Removing him without the opportunity to defend himself is NOT the rule of law.

Do you not get that what Jesus said in regards to naked, hungry, and sick people is in no way undone by what you claim (regardless of the degree of accuracy or lack thereof)?

They go criminal we also act criminally isn’t a good path to go down.

Why are so many people in this thread advocating extra judicial action when many/most of us are complaining about the GOP doing the same?

As I have told you he has to have the right to defend himself against the charges. He never faced a trial so he never has had an opportunity to defend himself.

I hate Mayor Adams. I wanted him sacked when he hired his brother to a job said brother was unqualified for in his first few days but there is a process to remove him and none of those steps have been met other than presenting the charge.

The thing is if you want to maintain rule of law then you need to follow those rules. You can’t just decide to ignore it when you want to but then pretend you have any legitimacy. That would make you no different than any other dictator.

and that process requires the mayor to be presented charges that he gets to defend himself against. That’s a trial

“to be heard in his defense” that’s from the actual law. Im using defense because that was the verb used, whereas you are using respond which means the same thing in this context.

They will be able to cite the extrajudicial removal of Adams as precedent for why they can do it.

Do you think rule of law should only be maintained when both of the two major parties supports it?

Do you think Hochul is going to win reelection? Do you think she will never be replaced? The precedent is for the NY governors that follow her. Wasn’t that obvious?

There are actual expectations of what you should believe as dictated by the texts some of which are very clear. If you are against clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, or tending to the sick you are overtly working against the path Jesus sets in the NT.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say these people are falsely claiming their faith as the motivation for their bigotry.

Ok buddy, sure it isn’t. What is it called when you face a negative outcome due to your potential wrongdoing? Oh yeah that’s called a punishment.

Do you think the trial that never happened counts?

Do you need me to explain what a trial is?

The notion that he should be removed without a trial or opportunity to defend himself is in fact illegal. Hochul has to let Adams defend himself against the charges.

The “they feel like it” would be for the next time not this situation. This is why it is important to nit create bad precedents like this

And that action requires he be presented with the charges against him and he be provided the opportunity to defend himself.

The governor cannot legally just pull him from office. These procedures need to be followed.

Yes there is. The mayor is to be presented with the charges against him and he has the opportunity to defend himself. It is linked elsewhere in this thread.

Im not licking anyone’s boots as I have clearly stated I want him to have a legal process which you and several others have suggested is not necessary.

You have made a very pro-authoritarian claim as to how this should be handled

I am making one that we should follow the rule of law.

YES because the law states he must have the opportunity to defend himself against charges. Failing to provide him that opportunity is never acceptable in a society that follows the rules of law.

edit: mistook you for a different poster

No one has moved goal posts. Everyone else is saying he should be removed and I have said he should not be removed without a trial. Stop trying to misuse logical flaws as away of not addressing the actual argument.

I have to imagine Nazism isnt popular in France even in fascist circles.