Miers And Bolten Can Kicked Down The Road
The opinion by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in the Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten subpoena matter has just been issued. The court has granted the stay requested by the Bush Administration; which, by all appearances, will effectively end the litigation as the subpoenas presumptively expire on January 3, 2009 when the term of the current 110th Congress expires. The opinion is short, easily understandable and should be read by one and all to get a first hand look at truly mendacious appellate judicial practice.
The present dispute is of potentially great significance for the balance of power between the Legislative and Executive Branches. But the Committee recognizes that, even if expedited, this controversy will not be fully and finally resolved by the Judicial Branch—including resolution by a panel and possible rehearing by this court en banc and by the Supreme Court—before the 110th Congress ends on January 3, 2009. At that time, the 110th House of Representatives will cease to exist as a legal entity, and the subpoenas it has issued will expire.
….
In view of the above considerations, we see no reason to set the appeal on an expedited briefing and oral argument schedule. If the case becomes moot, we would be wasting the time of the court and the parties.
Last I heard consummate can down the road kicking was not an affirmative duty in the judicial canons. This is buggered up. Basically the Court has said "We’re going to presume there would be further appeal, which we are going to presume will take us past the moot date of Congress turn over – and VIOLA – it is already therefore effectively moot. Buh bye, gotta go lunch and martini now!"
Lest you think I am kidding about the pernicious nature of this decision, get a load of the specially concurring, and kind of dissenting, Judge Tatel:
Nevertheless, I am perplexed by the panel majority’s willingness to grant a stay while hypothesizing that the expiration of the 110th Congress might moot the case before it is heard on the merits. Never have we granted a stay that would have the effect of irrevocably depriving a party of its victory in the district court. Nor have we authority to do so, for a stay in such circumstances would necessarily cause "substantial” — indeed, overwhelming — harm.
Man; no kidding. That is kind of an understatement there Judge.
As much of a disgrace as this opinion is, the real fault lies with Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and the Democratic Leadersheep as they intentionally strung out the filing of this litigation to an extent that compels the conclusion this is the precise result they desired.
The Democratic Leadership screwed off all kinds of time in addressing the issue, and, when they finally did, they completely rejected common sense, and even Judge Bates’ advice that they needed to man up and exercise their Constitutional prerogatives. By that, of course, he was referring to the exercise of their inherent contempt power.
Par for their course, Pelosi, Hoyer et al. did not even discuss protecting and defending the Constitution and the Congressional prerogative inherent under the Separation of Powers. These "leaders"are so derelict in their duty as to be treasonous.
I sort of thought they were saying, “Lets see whether President Obama and his huge House majority want to limit executive power this way.”
Which I’d like proof of myself. But again, political gamemanship is not the role of the court.
Yeah, the last sentence would be the operative one really. Why couldn’t they expedite it? What further briefing needed to be done? How does the DCCCA get to blithely determine that the SCOTUS would or would not accept the case and would or would not do so on an expedited basis?
This is so freaking arrogant and presumptuous that it is stupifying. Arbitrary and capricious are far too kind.
Have you tried to get ahold of Conyers yet? Ask him what he thinks of this.
He is busy writing a little letter.
Might as well mail to his local DJ.
Roll over, Pelosi!
SAWX WIN!!!!
Whatta game…
Will the 111th fail to pursue subpeona’s? I seems the fortress will be easier to breach when they are all out of power.
Who knows, but what the hell relevance is that to this case?
How does a congress that takes their congressional responsibilities seriously and move this decision up the ladder? Where does this go next if congress acts how did the Secretary of the Treasury push the bailout/rescue/investiment “QUICKLY”
Bmaz Can this be moved along ‘quickly”? Or is this it?
One would think that the lack of faith that the American people have in congress and our courts would be enough of a reason to move this along as quickly as possible.
“substantial” indeed overwhelming harm” Not enough harm in the publics view of congress, the courts and the executive branch going around.
What do you mean moved along quickly? This thing is done unless the House files an emergency application to SCOTUS; but they should not be the ones having to do that.
Sorry I do not understand the law and process. Just asking a question about what could possibly come next if congress was acting responsibly? “Emergency application to SCOTUS” I guess is the answer to my question.
This stinks almost as bad as the game I saw at the Big House on Saturday. Maybe worse.
I think the Congress and Obama will be able to get plenty done without politicizing the justice department. I hope they pick this up, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t
Pssst! Last I checked, a “VIOLA” was a musical instrument.
That has been my thought, too, but it seemed too “wild” to mention in public.
Bob in HI
So I get it if you are just outside of the fortress trying to get in (Palin and the 7 individuals who refused to testify in Troopergate) subpoenas may matter according to Judge in Alaska.
But once inside the fortress (Meiers, Bolton) the same subpoena rules do not apply?
bmaz, I took the majority’s opinion to be an in-your-face dare to both the Democratic Congress (the current 110th and the future 111th) as well as the future incoming Democratic Administration.
The dare was: “If you want to re-open this Repug politicization of the law on your own watch, have at it. Until then, we close our eyes and see no harm, no foul.”
And as you rightly point out, Nancy “Everything is off the table” Pelosi has been instrumental in preventing any punishment for this criminal Administration.
