Comments on: Nixon Sez: Karl Rove Must Testify

By: Leen

Leen — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:39:00 +0000

Prison time

By: 4jkb4ia

4jkb4ia — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 03:33:45 +0000

(reply to BayStateLibrul@85)

By: 4jkb4ia

4jkb4ia — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 03:32:59 +0000

The season is over. It really is the Three Weeks now.

By: MadDog

MadDog — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:24:53 +0000

That would still be a cautionary note, yes?

And that was a part of my point about the use of Congress’s Inherent Contempt power.

Judge Bates is basically saying to Congress, “Don’t go down that path” and instead allow the Judicial branch via a Civil suit to rule on the validity of Congress’s position.

It is like saying it would be better to have an impartial referree when the two fight than to not.

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:22:32 +0000

Clearly then, this is not a ‘ususal’ case, but the behavior of SCOTUS, unConstitutionally (and probably illegally) insinuationg itself into the 2000 election, was hardly usual either, especially their contention that what they were doing was NOT precedential, when in fact, it was and is, precisely that. Perhaps, the current “unseemly”ness had its genesis at that moment?

What is not clear is whether the Judical ‘Branch’ realizes, as much as an ‘institution’ can realize anything, that their own ‘deference’, on issues AND principles where they should NEVER be deferential, has circumscribed their own authority and compromised their own legitimacy.

By: masaccio

masaccio — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:26:06 +0000

Judge Bates points out that in the usual case, the legislative and executive branches work out the problems. If they don’t, the judicial branch is there. I think he’s right that letting the courts deal with this is the best thing, rather than have the House trying to arrest Miers, and the Executive Branch sending out people to protect him. Oddly, this is Scalia’s argument in Gore v. Bush.

The opinion urges the parties to solve it themselves, but Judge Bates makes it clear that he will solve it if they don’t work it out.

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:18:05 +0000

Judicial concerns about “unseemly”-ness are quite proper and definitely appropriate, but it appears to me that such “unseemly”-ness as there is, was begun some time ago, and rather pervasively so … and that Congress has been complicit in ‘it’, generally, rather than initiating said “unseemly”-ness, which role, if justice is not to be mocked, must be attributed to another actor or actors …

Such delicious irony is not lost on Judge Bates, I suspect.

By: BayStateLibrul

BayStateLibrul — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:44:12 +0000

Good on Pat Leahy

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi.....ruling.php

By: bobschacht

bobschacht — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:42:42 +0000

Mr Ford does not get to say what the law is. The Supremes do, but they don’t speak unless asked to. Ford’s pardon could be challenged in court, in theory, but no one has ever done so.

If Preznit Bush tries this same trick for lesser mortals, someone might indeed challenge his ability to do so. Indeed, one of his reasons for NOT issuing blanket pardons might be that if he were challenged and lost, presidents in the future might lose their ability to grant such pardons.

I think he may well grant some blanket pardons, but he may restrict those pardons to those whose case would be the strongest.

But IANAL, etc.

Bob in HI

By: BayStateLibrul

BayStateLibrul — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:41:53 +0000

I don’t think either Hardnuts or Countup mentioned this important decision.
Is that odd, or did I miss something?