introduced a distortion in the midterm elections, because it became a governor's election issue unnecessarily.
DAs are attorneys, and the people in the district they represent should have the right to fire them at any time and for any reason.
Just like any other attorney in NY can be fired by their client at any time and for any reason.
https://ww2.nycourts.gov/attorneys/clientsrights.shtml:
>you have the right to discharge your attorney and terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time.
mission17 t1_j2sxapn wrote
Reminder that I work in the law. Your are not personally Bragg’s client and you don’t get to terminate him from office on behalf of Manhattan just because your feelings are hurt. He’s an elected official. Try it in an election.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2szelz wrote
>Try it in an election.
A ballot should be a fine way to determine the will of the people in the district with respect to hiring and firing the district attorney.
mission17 t1_j2szu86 wrote
We have already had a ballot and will have another one. You’re conservative and aware of the fact that conservatives use recalls to take advantage of low turnout which represents the will of the people significantly less. This was the blueprint in San Francisco.
Just because it gives you the outcome you want doesn’t mean it represents the will of the people. Regular elections do that just fine.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2t1or3 wrote
>Aw have already had a ballot and will have another one. You’re conservative and aware of the fact that conservatives use recalls to take advantage of low turnout which represents the will of the people significantly less. This was the blueprint in San Francisco.
Your comment is redefining what it means to be out of touch from the reality: when someone believes the majority of the voters in SF are conservative (in a vote turn out that far exceeded the ballot which elected Chesa Boudin in the first place)
​
>Just because it gives you the outcome you want doesn’t mean it represents the will of the people. Regular elections do that just fine.
If the ballot decides to recall, yes, it does represent the will of the people.
Though I don't know if the result would be the removal of DA Bragg or not.
But I do know the lack of such outlet for voters to express such will has spilled over to the governor's election unnecessary.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2svqkr wrote
I think material lies during a campaign that informed voters decision during the election should be one of the components to qualify a recall vote of a congressperson. I hope episodes like this highlight the need for such mechanisms.
I also think there should be something like fundraising fraud based on material lies.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments