And since its the ONLY way to deal with the problem, the Obama Administration is being forced to choose between being accused of Liberal McCarthyism [to which Pantload Goldberg will be able to claim he called it], or leaving it be [like a termite infection- always a good option right?].

We have Mukasey who is worthless and doing a lot of damage to the Constitution, and entrenched DOJsters who helped protect the firings that Rove and others orchestrated by hijacking DOJ and they will do nothing. This is obvious in every move they make, including a filing the other day of a motion including a tape exhibit connected to Cheney with DOJ surgically and intentionally refusing to ID Cheney.

If I were Obama, I’d vet the people who need confirmation at DOJ and I’d personally fire career people like “Yoda” Margolis, the spiteful pig who helped every part of the coverups at DOJ and protected Goodling, Sampson, and Jan Williams.

I’d make sure the firing of all this scum at OLC and Main Justice was as traumatic as possible, as public as possible and I’d assign somone in my WH counsel’s office to make sure that state bars who never touch any lawyer employed by justice despite the code section that is intact to do just that to make sure to publicly spotlight each and every bar and stand on their necks until they go after this scum with disciplinary action. I’d prosecute many of them under 18USC 1001 and they are not indemnified by any civil service legislation from that. It’s simply lack of will, and blatant Mukasey obfuscation.

Roswell New Mexico sounds like a good place to render them–and constructing an alligator pit to slowly lower them into is a nice touch.

I would force all political Immigration “judges” to resign effective immediately and I’d put a public spotlight on the bitch, Dana Marks, who represents them as “president of the judge’s union” –I did not know that these immigration idiots had a union, and call her the killer and torturer that she is. I’d make sure her name is a household word.

However throughout the entire current millenium no great difficulty has been encountered in finding ways to avoid the Constitution, particularly insofar as its practical implications are concerned. If I were asked for it, my advice would be that it probably remains important for maintaining public confidence and support to try as much as possible to stay with the forms provided under the Constitution, but apart from that I don’t see any reason to lose a lot of sleep over it.

It’s not been necessary to preserve any part of the Constitution for public confidence because the public doesn’t give a rat’s ass or have a clue what the Constitution is–the pubic is in sympathy with the assholes who told Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher that the stork delivered them to the ATT-Blue Dog Dem soiree and they didn’t know anything about why they were there, how they got there, or who brought them there, and you, the unwashed hippie, don’t need to know anything about it either.

And since its the ONLY way to deal with the problem, the Obama Administration is being forced to choose between being accused of Liberal McCarthyism [to which Pantload Goldberg will be able to claim he called it], or leaving it be [like a termite infection- always a good option right?].

We have Mukasey who is worthless and doing a lot of damage to the Constitution, and entrenched DOJsters who helped protect the firings that Rove and others orchestrated by hijacking DOJ and they will do nothing. This is obvious in every move they make, including a filing the other day of a motion including a tape exhibit connected to Cheney with DOJ surgically and intentionally refusing to ID Cheney.

If I were Obama, I’d vet the people who need confirmation at DOJ and I’d personally fire career people like “Yoda” Margolis, the spiteful pig who helped every part of the coverups at DOJ and protected Goodling, Sampson, and Jan Williams.

I’d make sure the firing of all this scum at OLC and Main Justice was as traumatic as possible, as public as possible and I’d assign somone in my WH counsel’s office to make sure that state bars who never touch any lawyer employed by justice despite the code section that is intact to do just that to make sure to publicly spotlight each and every bar and stand on their necks until they go after this scum with disciplinary action. I’d prosecute many of them under 18USC 1001 and they are not indemnified by any civil service legislation from that. It’s simply lack of will, and blatant Mukasey obfuscation.

Roswell New Mexico sounds like a good place to render them–and constructing an alligator pit to slowly lower them into is a nice touch.

I would force all political Immigration “judges” to resign effective immediately and I’d put a public spotlight on the bitch, Dana Marks, who represents them as “president of the judge’s union” –I did not know that these immigration idiots had a union, and call her the killer and torturer that she is. I’d make sure her name is a household word.

