.

I didn't understand a word from that sentence - if you can call it that. If it were a movie scene it would be a donkey chasing its tail.
Rail is costing businesses, Flamingos is gone, Shiros is losing thousands and now Zippys is closing for renovations....
Well, Hawaii has got its monarchy alright.

Now before I respond let me start by saying I think the rail is complete bullshit and while we need a solution for west side traffic, rail isn't the answer. 

As to the representatives comments following his "I'm gonna do it anyway" statement, his case makes some sense and he acknowledged that he knows his seat will be in jeopardy but will do what he thinks is right.  Kaneohe didn't want any further housing development and because of that the housing and traffic went to the West side.  He's correct in that it's an infrastructure and planning problem and apparently he feels that the responsibility to fix it falls on the communities that don't have to deal with that traffic every day.  A perfect example of leftist thinking.... just tax everyone and throw money at the problem and HOPE that it gets fixed.

Now before I respond let me start by saying I think the rail is complete bullshit and while we need a solution for west side traffic, rail isn't the answer. 

As to the representatives comments following his "I'm gonna do it anyway" statement, his case makes some sense and he acknowledged that he knows his seat will be in jeopardy but will do what he thinks is right.  Kaneohe didn't want any further housing development and because of that the housing and traffic went to the West side.  He's correct in that it's an infrastructure and planning problem and apparently he feels that the responsibility to fix it falls on the communities that don't have to deal with that traffic every day.  A perfect example of leftist thinking.... just tax everyone and throw money at the problem and HOPE that it gets fixed.

and that's the problem with career politicians - they are not serving the people but more worried about losing their "career"

.

It doesn't matter if what he thinks is correct actually works; his job is to represent the voice of his district, not make decisions that go against what they want. The only time he should be going against the people's wishes is if it goes against the constitution, which this doesn't.

The fact that there is no voter recall means he still has another year in office, whether his district wants him gone or not. Would he still be making decisions for himself if people could cast an emergency referendum and kick him out of office next month? I don't think so.

I was involved in a similar situation when I lived in California (rep not voting based on the wishes of the constituency.) At a small luncheon with business/community leaders, the conversation got heated as the rep was defending himself against an upset crowd. At one point, when he was being barraged with angry comments, he sort of yelled out "I am not a poll taker" and the room fell silent. That one statement galvanized the voters and he was voted out the next election.

As upsetting as that may be, he was right and so is Jarrett - they are not bound to cast votes based on the wishes of their constituency. Our representative are trustees, not delegates, so our power is voting them in or out of office and nothing more. The best thing to do with someone like that, is to get them voted out but there needs to be a sound bite, like there was with my example in California, that people can get behind.

.

Hence the need for voter recall.

Once again, I ask if he would have done this knowing that it would knowing that he could be ousted in the middle of the term, and my answer still remains no. As stated in the book "American Public Service" by Sheila Kennedy:

To be a representative probably means serving both delegate and trustee roles. It is striking a balance of doing what the people expressively want in some situations versus doing what should be in their best interest or in best judgement for them.

I agree with the statement that sometimes you must do what is in the best interest for the people, but only when their desires have the potential to violate the constitution, in which cases they must provide overwhelming proof that their decision, in fact, is in defense of constitutional liberty and rights.

I wasn't arguing against you - I agree completely with your position on this. We need to have not only voter recalls, but also allow referendums/initiatives on the ballots in Hawaii and term limits. It's an uphill battle to say the least.