And given the almost endless laundry list of criminal wrongdoing by this Administration, if the new Democratic Administration and Congress were to deign to focus on any particular wrongdoing, my bet is that this one is so far done their list, it will never see the light of day.
Me, a cynic? However could one arrive at the conclusion? *g*
They are not going to be able to move the Americans faith in them up the meter or the rest of the worlds faith in this country if they do not start holding the rest of the Bush administration THUGS accountable.
I do not care how many times the Democrats (Obama too) and the Republicans keep singing the same chorus “Move forward, turn the page, that was then this is now” hogwash. The American public is not buying it.
I take a slightly different view. And I do wish it wasn’t so.
While folks who hang around here are not likely to forget (much less forgive), I’m guessing the average American’s attention span will have indeed mostly moved on.
Much to our disappointment, but there it is.
The average American doesn’t even know about the Attorney firings, much less the Bolten-Miers subpoenas.
Why do polls report that such a small percentage of Americans have any faith in congress or the Supreme court. Why have those polls been steady? While many American citizens may not be able to be specific as to why they have no faith there is a very and measurable discontent and anger. ( I try hard to interact with all sorts of people and people are pissed off)
The measurable lack of trust that permeates Americans attitudes is like having a bad case of termites in the walls of your home. They eat away at the structure and only show themselves when they swarm. The destruction is still taking place and if not treated that house will crumble.
Republicans and Democrats alike (including Obama) keep repeating ” turn the page, move on, that was then this is now”. But folks know that the Republicans who have blocked every effort that the Democrats have attempted to hold the Bush administration thugs accountable have mostly been unsuccessful. On top of that the Democrats have not tried hard enough.
The lack of accountability will continue to eat away at the internal structure of this country.
Oh, and EW? Superlatives are not enough for today’s Barton Gellman Salon!
Thank you!
I only wish I could’ve joined in real-time. Barton seemed to enjoy himself and is apparently no stranger to the blogosphere. I get the feeling he has even hung around here at The Lake now and then.
Nice post, bmaz.
And the opinion all but spells out how Congress handed this argument to the DCCCA:
If Congress didn’t feel enough urgency in the matter to push this into the courts for almost nine months, they’ve kind of shot themselves in the foot when they try to tell the appeals court “hurry! hurry! hurry!” at this point.
No kidding. It gets worse though. In conjunction with this stay application, the freaking counsel for the House said this:
Let me translate this jive. The House, through their attorney agreed it would not get done! Why the hell would they admit that?
They were under oath?
(ducking)
Seriously, if asked the question, they ought to have put it back on the court: “We think this case is open and shut. The district court agreed with us, and we have no doubts you will too. Should your decision be appealed to SCOTUS, they may or may not take up the case, and if they do, would do so on a date of their choosing. But that’s for them to decide. You have the power to do your part, quickly, should you choose to do so.”
I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and attempt to “explain” the thought processes (not reasoning, no not that, not even close) of the Democratic Leadership (a non sequitur I know, but the Villagers like it).
First and foremost, the Democratic Leadership isn’t really interested in pushing this litigation because they don’t like the odds of failure.
The Democratic Leadership views the Judiciary as a “stacked deck”; stacked with “loyal Bushies” over the course of the last 8 years.
The conventional wisdom is that the Article III Judiciary is loathe to intervene in a political brouhaha between the Article I Legislature and Article II Executive.
The current Democratic Leadership fears that that the current SCOTUS, stacked with those “loyal Bushies”, just might happily jump at the chance to eviscerate the Article I Legislature’s rights and award the bout to the Article II Executive.
So the current Democratic Leadership would rather pass on escalating this litigation in the hope that they could make future SCOTUS appointments more to their liking.
Couple that with the current Democratic Leadership’s view that all these miscreants who ducked their subpoenas will have left town come January 20th, 2009, and their view that in the end this was “much ado about nothing” since it was only Repug politicos trashing Repug US Attorneys after all, why then you have a perfect recipe for doing nothing.
Don’t get me wrong. Though I think I can explain the Democratic Leadership’s thought processes, I’m not saying that I agree with either their conclusions or their actions.
I disagree.
The leadership punted this, not because they feared failure in the courts but they feared that this would be a bad political move that the GOP would use against them in the elections: “The Dems are just interested in political gamesmanship; they’re just trying to pay the GOP back for what happened to Clinton; they’re just trying to score political points — we’re the one’s interested in governing.” The democratic leaders remember how folks turned on the congressional GOP after the fiasco of the Clinton impeachment, and don’t want that kind of anger foisted on them.
The courts, and SCOTUS in particular, are not likely to give up Marbury v. Madison and rule that the law is whatever Bush says it is. A valid subpoena is a valid subpoena, and if Richard Nixon wasn’t immune from one, how the hell can Miers and Bolton be immune?
I’d agree with your Peterr if the issue was the War in Iraq, Warrantless Surveillance, even Torture.
But White House staffers defying Congressional subpoenas? That seems like too much “inside baseball” for most folks. I mean neither Josh Bolton nor Harriet Miers are household names for most folks.
I think in this particular case, there was very little fear of Repug electioneering bad-mouthing.
Not impossible mind you, but I myself wouldn’t put much money on it.
Anyways, just MHO so JMMV. *g*
I’d agree with ya MD, but, do you remember the squall the Repugs made when they first raised the issue of subpoenaing Meirs? The Dems quickly retreated until the Bolten matter rose up and they finally merged the two subpoenas…!
