• news
  • WEDNESDAY MARCH 21 2007 6:00 PM

2007 Constitutional Showdown!

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: Bush, Gonzales, Rove, US attorney purge, Congress



The US attorneys purge scandal has been heating up for a while and now things are finally starting to get exciting. Today, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law voted to subpoena Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Attorney General Gonzales’ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson for their role in the firing of eight federal prosecutors. They will be asked to testify under oath about their actions.

The “under oath” part is what the White House is worried about. The administration is attempting to paint the scandal as a “partisan” attack, but their constant changing of reasons for the firings does little to help their argument. Yesterday, Bush offered a compromise: His aides would come to meet with Congress, behind closed doors and not under oath. That’s a really super compromise when you are being accused of criminal activity. He only pissed off Democratic and some Republican members of Congress. Next the Senate will vote for subpoenas.

The White House has strongly indicated they will claim executive privilege and not allow aides to testify.

Bush said Tuesday he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.


Uh huh. Well, I’m not going to argue that, instead, I’ll let White House Spokesman Tony Snow argue it for me. From the Chicago Tribune ten years ago, when Snow was upset that Clinton might not let his aides testify:

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.”

"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.''


You’re a good boy, Tony, thanks. The subpoena question will most likely go all the way to the Supreme Court, where the majority of justices are Republicans. But the Court has already been injured by their actions in the recount decision of 2000. The justices are supposed to be above partisan politics and the recount decision was along party lines. The Supreme Court lost credibility in the eyes of many Americans. Will it self-inflict more damage to save an unpopular president?

Before any ruling the subpoena fight will be in the media and Bush will lose. The incredibly unpopular administration is already known for lying and if it chooses to fight a battle over whether or not aides should swear under oath, which is just telling the truth, it will lose. Editorials are already popping up.

“If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness."


“I don’t want to have to tell the truth” is not a good defense, but it is what the White House is going with. We can feel good about one thing during all this madness, Bush feels really bad for the folks who were unjustly fired under his watch.

“I’m sorry this, frankly, has bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the U.S. attorneys involved. I really am. These are — I put them in there in the first place; they’re decent people. They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now they’re being held up into the scrutiny of all this, and it’s just — what I said in my comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service, and I’m sorry that the situation has gotten to where it’s got. But that’s Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there’s a lot of politics in this town.”


Oversight’s a bitch, huh? Welcome to America, Mr. President.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6

Next

Comments
Greybeard

Greybeard

Los Angeles, CA
December 2006

MAR 22, 2007 12:01 PM

mingol said:

Greybeard said:
Furthermore, there is nothing whatsoever in any of my blog entries or discussion posts to suggest an unhealthy interest in children. He simply made it up out of nothing.



Most of his posts on these boards are based on nothing, so really, is this surprising?



You've got a point there. I should probably just ignore him altogether, but I think it's really lame that he sought out my blog page and posted something so grievously insulting and irrelevant, and it pisses me off.

Question to Moderator: Does that qualify as Hate Speech?

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAR 22, 2007 02:45 PM

oyaji said:

swedrock said:
Two simple facts:

1. The justice system is, and always will be, deeply prejudicial on the basis of the judges' and justices' political beiliefs.

2. Some judges serve at the discretion of politicians, those positions are not, and have never been, stable or safe careers.



Federal judges have life appointments precisely in order to insulate them from political pressures.

It has been a longstanding principle of our system that the execution of the law must be equal and fair. This is why we consider ourselves to respect "the rule of law." The rule of law means we adhere to the principles and rules fixed in statutes, common law and constitutional law regardless of to whom those principles are applied. When leaders and their agents seek to selectively apply (or not apply) the law depending on the party affiliation of the individual subject to such application, those leaders undermine one of the axiomatic principles supporting the republic.

It is imperative that we reject and correct such behavior.


Has anyone pointed out that the people who were fired weren't federal judges but federal prosecutors yet? Even if swedrock had a valid point, it would be totally irrelevant to the thread.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

MAR 22, 2007 02:57 PM

oyaji said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

swedrock said:
Two simple facts:

1. The justice system is, and always will be, deeply prejudicial on the basis of the judges' and justices' political beiliefs.

