Bob Corker’s “Screw the Seniors” Plan
Journalists are now figuring out something we’ve been pointing out for some time: Bob Corker’s "plan" to "fix" the auto industry is not so much a plan to fix anything, but a plan to screw retirees.
Retirement health care for as many as three-quarters of a million Americans will be placed at high risk if conditions proposed as part of auto rescue loans are enforced by the incoming Congress and Obama administration, labor experts say.
At issue is a condition of the federal loans that calls for General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC to use company stock or the equivalent to pay half, or $10.5 billion, of the cash owed to a union retiree health-care trust.
Because of my tempermental Toobz connection, I’ll let you click through to read the rest.
But note several things that still aren’t noted in the story: first, the Chrysler has no stock. Which would sort of make the VEBA payment in stock utterly ridiculous, if it weren’t already obvious that Bush didn’t give Chrysler enough to restructure, he only gave it enough so it’ll go out of business on Obama’s watch instead of his own (at a cost to you of $4 billion), so I guess when he said "stock," he meant that Chrysler retirees ought to consider themselves lucky if GM is forced to eat Chrysler so GM can give Chrysler $10 billion in GM stock which will be–by then–approximately 10 billion shares.
All of which ought to make two things clear. Bob Corker’s "plan" was never intended to work. Yet while he pushed a plan that really couldn’t work, Corker saw that as an opportunity to beat up on a bunch of seniors, perhaps for some gratuitous fun.
Bob Corker: taking seniors’ pensions and health care away, all in the name of a successful business plan. Happy Holidays, America’s seniors!!
I may be an idiot but wouldn’t another effect of this be that US Government would wind up on the hook for these pensions and health care plans? So Corker’s plans would not only screw the retirees but would also screw the taxpayer. A Two-fer!
Indeed. But I’m still not convinced that Corker really understands the damage he’s doing — I don’t say that to excuse him one bit. I just have a sense that he’s a willing tool in the hands of Cerberus and heaven only knows who else. Either way, it’s embarrassing.
That was a good article, BTW.
Although there’s a reference to ‘lessons learned from Enron’. One of the ‘lessons’ not learned is that accounting rules and corporate governance need a fundamental restructuring. That did not occur under BushCheney. Given the extend of the disaster they’re leaving behind, Obama’s administration may actually have a chance to address it.
Corker, the Senator from Southern Cerberus, will no doubt be howling over any Obama efforts.
The sad part, Enron was not the first. My husband worked for the “first Enron” government consulting firm which used creative accounting and paid into employee retirement with stock only.
It was SO fun to wake up one day, and discover that over night, the company was discovered to have creative accounting and now our retirement, paid in stock, was worth a penny per share.
There was PLENTY of time an other examples prior in order to catch Enron. The powers that be didn’t want to. They think it is fun to screw the workers and hide the $$$ in off shore accounts just before the fall…and then make $$$ from the CDS’s…
We have been victims of this scheme three times in 25 years of work. Our bad luck evidently. Add to that three times, a health insurance company going into bankruptcy and leaving us to pick up a huge surgical bill…We could write a book on the Reagan Republican deregulation screw to the American worker.
As of 11/’08 The Economist says PBGC is +$14b overstretched, says that’ll grow to $100b in 10 yrs. Point being, PBGC is entirely unequipped to provide bailout.
FWIW, same article has a few things to say about GM’s obligations on this front. (And just so I’m not misunderstood, GM has been much better than most of Fort500 on this front.)
PBGC has been increasingly over burdened in recent years from whole slew of such benefit abdications. And AFAIC, it’s happened by same plan current WS were hatched: eg. the feds will bail us out, so don’t worry about a thing.
Anecdotal but amusing in deranged sort of way (given current US investment mess), PBGC issued this statement in Feb ‘08 in response to awareness of growing but unfunded obligations dropped in their lap:
Might be fun to see how that “new diversified investment policy” went. Recent retirement plans they’ve assumed listed here.
This could be very interesting I wonder how many are GOP Donors?
And best of all, it would screw the taxpayer during a Democratic administration, so they could bray about free-spending Democrats, too! Bonus!
I have been hounding AARP from the very beginning and even mentioned here and at the Lake that the auto bailout was a StrangeBedfellows moment and that we should start with AARP as a partner on THIS very point.
Partnering with AARP should still happen on this concern. It would put the final nail in the coffin, showing the cold, destructive nature of Corker’s party…
oh, there is no doubt corker is fully aware of his plan’s detritus, and no doubt that he could give a rat’s ass (he is one, after all).