If Congress didn’t feel enough urgency in the matter to push this into the courts for almost nine months, they’ve kind of shot themselves in the foot when they try to tell the appeals court “hurry! hurry! hurry!” at this point.
Remember when Marcy asked John Conyers about inherent contempt? Conyers didn’t seem too pleased that the public was aware of that….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2BJc7RDpNY
No, they have open and notoriously refused to even utter the words.
Tabled, right alongside the impeach talk…!
Would that be inherent contempt for Inherent Contempt?
that would inherently involve torture.
more and better dems needed, asap
Barack, in January, invite nancy and steney and harry down to the white house for some lemonade, and tell them (a) how to administer an ass-kicking, (b) that it is time to administer an ass-kicking, and (c) who it is you have lined up to replace them if they don’t do it.
Heh, that is right out of Mad Magazine’s “Scenes We Would Like To See”.
Good One!
So how does this affect Rove? ( I had the same question as John Forde, btw, glad I didn’t ask it!)
I’m a sports fan, but with recent historical events that include two stolen elections, lies about the perpetrators of 9/11 which has been used to justify two wars leading to the brutal murder of over a million people and the implosion of our economy, I find it hard to believe TV analysts are debating the wisdom of a handoff. Talk about bread and circuses.
So far as any Judicial Testing of Bush’s UE Powers goes – on issues like the USA Firings, the Program, Torture, etc, etc – all the Abuse of Power incidents in the last eight years – I’m afraid Bush and Cheney have run out the Clock.
I think We at this site, in particular, have long noted the Bush Administration’s Obsession with Staying Out of Court on Any Challenges to Bush’s UE Perogatives.
And, honestly, the Root Issue at the heart of All these various incidents – each of which feature Bush making decisions Beyond the Reach of the Rule of Law – is Bush’s Claim to be the UE. Using those UE Powers – in Secret – he’s been able to Game the Rule of Law so that We can’t even Investigate his Actions or Hold him to Account.
Now, there’s nothing on the Table that get’s US that Judicial Test of the UE in the next 29 days, or even the rest of this Congress – I have a feeling that Fielding’s got enough ‘time-killers’ left in his bag to block any expediting We may come up with.
I’m not saying, I’m just saying – but, it looks like Bush and Cheney are going to get to ‘bag’ all of their UE/Abuse of Power Events and Records, and drag them with them off stage.
In exchange, We get back the Rule of Law – and enough Control in the House and Senate to work with President Obama to Make Sure This Never Happens Again.
Basically, Bush is pulling a Musharraf, and like Pervy – who became Dictator ‘for the Good of Pakistan’ – Chimpy is planning on a ‘pristine’ walk-away for he and Cheney, and All his Loyal Followers.
He might get away with it, too. At least until the next Administration – but We certainly aren’t going to get Justice in the next 29 days.
So, imvho, for the Next Four Weeks, We’ve got to hold course, flying through the Flak of Bush Outrage and Hit the Target:
Take Back America!
turns out that Sarah Palin is a mocha-sipping elitist.
The “LAW” seems (at least at the ‘majority’ whim of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals) most intent upon becoming a pathetic laughing-stock.
Whatever ‘cynicism’ is expressed by those of us who are anguished by this state of affairs pales into nothingness when compared to the cynicism expressed by that ‘majority’.
Having run, rough-shod over justice, they have backed up, squishing the bloody ‘remains’ further, only to peel out, with tires spinning, making certain of the heck-of-a job.
“Substantial”, “overwhelming” and deliberately terminal.
Way to go, guys. You’ve done ‘Murkuh proud, you have.
The Federal Judiciary have been managing, for the most part, a heck-of-a job since the unConstitutional (and, quite possibly, illegal) intrusion of the Supremes in Bush v. Gore.
See the items the SCOTUS is gooing to be taking up – more leg up for biz. As in forget about pro-life we are all going to be owned.
Unless Cheney is president at some point before 1/20/09 and pardon’s him, W is left holding the entire bag.
I’m with Bugliosi. Go after him bigtime via the states and their AGs and prosecutors, and then bring in all of those complicit in his activities.
Throw the book at them.
Bugliosi is freaking nuts; his theories are not worth the air used to discuss them.
Next.
George W. Bush was/is the Manchurian Candidate.
Where does the Constitution say that the House (or Senate, or anything) CEASES TO EXIST at the end of a term?
What a novel idea! Tell that to the IRS: that year you want to audit doesn’t exist anymore. The police: that crime was so yesterday.
It’s in the rules of the House, not in the Constitution. Just like any bills that were introduced but not acted upon die at the end of a session of Congress (i.e., when everyone’s terms in office end), so too do these subpoenas. If you want that bill passed, you have to re-introduce it when the new Congress convenes — and the same goes for those subpoenas.
So if the House were now to change that rule…
One little prob, Hmmm, the House is effectively shut down until after the election and won’t be very effective until the 111th is sworn in…!
Hi CT. Just sayin’ they could get it done if they really wanted to. And since it’s not gettin’ done, they must not really want it that bad.
Can’t argue that…!
Nope.
That rule exists for a good reason. If a bill or a subpoena is important enough, it should be pushed through in one Congress or reintroduced in another.
