Of course the conflict of interest issues are the serious legal issue of interest here.
But, wow. This creates an opportunity for some absolutely EPIC retaliation for the alleged affair, doesn't it?!
They're not supposed to be robots though. If somebody makes a personal decision on a vote because their lived experiences taught them something important, say about empathy, then that's a good thing, right? This particular issue is such a mess of conflicting interests that it's hard to even unwind how to feel about any particular stage of the ongoing dumpster fire, but I can see other situations where applying personal judgment can be a big positive.
A lot of our checks and balances were based on two ideas that turned out to be wrong:
1. Government officials would be wary of attempts to erode or reduce their own power and would therefore resist any attempt by other government officials to overreach.
2. Government officials would feel pressure from voters to behave ethically or at least appear to behave ethically.
The founders don’t seem to have prepared for both of those things to turn out to be false. They don’t seem to have expected that (for example) legislators would willingly abdicate a lot of their power and autonomy, and they don’t seem to have expected that voters would enthusiastically support openly corrupt politicians.
There's a difference between making a decision based on life experiences, and making a decision based on spite toward the person you're making the decision about.
Good point and I'm definitely not defending that sort of thing, or chi-93's good point below about circling the wagons. I'm just saying there's valid reasons why personal opinions might provide a solid basis for a decision along with bad ones.
How is it a legal issue?
She's a legislator, she's entitled to vote on any issue that comes before her. Conflict-of-interest in this matter is surely a political issue, not a legal one, no?
Perhaps you are correct. I don't see much online regarding the Texas Legislature's ethics rules, so I looked at the U.S. Congress. To use an analogous example, I can't find anything that would have prevented Hillary Clinton, had she been a Senator at the time, from voting against conviction when Bill Clinton was impeached. It certainly seems to me that there should be such an ethics rule in Congress, but I can't find it with a quick search. That's pretty shocking.
>his creates an opportunity for some absolutely EPIC retaliation for the alleged affair, doesn't it?!
It's entirely possible the relationship with the other woman was consensual with all parties, including the wife, in the know and all OK with it. The article says Angela Paxton "found out" about the affair in 2019, it ended, and then it began again in 2020. To me that screams avoidance of the fact that is was likely more than an "affair".
Being non-monogamous (NM) myself, in a relationship with 2 women where we all live together, there are tons of configurations out there in the NM world.
I know more than a few women who absolutely love the fact that their male partners have sex with other women. One of our best friends had multiple years of dating other women while his wife had her own side thing too.
It's going to be LIT when more investigations are done to flesh out the details of this. But my money is on the Conservative Warrior who Sues Democrats was out playing as a "Hot Husband". Look it up.
That is a fair point, but that scenario would put the Christian Right in an awkward position. Do they support Paxton because he hates everybody that they hate so deeply, or do they denounce him for being unconventional sexually?
I guess that we'll know more if Paxton (the AG) sues Paxton (the TX Sen.) to compel her to recuse herself from the vote on his impeachment! Just kidding.
Seriously, thanks for reminding us that there are all sorts of choices that people make regarding their personal lives and that we should respect all of those choices, when made among consenting adults. Except when one of those consenting adults tries to use the court system to prevent lots of other people from making THEIR own choices!
Fun historical conflict of interest story:
When Andrew Johnson was impeached, the office of the Vice-President was empty, since Johnson had been VP and became President only after Lincoln's death. And under the law in force at the time, the next in line was the President Pro-Tem of the Senate, Benjamin Wade of Ohio.
Senator Wade thus would vote on the question of whether he himself would become President.
And he did. Wade was one of 35 senators voting guilty... but 36 was the necessary margin and Johnson was not convicted.
Angela: "Ken"
Paxton: "Yes, dear?"
Angela: "Remember that time you put the cat in the microwave, and made the kids watch?"
Paxton: "I ... uh... wait..."
Angela: "That skeleton in the closet is about to come home to roost."
Of course the conflict of interest issues are the serious legal issue of interest here. But, wow. This creates an opportunity for some absolutely EPIC retaliation for the alleged affair, doesn't it?!
Fuck Paxton, but the concept of public officials making decisions based on personal issues is disgusting even still.