2. Some judges serve at the discretion of politicians, those positions are not, and have never been, stable or safe careers.



Federal judges have life appointments precisely in order to insulate them from political pressures.

It has been a longstanding principle of our system that the execution of the law must be equal and fair. This is why we consider ourselves to respect "the rule of law." The rule of law means we adhere to the principles and rules fixed in statutes, common law and constitutional law regardless of to whom those principles are applied. When leaders and their agents seek to selectively apply (or not apply) the law depending on the party affiliation of the individual subject to such application, those leaders undermine one of the axiomatic principles supporting the republic.

It is imperative that we reject and correct such behavior.





love *sigh*

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAR 22, 2007 03:01 PM

wildswan said:

oyaji said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

swedrock said:
Two simple facts:

1. The justice system is, and always will be, deeply prejudicial on the basis of the judges' and justices' political beiliefs.

2. Some judges serve at the discretion of politicians, those positions are not, and have never been, stable or safe careers.



Federal judges have life appointments precisely in order to insulate them from political pressures.

It has been a longstanding principle of our system that the execution of the law must be equal and fair. This is why we consider ourselves to respect "the rule of law." The rule of law means we adhere to the principles and rules fixed in statutes, common law and constitutional law regardless of to whom those principles are applied. When leaders and their agents seek to selectively apply (or not apply) the law depending on the party affiliation of the individual subject to such application, those leaders undermine one of the axiomatic principles supporting the republic.

It is imperative that we reject and correct such behavior.



love *sigh*


You're just a sucker for the word "imperative," aren't you?

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

MAR 22, 2007 03:04 PM

Zarth said:

wildswan said:

oyaji said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

swedrock said:
Two simple facts:

1. The justice system is, and always will be, deeply prejudicial on the basis of the judges' and justices' political beiliefs.

2. Some judges serve at the discretion of politicians, those positions are not, and have never been, stable or safe careers.



Federal judges have life appointments precisely in order to insulate them from political pressures.

It has been a longstanding principle of our system that the execution of the law must be equal and fair. This is why we consider ourselves to respect "the rule of law." The rule of law means we adhere to the principles and rules fixed in statutes, common law and constitutional law regardless of to whom those principles are applied. When leaders and their agents seek to selectively apply (or not apply) the law depending on the party affiliation of the individual subject to such application, those leaders undermine one of the axiomatic principles supporting the republic.

It is imperative that we reject and correct such behavior.



love *sigh*


You're just a sucker for the word "imperative," aren't you?



Nah, I think it was the whole "rule of law" thing.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

MAR 22, 2007 06:10 PM

oyaji said:

NickFaust said:

Zarth said:

You're just a sucker for the word "imperative," aren't you?



Nah, I think it was the whole "rule of law" thing.



You suckers are just jealous.



Damned straight!

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

MAR 22, 2007 06:14 PM

oyaji said:

NickFaust said:

Zarth said:

You're just a sucker for the word "imperative," aren't you?



Nah, I think it was the whole "rule of law" thing.



You suckers are just jealous.



Rule me with your law, o man of steel! love

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Imperatively!!

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

MAR 22, 2007 06:31 PM

bald_eagle said:
This thread's just a little, uh



No, no. This thread is awesome.

ASSH0LE

ASSH0LE

Las Vegas, NV
June 2003

MAR 22, 2007 10:27 PM

Greybeard said:
For The Record: I don't even have a car, let alone a van.



Aha!

ASSH0LE

ASSH0LE

Las Vegas, NV
June 2003

MAR 22, 2007 10:50 PM

oyaji said:

NickFaust said:

Zarth said:

You're just a sucker for the word "imperative," aren't you?



Nah, I think it was the whole "rule of law" thing.



You suckers are just jealous.



I got too caught up trying to work up a poetic coupling of "heart" and "party of the first part" that'd tug at her heartstrings to get my point heard.

saltonsea

saltonsea

Toronto, ON
July 2004

MAR 24, 2007 06:24 PM

Zarth said:

saltonsea said:
saying, "oh well, that's just the way it is." is no excuse for gross misconduct.


Says the Canadian. You guys just don't understand how democracy works.



ah-ha....i'm not canadian...
thus side-stepping your logic...

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6

Next

featured interviews