But Congress should have made a better presentation in their brief on this case, to take into account the limited amount of time under which this subpoena is effective. In some of the legal cases involving pregnancies and abortions, for instance, there are ways in which the lawyers broaden the case so that if the baby is born before the case is decided, the courts still have to move forward and decide the issue before them, rather than simply washing their hands and saying “Oh well, I guess since the baby has been born (or the abortion procured), the case before us is moot.”
But fundamentally, bmaz’s point at the top is the big one: how dare the court refuse to rule on the case before it, on the grounds that the losing party MAY appeal, that SCOTUS MAY accept the case, and that their ultimate decision MAY come down after the subpoenas expire.
The case is in your courtroom today, judges. It might have been nice it if came to you a year ago, but them’s the breaks. It’s here now, and for you to punt because of what the parties may do in the future is just about the stupidest legal reasoning you could have put down on paper.
No aspersions on the merits of the rule in general, just pointing out that in this particular case, after today’s ruling, if the House truly wanted to move forward, it still could. What’s lacking is sufficient determination, not options.
You don’t go to the bench with the case you want, you go to the bench with the case ya got.
Practically, they may even be right; but you still don’t get to just assume that. The game is four quarters old wrinkly dudes and dudette; play it out.
(Pains me to say it, but Rummy’s construction that you borrow there is an excellent one, rhetorically speaking.)
That’s why they get a lifetime of big bucks, right?
Watch you mouth
Signed: an old wrinkly dudette
Nice to see you again, Bedbug.
Is this because, as has been contended that Nancy, Steny et al have some irons in the FISA fire and perhaps other intelligence activities which might be unconstitutional with even the most liberal interpretations of their activities.
I have always suspected that Glorious Dear Leader limited intel with the express intent of using that as a tool to co-opt selected congresscriminals into supporting his dubious programs. Now we know who the players were, we have yet another strike at the heart of the republic.
Well, at least Nancy, Steny and all the others still have their parking spaces on Capitol Hill.
You know, I have no clue. My best guess is that it is a combination of that plus just sheer electoral posturing; convinced they get the biggest majority and thus the most power if they don’t create waves.
Great post, bmaz… I suspect you’re right. Lack of waves seems to somehow (in their petite minds) equate to continued power, extension of their control over everything (that matters to them anyhow), and hoping that they can control whomever controls the White House if at all possible.
No doubt that we have a failed legislative branch, and now apparently the Judicial is failing as well. Three down, none to go… is it the political end of days?
Off topic:
When Sarah Palin the pretty white woman was yelling to the crowd of neck drooling white guys today that ‘Barack Obama raped her’, one of the men yelled, “Kill him!”:
http://voices.washingtonpost.c….._roug.html
Sarah said nothing in response. Well, of course she didn’t. She’s stuck in the racist 1950’s. Spit.
Thanks for posting this!
I created an Oxdown Gazette diary out of it because it needs to be shouted from the rooftops!
Hate-mongering and out and out incitement!
Frodo failed, Bush got the ring
Speaking of Frodo, are any Facebook members here planning to take (or have already taken) a walk because they hired him as their general counsel? I was about to join (late adopter that I am) but for now have decided not to. What does Fredo’s affiliation with FB mean for privacy therein?
1,7878 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen bmaz and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Thanx there Citizen bmaz, I needed that more’n a sharp stick in a soft place…but what the hell, why is anyone surprised or outraged. Our system of justice is rotten from top to bottom. The federal court system has been a gatekeeper for our corporate oligarchy for more’n a hundred years and even the IDEAs of “rule of law” and “equal protection” are now considered a left wing plot. The rot is so extensive that it will take 20 years of Democratic rule of the legislative and executive to put it right…and then I ain’t certain that even that will make a difference when I look at folks like Harold Ford poised ta take some kinda leadership position (maybe Michelle Obama has some Chia Pets that need a gardener).
I want the members of the bar who hang out and post here at FDL ta start standin’ up and ORGANIZING to save the profession that they have dedicated their lives to…there are plenty of us non-lawyers out here ready ta carry some spears for justice if we had some leadership…come on FDLers, don’t jest get “mad as hell” let’s turn this thing around!
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNTION, THEY AIN’T GOIN’ UNLESS WE KICK ‘EM OUT!!
I second that, Norske.
If psychologists can discover the courage to have a modicum of ‘respectability’, then members of the world’s second oldest ‘profession’ ought to be able to muster the moxie as well.
Think Pakistan, for example.
What I don’t understand beyond the courts decision to declare something moot… is how it could be moot at all? This question goes far beyond individual subpoena’s, no? Allowing folks to deny a subpoena in this manner sets precedent of at least tacit approval for others in the future?
No, if the subject matter of the litigation becomes non-justiciable during the pendency, the effective subject matter jurisdiction of the court is lost. That is kind of simplistic, and does not discuss potential exceptions, but is a halfway decent explanation.
Based on the fact that the two recent wars were knowingly based on lies, Bush is indeed a murderer.
in a race to the bottom, bush is leading but pelosi is trying hard to catch up…
Rachel said erotic instead of erratic. LOL.
and Richardson said McCain is throwing the “Long Bong”.
heh.