OT: i just watched the 12/23 amy goodman interview with jerry nadler, and he pointed out that pardons don’t have any limits, listing among others carter’s pardoning of all draft dodgers. he also said, though, that he’ll be introducing legislation next month to put some limits on the pardon procedures, though it’s not clear to me that can be done without serious constitutional tweeking. not that it does not need to be done, mind you.
on the general pardon issue, digby makes the excellent point (especially excellent, given that now michelle malkin is out in full voice against bush’s pardon of toussie) that the retraction is all about maintaining the rove plans for blocking eric holder’s confirmation as AG. they can’t very well make the objections about the marc rich pardon when bush has now committed the toussie pardon.
josh’s questions on TPM about the legality of a retraction (doesn’t look like there’s any precedent, and no apparent legal grounds for it) notwithstanding, it may be enough for rove’s plan to have bush make the attempt as “the right thing to do” (since when is that a reason for these goons to do anything??). if they make the claim that this is the right way to do things, then maybe the public will fall for it?
i’m betting not. the whole problem with holder’s advice was that it was not fully vetted, which is precisely what happened here (or maybe not; but that’s even worse). my personal suspicion is that this situation, like much of what the republicans tried to do throughout the entire campaign, will backfire in their faces.
hopefully bush’s pardon of – as nadler suggested could happen – “everyone in his administration working to protect the country after 9/11″ would also backfire. that particular specification leaves out their push toward domestic wiretapping as soon as they took office. and i have to doubt that pardons can be so blanket as to have no specification whatsoever. “i hereby pardon all my friends of all crimes, past present and future, whatever they may be, amen.” somehow that does not seem legally possible, nor does it seem it would avoid a backfire.
too bad so sad how they’ve gotten so good at all this criminal activity they’ve painted themselves into all these legal and PR corners. aw.
Nice post, thanks. If the goopers block Holder, I could really give a shit. There are more where he came from.
OT: Professor Fredric R. Jameson awarded Holberg Prize 2008.
Oh, that’s nice. It has been years since I’ve read him, but I remember how important The Prison-House of Language was to my cohort of students. In the seventies, it was good to read and to meet anyone in literary studies who was still insisting on the importance of historical context.
didn’t this happen in september or something? pretty sure that’s right.
The wiki says you’re right, and Jameson accepted his award in late November. Still, I didn’t know, so I’m glad that I do now.
ah; thought so. was too lazy to search. not intimate but always intrigued with his work. should definitely give it a deeper look. thanks for the heads up.
Where’s it say that all the advisees of his advisees get a piece of the $900,000?
I figure I oughta get at least $4500 of that, right?
In the race to the bottom the only immune are the wealthy overlords.
Most people know that my grandfather participated in the Flint MI sitdown strike in 1936…. most of my father’s family has worked in the auto industry or a related industry including my own father who eventually went to college on the WWII GI bill and became a part of academia when AC spark plug was on strike post WWII.
Lets put a face on these retirees……… Meet my Aunt Catherine….. she is 91 years old, she worked 25 years in a GM plant and has been living independently on her retiree pension since my uncle died in 1974.
Meet my cousin Dale, a second generation auto worker…… His father worked 20-30 years on the line at a GM plant and lived on his retirement supporting his wife until their death. Dale went to college and became a auto design engineer and put his years at the same GM plan while supporting his 4 children and a wife dealing with the effects of polio. Dale’s retiree pension supports him and is is able to live independently.
I could go on and on……. so think of Aunt Catherine loosing her pension….. taking away a pension of a 91 yr old wonderful woman……..
I want Corker to look my Aunt in the eyes and tell her that he is going to take away her pension THAT she earned!
Thanks for that.
Care to do an Oxdown post we could then spotlight to Corker and Shelby??
If one or more of the companies goes into bankruptcy, China may be among the first bidders. They could acquire a stable of brands and a footprint in the US for a song. Within a few years we would see chinese chevies.
So the economy’s in meltdown, the US is considering arming every adult in Afghanistan in hopes that they will kill the people we want them to kill, The oceans are rising at a rate that will wipe out coastal cities, Iraqis are killing one another at a glorius rate once again, and the fuckin goopers want to piss about whether this guy is MORAL enough to be AG?
Chrysler is not calling the shots Cerberus is so are they going to be held ultimately responsible? They might not have stock but they own several companies so I’m sure they can sell some.
I think the GOP might have been to clever by half.
But Cerberus is not on the loan.
Who is in charge of GOP strategy taking away pensions as the boomer generation retires? McCain’s greatest Strength was among Older Male White voters these are Reagan Democrats the GOP is screwing.
The GOP can’t win nationally without them.
Am I missing something? Or are they really that stupid?
What’s the status of the “Corker Plan”? It didn’t pass right? But Bush added some of it’s requirements to the IOUs he made the auto industry sign? Was any of this included?
All of the onerous requirements were added to the terms of the loan. The loan, as passed, is basically the House Bill plus Corker’s conditions.
Sure sounds like the rethugs still have a contract on America.
Is Cerberus good for it or are they broke?
As far as politics go, the voters will (rightly) hold dems responsible from anything that gets through congress, even if it was a gooper idea- and will hold Clusterfuck responsible for his negotiations with the auto industry.
