Fitting Retribution

That the House of Representatives does not understand the concept of immediately considering legislation is not the fault of the Lieutenant Governor.

I believe it would be a fitting tribute to the House of Representatives even daring to consider an impeachment resolution against Casey Cagle being the immediate rejection of all the vetoes by the Rules Committee.

This is outrageous and will all due deference to good friends in the House, that the Speaker would allow this to escalate to this point is a sign that the House needs to be beaten down and put in its proper place.

Suck it up, Rep. Forster.

Now, on that, I will say that the Senate should and must agree to override HB 91. The word on the street is that the Governor’s office hurled several threats against legislators over pushing this override. The fact is, this legislation is solid legislation, the Governor’s own actions prove it is necessary legislation, and as much as the Senate should beat down the House over letting this impeachment B.S. get this far, they should show some fidelity to their branch of government by overriding this particular veto.


  1. Doug Deal says:


    The House members would make better use of their energies if they took the adult step of changing the poorly written Constitution to fix the problems with vetos, particularly those over a recess of the legislature.

    But, their current tactics makes for better theater, so why change?

  2. There are times I wonder if the GOP can stand prosperity. Talk of impeachment by Forster is beyond ludicrous. I’m ashamed to say he’s a fellow Yellow Jacket and hope some more sensible members of the House pull him aside and kick his butt.

    That being said, I hope the Senate didn’t send the bills to Committee just to kill them. I haven’t studied the bills in detail to see if I agree with the veto overrides, but we need to deal with this stuff and get on with the session.

  3. Icarus says:

    Rep. Ehrhart was kind enough to drop by on the original thread about this topic and firmly stated this wasn’t going to happen.

    I think a firm and public rebuke of Rep. Forster is in order from the House Leadership.

    In the absence of that, all bets are off. Call Orville Redenbacher and tell him to back the truck up. One more session of complete political theater and completely devoid of actual accomplishment.

  4. eehrhart says:

    ANY legislator elected to the House of Representatives may introduce any legislation they please.

    They have that absolute right and there is not one thing the Speaker or I can do about such introduction.

    Rep. Forster was in my office this morning and asked if this had any chance.

    My response and I quote “NO SIR”

    End of discussion as far as it succeeding I promise!!!!!

  5. Icarus says:


    The same fit, actually.

    The fact that consideration doesn’t mean what Rep. Forester thinks it should is not a basis for an impeachment proceeding. For anyone.

    Andre (A democrat) did a good job of explaining the requirements of “consideration” on his thread a few days ago. Cagle and the Senate are well within the requirements of the Constitution and the Senate Rules.

    Yet another temper tantrum from the house won’t change that, regardless of the party affiliation of the Lt. Gov.

  6. Jace Walden says:

    I’m still in agreement with the House on what “immediate consideration” means. There should have already been an up or down vote. We need to move on from last year’s issues and focus on this year. Up or down vote. Get it over with.

  7. Jace Walden says:

    No offense to Andre:

    Icarus, isn’t it a bit of a stretch to call Andre a “Democrat”. Were he to defect, I’m sure the GOP would welcome him with open arms…especially since he’s probably more conservative than most Republicans in the legislature.

  8. Icarus says:

    Actually, I’ve called Andre a Republican on many occasions, just to pick at him. He would make a good Republican, but still claims to be a member of the wealth redistribution/wealth extinction party.

  9. juliobarrios says:

    If it was Jim Martin instead of Cagle, the LG would be off on an official drought fact finding mission in the State of Alabama, while Eric Johnson would be negotiating any differences with the House and the Senate.

  10. Icarus says:

    “Isn’t Forster running for the PSC?”

    Is there an open seat, or does he plan on impeaching whomever is in the one he wants?

  11. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    You mean he’s violently pro-life, pro-government expansion, pro-record spending, pro-endless war?


  12. Burdell says:


    Rep. Forster only has a graduate degree from Tech. Do we have to call him a “fellow Yellow Jacket”?

  13. The Comma Guy says:

    My favorite quote came from the AJC article:

    “An impeachment could be just, you know, a forfeiture of pay or some kind of penalty,” said Forster.