I noticed that, but Richardson was so full of mixed metaphors I had to keep myself from ROFL. Glad he’s not the D candidate. Like him, but geez.
BTW, I emailed your observation about Letterman’s ridicule of McC being important for the Indiana vote to WJ a couple of morning’s ago, when they had some political analyst on. They didn’t read it though.
Rachel mocking Buchanan. Wonder how that’s going to play out.
Hey, my daughter plays the viola and that’s no viola!
Seriously though, the Judicial Branch has a consistency problem. They normally approach these Exec. v Leg. issues by saying that the two didn’t spend enough time working it out. It’s reprehensible to pull this bullsh**t now.
Palin Inc. doesn’t allow the press to mingle with the attendees:
Think Progress.
LOL!!
You tell ‘im, Twain!
After the 60 minutes Delta Force interview where it was clear that high command called off the most efficacious approach to Bin Laden at Tora Bora, the suggestion that Al Queda will try and swing the election toward McCain is not so far fetched if McCain is the better option to maintain the apparent hands off Bin Laden policy Bush negotiated with Saudis.
Far-fetched and conspiratorial? Think about it. Time for Obama to call McCain for sitting on the facts uncovered when the Indian Affairs Committee headed by McCain investigated Abramoff.
26 – Bush and Cheney didn’t run it out – their DOJ knowingly covered up their criminal activities for a long period of time, followed by Congress and in particular Pelosi, stepping in to run out the rest of the clock for them once even the collaborators at DOJ couldn’t keep the covers pulled up any longer.
A viola is just a violin that someone forgot to make the right size.
54 – “they feared that this would be a bad political move that the GOP would use against them in the elections” I don’t buy that even a tiny little bit. I know of absolutely no normal person who is even paying enough attention to think that, and certainly none who think people are exempt from Congressional subpoenas or who would suddenly decide to vote against dems (having been formerly for dems or truly undecided) because they aggressively pursued investigations into things like torture and illegal domestic spying (with files accessible to all kinds of Claude Allen’s in the WH)
I’m pretty darn convinced that the ONLY reason the Dems have taken such a back seat is bc it would come out that their leadership, in particular Pelosi and Rockefeller and Reid, were all involved in briefings and approvals for everything Bush did. And whether they want to claim “we didn’t know everything” or not, their failure to demand information as well as their complicity in things as repugnant as torture and disappearances of so many innocent people, are things they don’t want to have talked about.
I won’t change my mind on that until I see them actually push for the truth, but since they’ve deliberately waited for enough time for documents to be destroyed and since they’ve packed Obama into their hip pocket, even then I’m not sure I’ll be convinced. Waiting until you and the wolf are done with the barbecue and have buried the evidence of mutton and fire and have changed clothes and taken a bath – well, that’s not a real spiffy time to suddenly cry “wolf”
That sounds very like the way I ’see’ things in the ‘viola’ regard, Mary.
Always appreciate your comments.
Truth be told, I look for ‘em.
;~D
But that would affect them electorally. The fear isn’t just generally, it is them individually; if their complicity, which continuously becomes more evident, is brought to the surface, they have a problem.
“if their complicity … is brought to the surface …”
What chances, bmaz, are there of such a ‘tale’ being actually ‘brought to the surface’?
Such revelation is not in the interest of ANY of the POlitical Class.
Who, beyond the DFH contingent, will have even the least interest in pursuing such truth?
I strongly doubt that Bush briefed Pelosi, Rockefeller and Reid on his actions to politicize the DOJ and remove disloyal or politically problematic AUSAs. He may have briefed them on torture and other things, but not this one.
I’m not saying that the fears I suspect were driving the Democratic leadership were based in logic, or were well-founded, or had any particular merit to them. That doesn’t mean that they’re not afraid of being branded as obstructionists and worse. They’re like kids looking at the bedroom closet at night, afraid of the non-existent monsters inside.
Time and time and time again they have demonstrated and even admitted that this is the way they operate all too often.
According to Pelosi, we don’t know the half of it.
Them’s fightin’ words in my house. My daughter is a violist, not a violinist.
Uh sorry for going off topic, I mean I wrote Tom Udall suggesting “impeach already” after W commuted Libby’s sentence. I mean what could I contribute to this news that Bush avoids accountability again. Someone wake me up when it is over.
K street has Congress surrounded with massaged bogus information concerning the whims of the electorate. Whiskey speaks of mushroom clouds, voila (that’s right ain’t it?) we have a use of force authorization. Paulson comes running like the hairs on his ass are on fire and voila, 700 billion dollar bailout (for what its worth I am thinking Paulson has no hairs on his ass.) Facts make it hard for the corporate kleptocracy, that’s why impeachment is off the table. We all know who is funding Congressional campaigns anyway don’t we?
The common denominator, the abdication of fact finding to the political meteorologist of DC. You know, what happened to inquiry and debate? OOOOeeee here comes a big wind.
77 – that’s awfully nice, considering how often I ramble along; a bad typist who doesn’t proof or organize. You must be a direct descendant of Job to sift through them.
(I did play violin in grade school – we kinda ganged up on the minority viola players. Luckily I quit the violin before I had any opportunity to infilitrate redneck violin gangs into the local Philharmonic. First Chairs, especially strings, are by nature inclined towards violent(or violant) overthrow.