Blue America up at the Mothership with activist Mike Stark
Please note that Captain Renault is utterly shocked at the content of this post.
That is all.
bmaz, I put up this diary on the material you sent. Thanks.
America is kinda figuring out that We The People can’t trust ANY repuglitard to do ANYTHING for America
while America is experiencing it’s worst economic disaster in history, the repuglitards are gonna save us from teh gays ???
how does “Barack the Magic Negro” help America ???
it’s all a joke ???
America is on life support here, and the repuglitards think their “light hearted jokes” are fucking funny ???
America is about to show the repuglitards that THEY ARE THE JOKE
wait till the folks in Alabama learn that the bankruptcy of the Big 2.5 will be the end of NASCAR
shelby gonna have some splinin to do, ain’t he ???
In wile e coyote terms, the repuglitards are off the cliff, but they ain’t looked down yet
and in the real world, wile e coyote don’t survive
thanks. and i couldn’t agree more. holder’s good, but not even great. more than ‘plenty more where he came from,’ i’d say there’s just plenty better out there.
On paper they ‘own’ the companies, but then again they’re Private Equity and operate in the shadows. For all anyone knows, they’re insolvent, or perhaps some of their ‘investors’ are Russian oiligarchs, or Israeli munitiions manufacturers, or Taiwanese shipping magnates, or Saudi princes…. Who knows?
Ah, the ’success’ of Free Market Fundamentalism; Dr Evil himself could not have devised a better cloak to hide his deeds behind, now could he?
yeah. isn’t it ironic?
this must be what bush meant by the ‘ownership society’, eh?
hm. i honestly don’t want to go too far OT on this pardon topic, but….
josh has posted a reader comment that i don’t think i understand. according to him:
Apparently, Toussie wanted the pardon to free him from state law disabilities. I believe that it is state law that decides whether the pardon is effective for state purposes. If I am correct, the state law can ignore a valid federal pardon; it can follow whatever the federal rule may be for a revoked pardon; it can decide for its own whether NY state will recognize the revocation. I don’t know what it does, but I think that state sovereignty is pretty unquestioned here.
my ‘ianal’ arse thought that fed law always trumps state law, but does that apply here? totally confusing. can lawyers weigh in? because that just does not make any sense to me.
i’m only interested in all this in order to see how this revocation pans out and how the rove plan will then unfold. or collapse, as the case may be.
ok, i admit there is the trainwreck spectacle also operating here. leave it to the bushies to throw yet another unprecedented nut that confounds us law-abiding citizens.
I wanna know how this thingy worked
did george sign a warrant with 140 names on it and send it to his “warrant clerk” ???
if so, georgy done fucked up, and I don’t want to hear A FUCKING WORD about Holder, jack
kkkarl rove can stick that up his ass and smoke it …
he might have confounded some of the law abiding citizens, but he didn’t fool us non-law abiding citizens
I just ain’t clear on how big a fuckup we’re dealin with here …
Rove should be afraid of spending the rest of his life federal prison, along with Abu Gonzo, and a number of other BushBots. The people who could put him there are at DoJ.
Consequently, I expect him to work behind the scenes creating all kinds of false flag and smear operations in an effort to hope that DoJ will be unable to function until statutes of limitation run out on his numerous crimes.
Note also that BushCheney have just ‘inked a deal’ with Russian Georgia — and that Rove was in that region back in August, around the time of the white flag operation there. Cheney must be anxious to get those pipeline deals nailed up in the next 24 days, and Rove’s evidently got his fingers in that pie as well.
Rove has no sense of shame.
But he’ll attempt to use his media connections and network to have others do his dirty work, and he’ll try to take the role of Pontificator and Analyst while he digs the knife into DoJ.
Holder, IMHO, is a side issue for Rove.
If Santa Claus were nominated for AG, then Rove would start insinuating that Santa is a pedophile who does weird stuff with elves.
If Jesus Christ were nominated for AG, then Rove would have his minions put out the word that JC is a delusional egoist who claims to walk on water.
I suspect that Rove is a cowardly little creep, but he has no ethical boundaries, so he’s always a source of new horrors.
i agree wholeheartedly, and should have articulated the obvious reason rove would want to stall the AG nomination, no matter who it is, as you astutely pointed out.
while it is the case that rove would block santa or jesus or buddha or godalmighty himself, the nominee is holder, and holder’s weak spot is the marc rich pardon, so voila, here we are, watching rove’s operation try to clear the field for their attack on holder next month.
leahy should be alerted, and ready.
There’s a lot of confusion about the Pardon Power to start with – – and what the Water Boy has done so far [and undoubtedly is about to do] isn’t helping.
On the immediate topic, the idea that ‘fed law always trumps state law’ is something that, I think, derives more from appearance than principle.