    I thought that the sole sanction that comes with impeachment is removal from office. I might be mixing up the constitutions though.

  14. IndyInjun says:

    Icarus wrote: ” I never said that most Republicans were good Republicans.”

    Oh, they are perfectly good Republicans all right, they are just impostors as C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-V-E-S.

    How any conservative worth 2 cents any longer identifies as a Republican is beyond me.

  15. Decaturguy says:

    You know, when the leadership is a reckless bunch themselves (i.e., Richardson, Ehrhart, Harbin, et al), how do you expect the underlings to behave. Richardson sets the tone, the others just follow and think its OK.

  16. juliobarrios says:

    I think most schools have fairly easy requirements when it comes to achieving Alumni status – it creates a bigger fundraising list.

  17. Bull Moose says:

    These are the bills that I feel should be overriden:

    HB 69
    HB 91
    HB 218
    HB 229
    HB 441
    HB 451
    HB 529
    HB 549
    HB 559

  18. shep1975 says:

    I agree with my Rep that everyone is free n the House to introduce whatever they wish. Most, we’d hope, introduce legislation that benefits or at least represents the interests of their constituents.

    I can’t see how Forester is representing the interests of his consttuents.

    I’ve always liked Forester, but he is way out of line with this. The may have the right to introduce whatever he wants, he does not have the right to harm the entire party and make a mockery out of the caucus to further his own political ambitions.

    If he thinks making a fool of himself will help him win a GOP primary, he’s sadly mistaken,

  19. Burdell says:

    Buzz, I think you’re right. Heck, they even claim Jimmy Carter…

    Still doesn’t mean *we* have to claim him 😉

  20. Icarus says:

    He’s yours. You guys have to take him.

    And I’ll keep that in my back pocket for the next time Simon goes off on how it’s the UGA guys that are stinking up the joint.

  21. juliobarrios says:

    I heard Forster is challenging Angela Speir in the GOP Primary, as I think Shep alluded to – unless of course he tries to make it an open seat by impeaching her, as someone else alluded to.

  22. Bill Simon says:

    Forester’s intentions are not, I find it interesting that in THIS state of Bubbas, it is theoretically possible that the definition of “consideration” can actually, for all intents and purposes as demonstrated by our State Senate, involve a longer time period than that time period promises any defendent under the U.S. Constitution a fair and “speedy trial.”

    Carry on, Senator Bubbas.

  23. I agree with the LG. He’s maintained a high level of decorum and run a very tight ship.

    But Bill, I learned from my short stint in government, immediately doesn’t really mean immediately. One of our assessors had resigned in late September. The law states the Board of Commissioners were to “immediately” appoint a new assessor. The new one arrived 4 months later. It didn’t detract from the business.

    In this case, it may very well be the best solution to move slowly. The rancor needs to minimize. It does nothing for anyone but does drive up the cost of government.

  24. joe says:


    Not only in this case, but often, the best solution is to move slowly. If the House were to refuse to bring ANY Senate bill out of committee until after the Senate had “considered immediately” all of the overrides, that might be enough to slow things sufficiently.

  25. rightofcenter says:

    Buzz and Burdell,
    You raise an interesting subject (interesting to us Techies anyway). What members of either the House or Senate are Tech alums?
    Johnny Grant is one. Others?

  26. Bill Simon says:

    Buzz Sez: “Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the Alumni Association consider anyone who attended Tech an Alum?”

    That would be correct if it was the Sanford Stadium Alumni Assocation. Hell, in Athens, you’re considered an alum if you just shout “Go Dawgs”, ’cause that’s about the level of difficulty their curriculum demands.

  27. Bill Simon says:


    If the framers of the state constitution didn’t mean for the overrides to be “immediately considered,” it would have been quite redundant to use the word “immediately” if they thought Bill Clinton, Jr. was going to parse-out the word “consider” in the fashion that he and his fellow senators have done.

  28. Bill Simon says:


    It is a proven fact that, on average, smart people who are immersed into a pool of people of lesser smarts, they get dumbed-down to that lower level over time.

Comments are closed.