However throughout the entire current millenium no great difficulty has been encountered in finding ways to avoid the Constitution, particularly insofar as its practical implications are concerned. If I were asked for it, my advice would be that it probably remains important for maintaining public confidence and support to try as much as possible to stay with the forms provided under the Constitution, but apart from that I don’t see any reason to lose a lot of sleep over it.

It’s not been necessary to preserve any part of the Constitution for public confidence because the public doesn’t give a rat’s ass or have a clue what the Constitution is–the pubic is in sympathy with the assholes who told Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher that the stork delivered them to the ATT-Blue Dog Dem soiree and they didn’t know anything about why they were there, how they got there, or who brought them there, and you, the unwashed hippie, don’t need to know anything about it either.

__________

I herewith publish a retraction of my statement last night implying that AZ congressional districts were gerrimandered to split Navajo votes. They have been gerrymandered (for some time I guess) to separate Hopi from Navajo voters. Most Navajos are in District 1 while Hopi is connected by an umbilical cord to District 2 that includes some of western Phoenix.

As for my search to validate that then Hopi Tribal Chairman Wayne Taylor met with Karl Rove in 2002 to discuss the congressional race I found this deposition of Rove aid (ca. 2002) Ruben Barrales by the House Committee on Oversight & Gov Reform taken on July 11, 2007. Taylor is referenced on pp 34-35 & pp 74-75 regarding an itinerary for him in DC Feb 20-28, 2002.

It does not leave me with evidence that Taylor & Rove met then, however there are four heavily redacted meetings. And the document is truncated at Feb 25 with three remaining days unaccounted for. (Why would HCOGR do this? What would warrant redaction? and are they just sloppy or is the truncation another form of unwarranted redaction?)

There were multiple purposes for the trip – including first and foremost on the 21st (an optional) meeting at Greenberg Traurig, and a meeting with Barrales at the Old Executive Office Building. The day closed with a Wizards v. Nets game and most of the confirmed attendees’ names are redacted. Taylor also attended NCAI meetings starting the evening of Feb 22nd.

Plenty of opportunity to have met with Rove, but no proof. This trip and the deposition would appear to be related to the Abramoff scandals. Strangely, after entering the (partial) Taylor itinerary into evidence the HCOGR doesn’t ask Barrales anything about it other than to verify that Taylor and Barrales met.

So how did I get the idea that Taylor met Rove to discuss his running for congress. I read it some where in 2002, probably in Tutuveni the Hopi newspaper and what stuck in my mind at the time was what a big deal it was that Taylor was being considered by Rove to run for Congress. What happened, of course, was that Republican Trent Franks ran for that seat in 2002 and remains in Congress.

I’m going to be working pretty intensely for the rest of the noon and some of the evening/meetings, etc.

I saw the question mark from you but honestly didn’t understand the question. You are a bright, imaginative, creative writer and I don’t doubt you have all the legal exprience you have said you do, but sometimes (I’ll take the blame) I can’t understand some of what you say and that question you posed I wasn’t ducking. I couldn’t understand it so I am sorry I couldn’t answer it.

When I finish what I have to do the rest of the day/evening I will come back and read your comments again and try to answer anything you asked to the best of my ability.

Cheers.

The gaming enterprises’ success has proved to be a fascinating prospect, namely, of the aboriginal peoples’ acquiring means to buy back what the settlers took by dint, pretty much, of technologies, and links to globalizing economics, which is where this could go OT, sometime.

With the exception of Chiara, all of them had an exposure to an Enron case.
All of them had tribal lands within their states.
All of them had gambling of some sort within their states.
All of them were located in an area designated by FERC in some way as part of the “energy corridor”.
Five of the eight were in the 9th District, perceived as most liberal of federal courts.
Two of them may have been perceived as gay.

I had not finished my assessment of any Abramoff exposures — but there was a unique one in Arizona, in the Bayou Fund case that was prosecuted by the STATE AG and not the feds for some reason unclear to me as a non-lawyer/layperson. (Bayou looked like a very exotic proof-of-concept money laundering operation that could move tens of millions…)

I’m sure if I spent more time on this, there’s more about Charlton’s case that should raise flags. The Renzi situation should have been enough to warrant more thorough research.