Put over-simplistically:
[a] Where the Constitution clearly states a power to be that of the federal government exclusively, then just about anything a state government tries to do that might infringe on that power is GOING to be struck down as unconstitutional.
[b] Similarly [though not identically], where the Constitution clearly states a power to be exclusively a state power, then there’s a presumption that when Congress or the executive branch acts in some way that appears to infringe on that power that it OUGHT to be struck down – – but there is room [at various times in history it appears a LOT of room] to argue that when other federal powers, ones not obviously or directly engaged but nonetheless ACTUALLY [ie to a practical purpose or effect] engaged pretty much regardless of how indirectly, are NEGATIVED by the state law or act, in some way that touches on the essence of the ‘grant’ to the federal side, then the courts first will [or should] struggle to ‘accommodate’ the exercise of power over that thing in a way that permits both grants to stand, and only thereafter will rule in favor of one side or the other.
This last sort of ruling is relatively rare, but because over the last 75 years or so the federal side enjoyed the greater success by far, such as by picking its spots, or by raising national security at propitious moments, or by using its far great revenue and its related public funds re-allocation powers to avoid a number of possible losses, or by the fact of who appoints the judges on the SCOTUS, the ‘trump’ effect appears to be greater than chance would explain.
[c] Where the Constitution ALLOWS jurisdiction to pass laws over a thing both to the federal and to state legislatures, and both go on to pass laws over that thing, and a conflict arises between the laws in the sense that to apply one negates the other, or even just might, then the federal power will be interpreted to supercede or even obviate the state power.
Bear in mind that the sort of ‘permission’ that gives rise to this result includes silence – i.e. the complete absence of anything at all on the subject in the Constitution.
There’s an awful lot more room for lawyering in this category than even the history of the development of constitutional law shows [Due to interest in procreative rights, guns, elections and flags, even without the effects of changes in technology and social dynamics, this category is actually the most fertile one.], but even here the greater economic and fiscal power, and of course the greater urgency in times of military crisis, in the federal jurisdiction has mostly won out – which tends to add a lot to the impression of the fed side holding trump cards.
That situation can give, and I think is mainly responsible for having given, rise to the impression that ‘federal jurisdiction trumps state jurisdiction’.
[d] But there’s a much stickier situation when the Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES jurisdiction over a thing both to the fed and to the states. In this area, such considerations that might hold sway in the other categories – – for example which side exercised the power first, or which side’s grants most readily extrapolate into current jurisdiction, or what was said during the Constitutional Congress or in the Federalist Papers that might be stretched to apply today – – aren’t nearly as compelling, and its very difficult to perceive even the existence of trump cards.
All that said [I apologize for the obvious use of generalities, but it’s a big, complicated subject.], I really don’t think any of that applies to the effects of presidential pardons.
The general rule is that while a pardon overturns the court finding of guilt and the effect – – but interestly [IMO importantly] does not recompense the latter, such as by paying a lump sum for X years spent in jail – – it does not – because it ‘can not’ – overturn the facts of what was done – – and it’s THOSE FACTS that can still be acted on.
Thus, if this Tousse character lost some state license entirely due to a court finding of gulity on a charge of theft or fraud, that could mean that with a presidential pardon he would no longer be barred from applying for such a license – – but it also allows for the state licensing body to consider the conduct that resulted in his being found guilty, and using that conduct, as opposed to the fact of conviction, to deny his application.
As a practical matter, one would think that one’s chances of getting away with that conduct NOT coming back to bite one on the bum would depend materially on the political stripe of those in control of the licensing body – – EG I would theorize that Tousse’s chances of exploiting a pardon to gain a state licence would be greater in say, Louisiana, or Tennessee, or Kentucky, than New York – – although I would not wish to speculate about Illinois.
Not meaning to demean your [or Josh Marshall’s] interest in the particulars of the situation in which Tousse ‘finds’ himself, I’m actually more intrigued by the implication Scott Horton sees from this fumble.
In short, if the Water Boy, as he proposes with Tousse, can get away with playing fast and loose with something already as wide open as the pardon power, then what prevents the next president [whoever that might be – oh] from following suit.
The sense in which Horton hears this who is in envisioning a President Obama using his ‘acquired’ pardon white-out power, as a Bush innovation ancillary to the Constitution’s pardon power, to wipe out one or more Bush pardons.
Now take a look at the pardon section and ask yourself: Why the hell not?
So you’re kinda sayin if a pardon can be undone, so can a commutation.
Hmmm. I have the impression that the person who made the pardon would have to undo it…but then, I had never thought of “undoing” a pardon before.
It would seem to me that it depends on whether the action of Pardoning someone is considered a personal action by George Bush or an action by the individual holding the office of President. Assuming, of course, that a Pardon CAN be withdrawn, it would seem to me that the occupant of the office could do so. The pardon power belongs to the office, not the individual. Otherwise, ex-Presidents could issue pardons.