OT:
Hey Bmaz,
The Obama folks found your party hat picture of McCain. It makes a guest appearance in their new 13 minute (at the 3:42 mark) documentary on the Keating Five
I saw that; a couple of other things on their resources page look like they might have come from here too. Good. what’s ours is theirs; provided they go ahead and use them.
79 – no, he wouldn’t have briefed them on the USA removals, but the things he did brief them on are what evolved the nature of the deals done. IMO. Once you own someone because of X, you own them. Whether you don’t own them for Y or Z too doesn’t matter once you already own them.
If there had been any real concern by Dems about whether or not pushing on subpoenas wouldn’t “sell” in Buffalo or Dubuque, I think they’d have done polling and info gathering like they did on a lot of issues like immigration. There hasn’t been anything to support that they are afraid of being seen as pushing politically other than a very few mutterings that only come out the few times they are backed into a corner to actually have to justify why they aren’t doing anything.
You could be right that they are just afraid to have a spine, as opposed to having a vested interest in coverups – I’d probably be just as repelled and angry either way. Sorry to let the anger show so.
Courts shouldn’t even grant cert to Congress
Certainly not for any dispute with the Executive Branch. Congress already has the power, without even getting into inherent contempt proceedings, to completely restructure the government out from under any president who claims some sort of executive privilege to lie to them. All it would take is a simple majority of the majority of the House to deny funding of any dept or individual position it chooses.
Congress could take all of the WH staff from the president, it could remove all of his political appointees by de-funding their positions, and then restructure every single dept so that he does not have the power to fire anybody, or give any of them ongoing direction in their functioning. Congress could itself take so much more powerful action against a recalcitrant president than any court ever could, that it is a sheer waste of time, and a charade, for any court to let itself be involved in any complaint that Congress has of the president.
Did I mention that he was waving his hands around in agitated distress as well:
Roger Lowenstein, writing in the New Republic……
Who will shill for the Constitution?
Is that a trick question?
We are running out of both Yankee ingenuity and snake oil, not a pretty deprivational trend.
Hard to have Yankee ingenuity with Hank Steinbrenner and George Bush, too freaking peas in a pod if there ever were peas in pods, in charge of the respective Yankees.
All is not lost, I hear you say, we have no accurate measure of Red Sox ingenuity I take it?
Don’t get hasty; currently Los Angeles Ingenuity of Anaheim looks like a dead heat.
Too true, J Thomason, too true.
Without love and nurture, the Constitution withers, Justice fades, and lo and behold; corporations are people too, except that they may ‘live’ forever and money becomes ‘free speech’.
We do appear however to be rich in cybernuity.
Bush rolled the dice sayin come on baby bring that war home, mama needs some new shoes.
Sorry, gotta laugh to keep from cryin.
We are all in the same, leaky rubber dinghy, JT, and tears would just sink us more quickly.
This has been an interesting thread to read. It seems we have here a collection of good theories as to why the House seems to not want to pursue the supoena controversy to its logical and legal ends. I found Maddog’s idea of a fear of a legal precedent to be highly credable. To make a pretty bundle of it, I wish to join in with another notion that’s been rolling in the back-brain for months. Maybe the House is afraid of having to use the inherent power, and have it fail, due to an inability to enforce it. This topic has been talked about here, but I don’t remember anyone seriously thinking it through. When we get to the point of a House Sargent-at-arms being confronted by capitol police (or some such scenario), who can or wants to try to imagine what comes next? Bottom line though is that if the supoena can’t be served, congress has a make-believe power.
A power that you are too fearful to use is not a power. The sworn duty contained in the Congressional oath to office demands that you use the available means to protect the existence and integrity of the Constitution. So I, for one, am not overly moved by that argument; it has no validity whatsoever. It may be their rationale, but it is a scurrilous and detestable argument that literally is more destructive to the prize of the United States, the Constitution, than any terrorist act. It really does border on effective treason when it is compounded by the refusal to even discuss, much less pursue, impeachment of known and established fundamental criminal activity, and war crimes, in the Executive Branch. And, of course, the Fourth Branch.
I agree. I wasn’t offering an excuse for them, but throwing out one more notion of why this treasonous course has been taken. I guess what I left out is that they may fear triggering a constitutional crisis, and one they don’t think they can win.
Bordering so closely on treason, that treason it is, bmaz.
Let the shock of that term not make us either squeemish or silent.
Well any way its the flames around the dingy here at they lake that have my attention. How does is go tears and bedlam are like dreaming of rain? By the time the Series is over and then some we may be living in a New World.
Its like little Thom Yorke was crying down in the Hollywood Bowl: “Ice-Age is coming, ice-age is coming.”
Who says the brilliant reasoning of Gore v. Bush was limited to the facts of that case.
Whaaaa????
Its really the same case, now isn’t it?
I’m looking at either Ginsburg or Randolph thinking that the results-oriented outcome is rarely so blatant.
Yeah, okay, now I get it. Yes, it is fairly reality deprived from the contemplated judicial norm, isn’t it? Thus
Back in 2000 they just forgot that abstaining from political questions is the judicious thing to do, dad gum-it.
The speculation is that several justices resign at the end of this term. Kennedy did what he could to correct the errant jurisprudence of Bush v. Gore. The big themes still matter.