There being no other responses, I propose to proceed in the manner of Radio Rush and invite the “indisputably best source of incisive excellence on this pressing issue” to explicate.

QUESTION: I have Professor Bolten Head of Faber College School of Law and Animal Husbandry on line two – welcome sir. Professor as my millions of devoted dittoheads know I am a man of many and vast parts, but none as it happens of the legal beagle sort, so I would appreciate your putting in as close to humanese as you are able to the exact nature of the dilemma that apparently is would confront Barack Hussein Obama should he be admitted to the White House through the front door. And permit me sir if you will to first attempt to frame the supposed dilemma as I perceive it.

Put simply as I understand the ways things are, there would be only two alternatives, and no more than two, and that those two would mean he would face what is known as a Hobson’s choice, between on the one hand choosing to forgive the thousands of dedicated civil servants their only sin of supporting their president-

and on the other Obama actually abandoning his grandiose rhetorical vision of a post-partisan America completely, thereby forever branding himself and everyone connected to his administration and indeed to his party – and furthermore opening up his “kind” if I may refer to … well I may be putting myself at risk for saying so but it’s just sitting out there waiting to be said: permanently coloring the whole inventory of those who apparently missed out on getting inoculated against an outbreak of rampant Obamania-

by appointing his very own Grand Inquisitor- ritually confirmed by Reed and Leahy and the rest of his Democrat cohorts & pals from his brief visit to the Senate- who would thereafter execute on a deliberate design – such as arranging to lure every single federal employee who happened to have commenced his or her public service at any time after twelve noon on January twentieth two thousand – I’m not just talking about lawyers and budget experts and medicos in the Health department but right down to the typing pool & the janitorial staff- to lure all of them out to Roswell New Mexico from whence they would be bussed or marched or whatever to some remote part of the desert – whereupon the Inquisitor would put to each and every one of them some abomination of Satan’s three temptations of Jesus no doubt developed in the dungeons of the Soros Institute and voted on by the moonbattery of netnuts at Fire Dog Lake and the Daily Kos, and to complete the picture Arianna Huffington serving in the role of Mme Defarge-

is that about the size and shape of it sir?

RESPONSE: You seem to have a firm grasp on this – frankly I don’t think I would wish to improve on how you have put it.

But actually I think there may be another alternative, one for which there exists quite an impressive body of precedent among executive branch directives and findings and orders, and none of them appear to have been ever condemned or challenged or even questioned by Congress.

By way of exemplification, it appears open for the next president to borrow, foregive me for referring to here so crudely, liberally, from as few as just two previous administrations, one Republican of course but also one Democratic, to preserve if you will the bi-partisan character of such a robust initiative.

Upon being sworn into office the new commander in chief could issue a presidential finding that all the hires of the immediately preceding administration are presumptively incompetent, so much so that their continuing in office constitutes an exceptional danger to national security, then arrange with Congress to pass as expeditiously as possible something in the same vein as the military tribunal system currently in use in GTMO.

As to each major component essential to instituting such a program, and ensuring its legal viability, neither of the two components in this example would bear anything approaching the kind of objective offensiveness to American sensibilities which have come to be associated with by its respective historical precedent.

In the case of the former the precedent would be President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment policy during World War Two applying only to American citizens of Japanese descent. In the case of the latter, its probably sufficient to note that the fact remains, despite the failure of the current administration to succeed in completely stopping a bare majority of the Supreme Court from forcing some parts of habeas corpus on the GTMO facility, the President has unquestionably succeeded in establishing the authority of the administration in setting up a parallel adjudicative system, as long as its jurisdiction is framed in terms of an area of exclusive executive branch authority.

It also suggests that presidents enjoy a prerogatory power in being able to set up a parallel adjudicative system with exclusive jurisdiction over receiving and resolving individual challenges to the presidential finding based on claims of personal hardship and other effects.

Now, it seems possible, and I’ve actually heard some people say its clearly the case, that many of the individuals who fall into this category, that fall under that kind of presidential finding, are pretty much unemployable outside of the sorts of brutally demanding jobs that typically get done by migrants and itinerants. I also heard Senator McCain say a few months ago that Americans are just not unequipped to do those sorts of jobs.