But I’m no lawyer, so I don’t know the law.
Yes, among other things.
And understand: it’s not me saying this, and not even Horton: it’s the logical consequences of Unitardian theory.
As I understand the theory goes like this:
A presidential take on any power – say, to order government employees to torture folks – establishes ‘precedent’ – if unchallenged, to the extent unchallenged, and I mean to the FULL extent, resets the parameters of whatever was the power purportedly used to order it done, subject to, if anything, a specific challenge to the specific use of that power, and then only successfully to the very narrowest of interpretations of that power being at all curtailed.
Thus, by way of examples, the various takes Fielding’s letters have asserted in relation to executive privilege, each of which would seem to some – – like me, or any others who regard the rule of law to hold sway – – to be significantly limited by the case involving Nixon’s tapes – – but to Fielding would only apply to the production of tapes produced from the use of a system installed by a predecessor withheld due to the desire on the part of someone who just happened to be the POTUS to avoid the public finding out what a potty mouth he has – – as opposed to acting on say a president’s formal finding that covering up the involvement of the White House in attempting to suppress a federal investigation into an otherwise felonious breaking into private property was a matter engaging the president’s hegemony over what qualifies as a national security matter.
Now it’s not even clear that either Bush or Cheney would keep their crayons within those generous lines – – I’m inclined to think those two would even cite what Nixon said to Frost as being constitutionally definitive, no matter how many lawyers and judges pointed out the ridiculous consequences of taking that to its logical extremes. But we’re talking here about a system that at least claims to adhere to some theory of legality, no matter how vaguely defined, as opposed to the Bush-Cheney School of Making Up Shit To Paper Over What You Did.
I get what you are saying but isn’t the unitary executive a bit more limited than that as is has been practiced even with respect to the current administration. The key is the notion of the executive as the unimpeded principal of the executive branch. What you describe is derived on the deployment of this notion into the DOJ so that there is not effective prosecutorial check on executive excesses even at the cost of ethical violations in the context of professional independence at bar which too are shielded by notions of secrecy, privilege and reviewed administrative processes.
Of course it is the tendency of imperial governments for the sake of flexibility to look for precedent in custom moving beyond the prescribed Constitutional remedies the of course the theory of the unitary executive is thereby expanded. But as Boumediene shows the judiciary has not ceded it capacity to check as of yet and even Alito has a record of allowing certain section 1983 claims.
Its interesting to note that Cheney suggests that Obama will enjoy his expanded executive power. Of course it is a temptation. And to the degree that any class thrives of the “potlatch”, moral issues like slavery, global hunger and torture will be rationalized to the extent necessary for the protection of a perceived self-interest. Of course such policies diminish the the values of an education in human potential, a-historical, and ultimately anarchic being only brutal. So I guess it just goes to show that enlightened self-interest is not an intrinsic response but comes at a cost of inquiry.
It is really not such a stretch to insist upon judicial oversight of administrative processes. And while I can see you might find these observations akin a “whistling in the dark,” the emergent result will be thwarted without interest. In any event the certain undermining of the Nuremburg standards currently asserted is a uniquely Oedipal moment and so deeply tragic in its naivete.
I hope I’m not being presumptuous, but I think what you’re saying here is that neither Bush nor Cheney could give a refried damn whether anything they decide or do is arguably legal under any coherent theory of law; all they’re after is the effect, i.e. “legal cover”.
If that’s it, I’m certainly not about to argue the point.
Well that’s not quite it if you consider the vanity (or fear) that required them to surround themselves with hacks (insecure sophists, sycophants, etc.)who tell them they are right. Its more like they are going to one up the law. Its only right after an era of strict liability in products torts.
But any event I am sure they are convinced they can purchase the truth or at least bid on it. So why not issue executive opinions to match the processes of the judiciary. The dumbed-down public will be none the worse in their failure to comprehend the displacement of imperfect wisdom for jolly snarky self-righteous avarice.
george an dick been makin their own reality for 8 years
on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama get to create reality for george an dick
and they ain’t gonna like it …
i agree. with you and with scott horton. that’s why i said in my original comment that this could well backfire. not just because i don’t think the public will swallow the do-over excuses, but it opens up such a huge can o’ worms.
rove has been playing a desperate game for quite some time now. well, all along, really. but his slimy style has been catching up with him, and it seems he’s spending almost all his time and energy on damage control. it’s a recipe for grave mistakes. and though there is a certain logic to his current, immediate agenda, he’s just not capable of seeing the big picture and the overall feasibility of his decisions.
too bad so sad.
Exactly right. I will add one further thing to that though. If the action, say by the NY Realtor Board or whatever applicable state agency could be at issue, was per se and automatic – i.e. suspension is automatic upon conviction, then Lab Dancer is right on about them being able to reconsider based upon the actual criminal conduct. However, if the suspension was considered on the merits, there is at least a cognizable argument that it gets overturned and there can be no rehearing. Whether that argument would succeed would depend on the nature of how the administrative charging complaint was pled and the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated. Not saying this would definitively be a winner, but there is an argument there.