I think Kennedy and Ginsburg are both gone in the next four years.
Halos squeezed. We live for another week…
In the Theory of the Unitary Executive, afaik, the UE is different than the President. A mere President is bound by the Rule of Law and Serves the People to Protect and Defend the Constitution.
Bush’s UE Claim, however, is that, under the following circumstances:
– Bush Acting as President and CIC in a Time of War and National Emergency
He has the ‘inherent authority’ – re-certified every 45 days – under Article II to Establish a De-Facto Military Dictatorship, in Secret – structurally hidden in the Executive Branch – that is Above the Rule of Law – the Unitary Executive.
IOW, Bush Claims that under the circumstances of 911, he, in effect, is Entitled to a *Legal* Covert Coup D’etat – Secretly Running a Military Operation inside the very core of the Political System – wait for it – for the Good of America.
What this *looks like* is, all of a sudden, Key Congresspeople and Senators, and the Media, start acting like Marionettes or Kabuki Players, who put-up resistance along Party lines, but somehow always end up falling down in the end to give-in to the Administration’s demands.
The One Thing We have going for US, is that the Theory of the UE – at least according to Yoo – says that the Only Power Over the UE is the General Election…
All We can do now is Run at the Football, and hope it’s still there when We kick at it in 29 days.
If we accept you scenario, how and when does the secret de-facto military dictatorship disengage? I see no reason to think the end of the Prez’ original term of office would have any relevance at all to that.
Of course, I’m speculating, but thank you for asking.
In Bush and Cheney’s case, the entire structure – Military and Political – of the UE, all its Events and Records, stay Cloaked in Secrecy, and Get Collapsed and Removed from the Public Domain at the End of the Term.
I’m assuming Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller, Harman, and maybe a few others on the Dem side, have Been Privy to the Secret – and, Let’s All Hope, they’ve been reassured by the Military that their support for Bush, like the Subpoenas of the 110th Congress, ends with the Term.
So – for the ‘Good’ of the Country – I’m guessing the Military propped Bush up as the UE, but with a limited pledge of support – max of two terms.
But, that’s just a guess…
I really just have one thing to say.
Fuck the 110th. Worst. Congress. Ever.
I can guarantee that Bush the UE would assert that Congress’ Inherent Contempt Power doesn’t apply him.
Niether, for that matter, would he say that Impeachment applies to Bush the UE.
If confronted with a Congressional Challenge to his Power, I think Bush would say that he has the Power to Declare Martial Law and Suspend Congress – on his own – as the UE.
And, presumably, he has the Military to back him up, too.
You are giving Bush too much credit. Bush has largely been checked but with no ultimate accountability. Rumsfeld, Gonzoles and Rove are gone. Cheney was put on notice with the Libby trial. Feilding brokered IG inquiries with Congressional leadership around the Justice Department miasma and the torture issues.
It is curious that Yoo was recalled to Washington with regard to the bail-out. In Mexican politics the I understand the Hildago is the last year of an executive term are expected to be solely about spoils. The thing that irks me is that the national character has been besmirched with the suspension of any reliance on international norms in the conduct of the Iraq war in favor of private self-justified inhumane moralities. It is a serious matter and the end of the Bush administration should not end the inquiry nor the consequences.
If you look at every case, I think you’ll find that Bush and Cheney successfully foiled the Rule of Law when it conflicted with Bush’s activities as UE.
The people you mention – Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Gonzo – should be in Prison, and yet they are still as haughty and unrepentent as they can be.
The IG Inquiries are all turning out to be ‘No Harm, No Foul’ white-washes.
The evidence of Torture was Destroyed – I don’t see anyone on the hook for that?
I agree with you that inquiries shouldn’t end with the Bush Administration leaving Office – I just don’t think you’ll find anything useful as evidence. The file cabinets will be empty and the list of Pardons a Mile Long.
I think the point I was making is that the excesses have not continued with impunity. I suspect you are right that accountability will be hard to come by.
See, that is it. They have actually lost pretty much every legal issue that has been litigated; however, they have been remarkably efficient at foiling or sidestepping the application of law. They are not immune to it, they have just never been held to it. There is a difference. And that was, really, the point of quite a bit of the post up top here. The Democrats are just as much to blame at this point for the UE as the Bushies are.
bmaz – I think you are right on.
I’m guessing that at some point, early, a few key Dems signed-on to Bush’s UE Claim – he really only needed the Leaders.
Once they kissed Bush’s Ring, however, they were powerless to stop him – Bush would have labeled any insubordination towards him as Treason to the UE.
It’s the only practical way to explain how Bush Got Everything He Wanted, and Sometimes More, on Every – or almost Every – piece of Legislation he proposed, or Action he took.
FISA – MCA – Outing Plame – Patriot Act – Tillman? – Torture Tapes – Iraq Supplementals – Bailout – You Name It
Rove, Miers and Bolten may not have been Immune from the Law, but I think you’d agree – with the Dems’ help, it certainly looks that way after refusing Subpoenas for the last 16 months.
OK. So why would Sauron just hand the ring over to the Men? Wouldn’t the last 7 years have been spent finding some way to keep it going past 1/20/2009?
I really think that those involved thought they were doing the Patriotic Thing when they rallied to Bush and the Flag after 911.