So if for no other reason than a president Obama presumably would feel quite motivated to avoid looking as heartless and reflexively partisan as the current president, I would expect his administration to go to Capital Hill and get Congress to pass a law that establishes a system for handing some very possibly reasonable claims that some of the federal employees affected by such a finding would want to make.

I’m not saying that the Bush administration would ever hire a Democrat or even an independent, not consciously,; but for instance, I could foresee someone fired for presumptive incompetence wanting to claim that it worked a particular hardship on him because he was actually qualified to do his job and the job itself didn’t hold any scope for expressing political partisanship. And I can certainly see a Democratic administration wanting to give that guy a place to go to file his claim and to hear him out on trying to rebut the presumption in the presidential finding; Democrats tend to think if they look like they’re treating everyone the same then that’s going to result in more votes. Logically if he succeeds in doing that he’s going to want a chance to prove how much he lost and get a ruling that forces the administration that took his job away from him to pay him that in compensation, and again Democrats tend to go for things like that.

At the same time though, I would expect someone like Obama is pretty aware of how twenty years out of the last twenty eight under Republican presidents has resulted in the federal courts being packed with Republican appointees, and the obvious dangers in allowing them an easy shot at crippling and embarrassing his administration. So I would expect an Obama administration would want to capitalize on the model presented by the Bush administration’s GTMO military tribunals, and also to take advantage of an opportunity to improve on that model by refraining from actually detaining any of the affected individuals. If I were consulted on this, certainly if it was by a Democratic administration at least I would expect to urge very strongly that not detaining has the benefit of avoiding most if not all of the panopoly of substantive procedures developed by the judicial branch over the last two hundred and thirty years, procedures that have proved to bring about a vast number of publicly available opinions and decisions which on the whole have worked to limit executive branch power, and moreover to cause a great deal of embarrassment to presidential legacies.

Lastly I think its worthwhile observing that for a lot of our history it was assumed that it was necessary to start out any serious effort to reform government policy and programs by considering what if any limitations might be presented by the Constitution, whether in providing some role to another branch, or identifying and purporting to guarantee some “inalienable” individual right.

However throughout the entire current millenium no great difficulty has been encountered in finding ways to avoid the Constitution, particularly insofar as its practical implications are concerned. If I were asked for it, my advice would be that it probably remains important for maintaining public confidence and support to try as much as possible to stay with the forms provided under the Constitution, but apart from that I don’t see any reason to lose a lot of sleep over it.

QUESTION: Now sir – I have sat here and listened with what you are bound to concede has been a remarkable demonstration of patience; but to my untrained ear all this sounds to me that any decent red-blooded American would be forced to sit back helplessly while a President Obama presides over the commission of an outrage upon thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of loyal patriotic hard working American workers – and leaves me unable to conceive of why a Republican in Congress would ever be motivated to forebear from resorting to filibuster. I am prepared to be enlightened.

RESPONSES: Well – I think I understand where you’re coming from in saying that, and as to what position Congressional Republicans might have on this and what strategies they might resort to in trying to oppose it – all that something I’d expect you to be far ahead of me on and quite literally I think its more up to you than me.

But as to the matter of its political viability, in a philosophical sense if you will I would have thought that Congressional Republicans would be loathe to interfere with a process that extends executive branch authority beyond the reach of the judicial branch and relieves Congress of some much of its legislative burden, thereby freeing its members for more pressing business such as ensuring re-election and arranging benefit packages for their retirement.

QUESTION: All valid points I readily concede. But answer me this: If 8 years worth of hires by one particular administration can be so easily undone by an incoming president, on a presidential finding invoking national security, what then would stand in the way of his using the same vehicle to proceed to fire not just the hires of his immediate predecessor, but each and every single employee no matter how long they’ve been on the federal payroll?

RESPONSE: Theoretically- nothing.

QUESTION: ……. Well ……. that is …. enlightening and inspiring!

Professor Bolten Head, while I feel an irresistible urge to tell you I would feel one whole heck of a lot more comforted by that view if it had come from the mouth of, say, Justice Scalia, I now see your point, not to mention the possibilities, and I feel sure that if my listeners do not, I am fully equipped to explain it to them. I trust you will agree to share your insights with us again and I thank you.