I’m not sure if this captures everything you mean to refer to – –
but imagine the situation of a state licensing body with a set of regulations that included one that stated that the license of any person who was finally convicted in a US court of a crime, being one among a list of crimes including theft and fraud, could be revoked, simply by the holding of a hearing to review his ‘fitness’ for that license, in the context of which proof could be offered in some sort of affidavit or certificate that definitively evidences his having been convicted of such a crime – which, unless rebutted by evidence that the conviction was actually against a different person or some such error, would alone necessarily result in the license being revoked [or if it was an original application it being refused.] – – and that otherwise evidence eligible to be introduced as to the ’suitability’ of a prospective licence holder would be framed more narrowly than the behavior covered in the offences.
In that situation, I can see how a presidential pardon would work, because in essence the state had decided in effect to put itself at risk of it working.
And I expect, lawyers being lawyers, a lot of other scenarios would work as well, though perhaps not as cleanly.
Yeah, that is kind of it. And I have seen this argument work before too. Not specifically on pardons, but where professionals were convicted of crimes that were later overturned on appeal. One of my partners did professional board representation work and pulled this off for a client whose appeal I finally won a couple of years after conviction. For this exact reason, at least the State Bar usually now makes pro forma independent findings and conclusions on these cases now behind the theoretically automatic suspension provisions. Don’t know if other agencies do the same now, but I suspect they now do.
You know to there is an understanding in many jurisdictions of the idea of “moral” rehabilitation that is recognized by many licensing bodies. Of course it requires the creation of a record sufficient to show supervised activity with out “turpitude” for some period of time. But its not a novel suggestion.
My question is what does Bush’s Pardon do for Toussie in the numerous civil suits that are outstanding against him for his criminal actions? I assume that those suits are under state law.
Can a pardon for a federal crime immunize an individual from civil lawsuits related to that crime? And even if so, does the state civil court have to consider the federal pardon at all?
No, doesn’t affect the civil suits. As to your other question, it indeed is an act of the office as you assert. Quite frankly, I am not sure that Bush gets to revoke this thing after he signed the collective pardon warrant with Toussie’s name included and made the contents of the document public. We will see, there really is no direct on point precedent. If you ask me, I would say no revocation, the deed is done and Toussie keeps his pardon.
that’s also my gut sense, but then, i am notoriously NOT a lawyer.
but permit me to assert my reason for bringing all this up here at this time. twofold. only one point had to do with the toussie pardon, which to my mind, the revocation thereof has everything to do with clearing the way for rove’s plan to block holder’s confirmation.
the other point had to do with cheney’s recent PR work, which seems to me designed to prep the public, revise the history, laying the groundwork for his own blanket pardon. on that particular count, i wondered if there is precedent for pardons without a crime specified. i mean, if bush pardons cheney for anything, one would assume there is admission that a crime was committed. that list is nearly endless and needs no prompting here. but i’m confused as to how bush would pull that off without some admission of a crime. and more curiously, just how would he limit that list? if he pardons cheney for war crimes, then what happens to the wiretapping? and plame? and profiteering? and defrauding the public into war? etcetcetc….
thoughts on that business would be most appreciated. and if it’s been covered ad nauseam here before, my apologies; can’t keep up daily, i’m afraid.
thanks again.
wow. i mean, WOW!
it will take a while to process all this, so i’m not sure i could make an intelligent comment here. but thanks so much for the review of the situation. as far as i can tell, it supports my intuition, though i was unaware the history and precedent were so flimsy.
thanks again. so much.
still trying to digest this. i’m thinking it might help to have some specific examples and references. you speak with the confidence of someone who knows of what you speak, but also with the confidence that this reader at least also knows. at least, knows far more than is the case.
apologies; not to make you work too hard, but this is a fascinating distinction that i’m sure is not cut and dry in the courts. but am curious about the details.
thanks again.
This risks getting me to dive in my teaching notes.
At the outset of introductory courses typically I’ll suggest to the first class [I set it up on the time-tested theory that the first class and the one just before the final exam are the only two where you can expect full attendance – the first because they get the course syllabus and the last because everyone wants their own take on gleaning what areas might need a little more attention – and it’s only good manners to oblige, given a lot of these folks are professionals, or will be.] to list out the activities any of the LARGEST federal agencies claims to cover [What each the BEST-KNOWN federal agences claims to cover can yield a misleading picture.], then try to match what’s on that list to where the power to do it arises in the Constitution.
The vast majority of those powers fit completely within what’s assumed to be a highly detailed, complex development of the federal power over interstate commerce. The trick is that, just reading through the case law on interstate commerce, you get the distinct impression the feds have lost way more than they’ve won – and you’re right!
