5 ms·

>why has the state legislature not immediately begun impeachment? I was under the impression that impeachment is not a "I didn't get my way, I'm going to remov

>why has the state legislature not immediately begun impeachment? I was under the impression that impeachment is not a "I didn't get my way, I'm going to remove you from office" card. It's not for validating the whims of the electorate because some of them think they're not being served. It's for bringing official charges to an elected official and putting them on trial. What charges can you file against the governor based on this short article and actually bring to trial?

jacquesm 11y ago
I know it isn't but technically it really should be. What use is it to have someone represent you that no longer serves your interests.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I think the "we don't like what you've done" mechanism is a recall election rather than an impeachment. Of course, lots of places don't even have those.
- brockers 11y ago
  Under this same logic the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) would have lead to the impeachment of the President and most of the Democrats in Congress. It was HUGELY unpopular and has only recently become so-so... 5 YEARS after it was passed.
theandrewbailey 11y ago
I think the best legal action is SolarCity (and others) to sue the State of Nevada over loss of business. Is that possible?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    It is in fact, possibly unconstitutional for a state to change laws to impair existing contracts.
- jerf 11y ago
  You want to create a right to not lose business because of government action? Are you sure about that? You just entirely destroyed the EPA.
  - J_Darnley 11y ago
    It already exists: investor state dispute settlement.
    - jerf 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem... While in some sense that corresponds to the words I used (by which I mean, I see why you mention it as relevant), it definitely doesn't come close to applying here, as that is international law.
      - J_Darnley 11y ago
        You just need to find the right angle to sue someone. That's probably hard for a company without a billion dollars to spend on lawyers.
  - eli 11y ago
    A better argument would be, as the NV consumer advocate asserted, that the way they reduced a previously agreed-upon rate is illegal: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nevada-regulators-will-consider-delaying-new-net-metering-rates-monthly-ch/411576/ http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nevada-regulators-will-consi...
    - jerf 11y ago
      To be clear, my point is and was that that is a terrible line of argumentation, not that there are no possible good ones.
  - shpx 11y ago
    Isn't this what the TPP does? > would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-par...

jacquesm 11y ago

I know it isn't but technically it really should be. What use is it to have someone represent you that no longer serves your interests.

mikeash 11y ago
I think the "we don't like what you've done" mechanism is a recall election rather than an impeachment. Of course, lots of places don't even have those.
brockers 11y ago
Under this same logic the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) would have lead to the impeachment of the President and most of the Democrats in Congress. It was HUGELY unpopular and has only recently become so-so... 5 YEARS after it was passed.

theandrewbailey 11y ago

I think the best legal action is SolarCity (and others) to sue the State of Nevada over loss of business. Is that possible?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- DannyBee 11y ago
  It is in fact, possibly unconstitutional for a state to change laws to impair existing contracts.
jerf 11y ago
You want to create a right to not lose business because of government action? Are you sure about that? You just entirely destroyed the EPA.
- J_Darnley 11y ago
  It already exists: investor state dispute settlement.
  - jerf 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem... While in some sense that corresponds to the words I used (by which I mean, I see why you mention it as relevant), it definitely doesn't come close to applying here, as that is international law.
    - J_Darnley 11y ago
      You just need to find the right angle to sue someone. That's probably hard for a company without a billion dollars to spend on lawyers.
- eli 11y ago
  A better argument would be, as the NV consumer advocate asserted, that the way they reduced a previously agreed-upon rate is illegal: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nevada-regulators-will-consider-delaying-new-net-metering-rates-monthly-ch/411576/ http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nevada-regulators-will-consi...
  - jerf 11y ago
    To be clear, my point is and was that that is a terrible line of argumentation, not that there are no possible good ones.
- shpx 11y ago
  Isn't this what the TPP does? > would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-par...