And, while I use the term De-Facto Military Dictator to draw parallels with Musharraf, I actually don’t think anyone had in mind that they would be establishing Bush as a classical Despot – but rather as an ‘unlimited President.’
So, as Weak as the Dems and the Brass have been – and Myers and Pace are Two of the Weakest Military Leaders I’ve ever seen – I think the ‘deal’ was never more than two terms.
So, Not-Quite-Sauron-Bush hands back the Ring on 1/20/09 to Frodo-Obama in Exchange for Full Immunity for himself and all his henchpeople.
Then, We hope that Obama flings the Ring into the fires of Mordor – and We get back to Prosperity under the Constitution.
So by extension, then, would W’s Secret Honor be his willingness to step away from the One True Ring when he could instead be ensnared and corrupted by it and rule forver? W as Cate Blanchett, in short?
I guess we won’t know whether W passes his test until we actually get there. Or maybe we’ll never ever know.
Right, Bush is planning on his Legacy being that ‘he gave back the Crown’ after being Empowered as the Unseen and Unchecked Father of the Nation and ensuring there were no further Terrorist Attacks during his UE-ship.
Of course, he was incredibly poorly skilled to take on the task, his Ego ran away with him, for a while – and, that March 11th Re-Certification is nothing, if not Breaking the Spirit of the UE Proposition – that his Power ultimately comes from the Constitution – with Article I and Article III. Bush, imvho, Did Cross the Line there for a few weeks from ‘unlimited President’ to Chimpy the Despot – and it’s entirely a reflection of his inadequacy to meet the Test of Character that comes with Power.
The reason I think, and again it’s jmho, We can have confidence that Bush and Cheney ARE going to leave office on 1/20/09 is because Adm. Mullen is the Chairman of the JCS.
He’s an Honorable Great American in the finest tradition of the Military, and – a ‘deal’ is a ‘deal’ – he’s Fully Expecting a ‘normal’ Change of Command in the White House.
As an aside, I see McCain and Palin’s role as Going Down with the Republican Party Ship – and Taking All the Bush Toxicity with Them – Lobbyist, Extremists and Kooks, Ideologues, Media Sychophants, hopefully the Politically Compromised, etc, etc.
I expect the Goopers to Hoard Money, make a minimal effort to get McCain/Palin to Election Day, and then completely scuttle the Republican Brand before the new Congress convenes – when the Same Players (less any purges) will emerge, as if *new*, as the Federalist Party, or whatever.
And, that way – Viola! – We’re back Running Under the Constitution with Two ‘Clean’ Parties.
As another ‘aside’ – I think the Leaders, Dem and Rep, will All Step Aside at the end of this Congress. I would guess – and it’s just a guess – that Hillary will have first choice on Senate Majority Leader, but I couldn’t guess who else would fill the Key Leadership slots in the 111th.
Again, I’m just speculating on possible explanations for the Bush II Era…ymmv.
Thanks for ’splaining me, rfw.
— Hamlet
Precisely well said.
My deepest appreciation to the entire Wheelhouse Gang.
The cogent analyses on this and so many other Wheelhouse threads are a treasure trove of insight and a most compelling diary of our moment; pregnant with portent, examined, eloquently from more than a few perspectives, but, as yet, undiscernable, and equally well-considered recognitions of consequence as dire as any this nation has ever faced.
Gathered here are some of the most thoughtful and courageous patriots of our time.
It is both an honor and a privilege to converse with all of you, and, most especially, to learn from you.
DW
What an elegant thing to say and I agree with your observations…
Thomas Jefferson (reincarnated? the ghost of benjamin Franklin? Wow. I feel special just reading this sad tale of corruption.
Lovely sentiments.
Remember how, during the Alito nomination, a group of Senators who became known as the “Gang of Fourteen,” banded together to prevent what was then called the “Nuclear option” that had been threatened by the Republicans, per Wiki:
“Fear of the nuclear option…”
I wonder if something like this lies behind the Pelosi decision to take impeachment off the table. Did the leadership (Democratic, or Republican?) regard impeachment as a “nuclear option” to be avoided? Did they make some quid pro quo agreement with Republicans? I.e., “we won’t impeach if you ________________”
For example, what if Bush threatened to invoke martial law or some other horror if Pelosi allowed impeachment proceedings? Is that what is behind this craven treason?
Bob in HI
I have heard Pelosi’s husband was on the hook for some $80 million which the Bush administration agreed to overlook for her cooperation.
We are on the same wavelength. I asked that question a few weeks ago when the bailout talk began…
So is the difference between the way all of the upper tier hot shots (John Dean, Ehrilichman etc ) were pulled in during Watergate …a special counsel was appointed? Is that how Clinton was yanked in to testify under oath because there was a special counsel?
If this is so why did Pelosi, Conyers and those who held the reins avoid appointing a special counsel? Or was this the responsibility of AG Mukasey?
Imagine how much better off our country, and all citizens, would have been if Pelosi, Reed, Hoyer, et al. had grown some gonads sometime in 2006-2007 and IMPEACHED the criminal interprise that is known as the Bush Administration!
The democrats have failed miserably in congress, day–after day– after day!
Yet, they are still giving Mr. >25% everything he wants as soon as he says FEAR!
The most un-fucking believable government I have ever seen (and that since Watergate)!