What’s insidious about those cases is that, right in the facts – not the law, but in the factual contexts – over time, the federal executive branch just keeps creeping, and creeping, and creeping forward, right over top the rulings of the courts. Its that mission-creep if you will, not rationalization to the Constitution, that has ended up defining the reach of the federal power.
For example: what gives the federal government so much power over how food is grown? Well, some of it comes from the fact that produce is fungible in the sense of being moveable over state lines, by truck, over interstate highways; some more comes as a result of events where the federal government has been allowed to exert some strategic control, such as in wartime or in some other crisis, and with the end of the war or the crisis, it never gave up quite all that power, or maybe not much of it at all if everyone seemed content to keep on truckin’; more still comes from the fact that trickles flow into creeks that flow into streams that flow into rivers that flow into federal waterways; but most of all it’s the insidiousness of incidental control the feds exercise over mining practices that gives it de facto control over the way in which foodstuffs get produced.
So then whenever they read a case about some multi-year court battle to force a private mining concern to comply with federal pollution standards, they’ll be able to see its less about mining, and more about a range of interests many of which may not be involved in the battle, or even have standing to do so.
You know who gets this? Obama. Not that our approaches to teaching this subject are all that alike [or that I’m anywhere near as good at it]; but to use as my source something that surfaced very late in the election, the so-called “interview” in which he discussed his so-called “theories of re-distribution”, listen to some of that and you’ll hear that he recognizes that what the courts get to say on the interpretation of laws – and by extension statutes, the legislation itself – though important, are not nearly as important as what the executive branch does with its power.
We could spend the next year discussing the Commerce Clause and what it has been expanded into. Personally, I don’t have a problem generally; my main beef is that the government has failed to use the powers properly and efficiently to regulate and protect the people per the purpose of the expansion.
A two sentence take on a year long subset’s worth of Con Law.
Con Law?
Are you referring to Bush’s DOJ?
I sincerely hope that you are correct.
oh man, thank you SO much. this is immensely helpful. wow. appreciate your putting so much into this answer. it makes sense. i suppose i was after some cut and dry constitutional definition, something that put it all down to the document, but it certainly makes sense that the rules – fuzzy to begin with – get eroded over time, depending on circumstances.
for what it’s worth, this reminds me of godel. right, that godel, the theorem guy. roughly put, no system can be simultaneously comprehensive and coherent.
well, the story goes like this. i read a review in harper’s of a book on the conversations between godel and einstein, and was particularly intrigued by the tidbit that godel was quite exercised that he’d found an internal error in the constitution. i was so intrigued, in fact, that i bought the book (also a huge einstein groupie, truth be told).
so, here’s the error in the constitution. simply put, godel felt that the constitution relied on rules/laws to solve everything, which he believed was a huge mistake.
i have to agree (my reasons are esoteric and afield, so i’ll spare you), but would have reminded godel that the founding fathers, jefferson especially, felt the document must be organic and alive, and revised frequently, replete with a revolution every generation or so. but given that, by the time godel was studying it for his naturalization test (he barely passed, pointing out the error to the judge; he was only saved by einstein’s presence), the document had become completely frozen into place. almost petrified, if you will.
all these thoughts make me even more suspicious of scalia than i ever was before. geez, that guy does give me the creeps.
anyway, thanks again. tremendously helpful.
I’ve been puzzled by the cheerfulness of the republicans in the face of their huge losses in November. It has just come to me that they have screwed up this country so badly that it can only get worse and they will, as emptywheel says about corker, blame Obama for it all – the wars, the economy, and anything else that can and will go wrong.
For instance, bush and saakashvili just signed a defense pact that is going to irritate the hell out of the Russians which will make any entente between our countries that much harder for Obama to achieve. The Russians have already confirmed that they are selling *defensive* missiles to Iran. No doubt this is due at least in part to the bushies’ missiles in eastern Europe and the threats to include Georgia and the Ukraine in NATO. Sometimes I despair that the world will every be put to right again.
what kind of pension plan does bob corker have or is he not planning on retiring?
too, even
Hey Marcy,
Ran into a senior citizen today at the library who worked in Detroit for 30 years. She and her husband both worked there. They now live in Columbus.
She shared about what her life will be like should the southern Repugs (I shared the term Plantation Caucus and she howled…) be successful in killing the UAW. She cannot understand why her hard work was good for the country when the country needed it, but now that she and her husband are retired, Bob Corker does not think either of them are good enough to preserve their retirement or health care.
She suggested the Bob Corker hand over his personal retirement fund to her and her husband.
Her biggest frustration is that it is the exception, not the rule, that she runs into a well informed citizen regarding the auto industry bailout. I encouraged her to come visit here. She is willing to meet Bob Corker face-to-face and ask him why he wants to take both her and her husband’s retirement and health care away.