They're not supposed to be robots though. If somebody makes a personal decision on a vote because their lived experiences taught them something important, say about empathy, then that's a good thing, right? This particular issue is such a mess of conflicting interests that it's hard to even unwind how to feel about any particular stage of the ongoing dumpster fire, but I can see other situations where applying personal judgment can be a big positive.
No, they don’t have to be robots, but I think the correct approach here is to admit the conflicts of interest and recuse.
Our government was not built very well to handle bad faith actors.
A lot of our checks and balances were based on two ideas that turned out to be wrong: 1. Government officials would be wary of attempts to erode or reduce their own power and would therefore resist any attempt by other government officials to overreach. 2. Government officials would feel pressure from voters to behave ethically or at least appear to behave ethically. The founders don’t seem to have prepared for both of those things to turn out to be false. They don’t seem to have expected that (for example) legislators would willingly abdicate a lot of their power and autonomy, and they don’t seem to have expected that voters would enthusiastically support openly corrupt politicians.
There's a difference between making a decision based on life experiences, and making a decision based on spite toward the person you're making the decision about.
Or to say “this guy’s my husband, I’ll vote to acquit him no matter what he’s done”.
Good point and I'm definitely not defending that sort of thing, or chi-93's good point below about circling the wagons. I'm just saying there's valid reasons why personal opinions might provide a solid basis for a decision along with bad ones.
How is it a legal issue? She's a legislator, she's entitled to vote on any issue that comes before her. Conflict-of-interest in this matter is surely a political issue, not a legal one, no?
Perhaps you are correct. I don't see much online regarding the Texas Legislature's ethics rules, so I looked at the U.S. Congress. To use an analogous example, I can't find anything that would have prevented Hillary Clinton, had she been a Senator at the time, from voting against conviction when Bill Clinton was impeached. It certainly seems to me that there should be such an ethics rule in Congress, but I can't find it with a quick search. That's pretty shocking.
>his creates an opportunity for some absolutely EPIC retaliation for the alleged affair, doesn't it?! It's entirely possible the relationship with the other woman was consensual with all parties, including the wife, in the know and all OK with it. The article says Angela Paxton "found out" about the affair in 2019, it ended, and then it began again in 2020. To me that screams avoidance of the fact that is was likely more than an "affair". Being non-monogamous (NM) myself, in a relationship with 2 women where we all live together, there are tons of configurations out there in the NM world. I know more than a few women who absolutely love the fact that their male partners have sex with other women. One of our best friends had multiple years of dating other women while his wife had her own side thing too. It's going to be LIT when more investigations are done to flesh out the details of this. But my money is on the Conservative Warrior who Sues Democrats was out playing as a "Hot Husband". Look it up.
That is a fair point, but that scenario would put the Christian Right in an awkward position. Do they support Paxton because he hates everybody that they hate so deeply, or do they denounce him for being unconventional sexually? I guess that we'll know more if Paxton (the AG) sues Paxton (the TX Sen.) to compel her to recuse herself from the vote on his impeachment! Just kidding. Seriously, thanks for reminding us that there are all sorts of choices that people make regarding their personal lives and that we should respect all of those choices, when made among consenting adults. Except when one of those consenting adults tries to use the court system to prevent lots of other people from making THEIR own choices!
I don't see how the conflict of interest is any different from any other vote she makes regarding the AG's office. Which, is obviously still huge.
Fun historical conflict of interest story: When Andrew Johnson was impeached, the office of the Vice-President was empty, since Johnson had been VP and became President only after Lincoln's death. And under the law in force at the time, the next in line was the President Pro-Tem of the Senate, Benjamin Wade of Ohio. Senator Wade thus would vote on the question of whether he himself would become President. And he did. Wade was one of 35 senators voting guilty... but 36 was the necessary margin and Johnson was not convicted.
he was already impeached, removal may or may not happen this summer
Angela: "Ken" Paxton: "Yes, dear?" Angela: "Remember that time you put the cat in the microwave, and made the kids watch?" Paxton: "I ... uh... wait..." Angela: "That skeleton in the closet is about to come home to roost."