Can we get these politicians for wasting our money?

[rogersmithiii]

Back in the 1970s, I heard that it cost $100,000 to go through the process to pass a bill in Massachusetts. I'm sure it's a lot more expensive now.

If these pols are passing bills that they know are unconstitutional, they are wasting taxpayer money by playing politics.

Is there some law about pols wasting money like this?

I don't think most people know how much is being pissed down the drain by this nonsense.

 

[rickflst]

I wish it was so. Plus all the court costs that we pay to defend these bills with our own tax money. It is a very sorry state of affairs.

 

[not new guy]

So you're saying we should hold politicians accountable for breaching their fiduciary duties to the public? Interesting.

 

[ridleyman]

So you're saying we should hold politicians accountable for breaching their fiduciary duties to the public? Interesting.

That's crazy talk!

 

[Dennis in MA]

You have to wonder if you could get them on sedition or some other "you hate your country and are actively working against it" type hasn't-been-used-since-the-1800's law. Good luck prosecuting. But it'd be awful nice if the USSC decided a case with clear language and they started passing laws to the contrary.

 

[freddieMA]

i think what you're looking for is qualified immunity.

lots of people on the left have thought there is nothing that the courts could do if they keep coming up with unconstitutional gun laws, so why not? i disagree. if i were scotus and i wanted to send a message to ca, ny, ma, ct, and nj legislators, i'd start there.

note that both sides of the aisle abuse this, and it was scotus itself that invented it.

Qualified immunity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LT5]

So you're saying we should hold politicians accountable for breaching their fiduciary duties to the public? Interesting.

No way man.
Next you guys will expect us to hold them accountable for taking a projectile dump on our Constitutional rights. Lol.

 

[MisterHappy]

Wait...you expect them to include themselves in the laws that they write?

 

[freddieMA]

they're beginning to feel the corners of the box ...


View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1679923257804242968

 

[Chappy7]

Back in the 1970s, I heard that it cost $100,000 to go through the process to pass a bill in Massachusetts. I'm sure it's a lot more expensive now.

If these pols are passing bills that they know are unconstitutional, they are wasting taxpayer money by playing politics.

Is there some law about pols wasting money like this?

I don't think most people know how much is being pissed down the drain by this nonsense.

i think what you're looking for is qualified immunity.

lots of people on the left have thought there is nothing that the courts could do if they keep coming up with unconstitutional gun laws, so why not? i disagree. if i were scotus and i wanted to send a message to ca, ny, ma, ct, and nj legislators, i'd start there.

note that both sides of the aisle abuse this, and it was scotus itself that invented it.

Qualified immunity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'd look at this, may take test case.

Should "Loopholing" Be Protected By Qualified Immunity?

"Leider argues that even if you accept the doctrine of qualified immunity, that it should not apply to deliberate "loopholing" behavior like this:

This loopholing behavior has none of the usual traits for which the Supreme Court permits qualified immunity. Most qualified immunity cases involve state actors engaged in legitimate policing, who make reasonable or negligent mistakes about the law. These mistakes, moreover, are often made by police in the heat of the moment, in difficult circumstances (e.g., while potentially under the threat of force). The Supreme Court has tried to shield officers from such liability for fear that it will chill them from vigorously performing their duties. In contrast, these states, through their combined regulations on sensitive places and private property, are intentionally trying to subvert Bruen's specific holding. These policies, moreover, are not split-second judgments made in the heat of the moment; states have pursued these laws after extensive deliberation. The Supreme Court has never said that qualified immunity protects state actors who intentionally seek to violate a recognized constitutional right simply because the legal artifice they employ has not been the subject of a prior court decision.

Of course, the doctrine of qualified immunity has been broadly criticized (by me among many others). But it is the doctrine. And if one looks at some of the best defenses of the doctrine, by folks like Scott Keller and Nathan Chapman, it is not at all clear that it extends to this kind of loopholing."

 

[Mesatchornug]

they're beginning to feel the corners of the box ...


View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1679923257804242968

 

[freddieMA]

 

[Dadstoys]

I wonder if there is someone on our side who can make sure every nickel spent by the state defending what they know wont pass muster gets accounted for ?
Would love to see what the final tally is.
Most people on both sides would probably shit .

 

[Quantavious G]

the way to get them is to not re-elect them. Unfortunately, the majority of people really aren't concerned government spending.

 

[eric1337]

It's actually pretty simple. STOP RE-ELECTING THESE a**h***S!!!

 

[cams]

I really don’t think the majority of people across the country follow or know even 10% of what the government does for them or is going to do to them.

They simply trust that their .gov would never try to hurt them because their phone/FB and Twitter still works. They still have to feed the kids and clean the house after work too. Just because a lot of people here on other similar forums follow this stuff daily and keep up, I still think it’s a very small percentage of your 9-5’ers that do.

 

[E.Stoner]

Voting in this state is like screaming into the void. If you want accountability, bring back tar and feathers.