She, Mr. klynn and myself talked for an hour. Our kids listened the whole time. Others at the library started to stand in earshot to listen in and many were learning the economic realities and the root motives of Corker and crew for the first time.
Not enough people get any of this Marcy. Otherwise, more citizens would be outraged.
you know, this is just profoundly interesting.
reminds me of how it was that the birth of our constitution was hamstrung by the southern states’ insistence on slavery with impunity (the ‘great’ compromise), how they tore the nubile country asunder with that insistence, and how devastating the legacy of those ‘plantation’ sentiments have been, and continue to be, for all of us. the world over, it seems.
i spent most of my life in the south (in fact, i’m visiting GA right now), and i swear, it’s like another world down here. could not consider returning for just about anything. but then there is the fact that it sure won’t change if we leave it to the good ol’ boys. besides, it seems pretty clear that the sea change in this last election for the southern states of NC and VA, and damn near GA, had lots to do with the influx of northern bodies for research, etc. hard to consider, but then it would be blessed payback…..
an old friend i met decades ago as kids (in TN, actually) told me about one decade ago that the republican party had been taken over by aliens, and that many many christians were moving up from the south into MN to set up housekeeping, join the republican party, and take over the school commissions and run for other offices. it almost worked; the thought of folks like coleman and pawlenty in a dem enclave like MN is appalling. but there it is.
or was. perhaps the strategy is not such a bad one, after all. though i prefer the natural migration that has been happening in the south to what the dominionists perpetrated over last fifteen years or so.
That has more that a grain of truth in it. As one who lives here in Minnesota, I’ve witnessed (and definitely not Jehovah’s *g*) those
fanatics’folks’ grab for power.They have had some success at the state legislature level, and at the local level in some of the more densely-fundy communities, but to many a Democratic Minnesotan, they’ve long ago worn out their welcome.
Their chances of grabbing power in either of the 2 biggest cities; Minneapolis and Saint Paul, is slim and none, and Slim already left town.
However, it would not at all surprise me if they were able to grab control of Mayoral position or a majority of city council members at a smaller, more rural Minnesota city/town/village.
Rural areas, as is the case nation-wide, are their real stompin’ grounds.
well actually, this did take place in st. paul, and it has been going on for at least fifteen years.
i think they reached their saturation point, though. michelle bachmann is doing a good job of exposing the nutjob element, and coleman’s behavior throughout the recount, not to mention his simultaneous investigation, have really left a completely sour taste in everyone’s mouth, from what my pal tells me.
and then, of course, there is the lingering rage over the repug convention. man, locals were royally ticked; the on again off again plans, the cancellations and reduction of events, the near conspiratorial avoidance of local restaurants, and when they did go, they were terrible tippers.
yes, folks, your republicans hard at work at what they do best, scamming the american public.
Eh, I heard you were a Michelle Bachman supporter….
Hah! That women with the crazy eyes (and mirror of her soul) is ensconced in a the legislative district north of the Twin Cities where the Fundies are so thick, one trips over them getting one’s mail.
I used to live out that way and my “neighbors” literally made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.
Thank doG I moved back into the Cities. Protection from the aliens, doncha know?
Obama has used the phrase: “We only have one President at a time.”
At present, we have NO President.
THAT is why Israel planned to use this period of time during the Lame Duck transition to kill as many Palestinians as possible, under false flag pretenses (their favorite technique).
A genocide of massive proportions has begun, and NOBODY will stop it.
Obama will say nothing, in deference to his true master, the Master of all who are (s)elected to serve Israel’s AGENDA.
Corker may be the point man on this, but it could have been head off early if OUR representatives were smart and had spines. I was screaming early on that they were going after the retirees, and that America would have a fit if they understood, but didn’t. Even smart people I knew didn’t get it because they didn’t have the time to follow it closely, once I pointed out what was happening a lot of the reluctance about another bail out was diffused. Many times because I also let them know about the PBGC.
It was clear that throwing retirees to the wolves was a big part of the plan from the first time anyone referred to “Legacy Costs”. Every time that euphemism was used, a Democratic or Rust Belt representative should have corrected it and called it retiree cost, clearly making it about retirees. Just as they should have corrected that ridiculous 70 dollar figure every time and everywhere they could. Even though the most damaging information, Toyota’s drop, came after all this went down (and who doesn’t think they sat on that info to help screw the competition) information about Germany, Sweden and Korea was available and should have been being put out every time ‘failed’ was said, but that is another comment.
This failure was extended during the second visit to the Washington when the UAW should have come with some of those retirees – particularly if they had been on the line during WWII. And the Dems should have been ready with all the figures about the PBGC and let the Plantation Republicans know they were ready to throw this into the mix to call their bluff (this is a big old bucket of worms that no one wants to address right now.)
It would have been great if the AARP had been brought on board, but that was the least of the failures of the Auto companies, the Union and the Democratic Congress to represent and protect the retirees in this.