TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Former Supreme Court nominee given contempt charge by Congress
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Former Supreme Court nominee given contempt charge by Congress

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021402415.html
My friends and I discussed this a great length last night. To me this is one of the most frustrating issues that I've found. I'm not normally a Bush basher, but this takes the cake for me. I have no idea why this administration has consistently ignored requests for legal information and subpoenas. It seems that they feel they are above the law. May I remind you that one of the people involved in this contempt charge was NOMINATED FOR THE SUPREME COURT! To quote John Stewart, if she would have won the nomination only the "icy sickle of death" would have been able to remove her. One would think that having legal knowledge would have one understand that if one blows off a subpoena there are going to be consequences. It goes with out saying that a former Supreme Court nominee would have a better than average grasp of this knowledge.

With this contempt charge I feel the small wind of change blowing through the halls of Congress. Perhaps we may see some major legal fall out because of it.
post #2 of 9
I remember when he tried to get away with nominating her. Her name stayed out there for a few days and there was such a howl of protest from Republicans he withdrew her name. She had no qualifications other than being a Bush crony. She even has limited legal experience even with her age, she would have a tough time finding a job with a decent law firm and he tried to nominate her for the Supreme Court.
post #3 of 9
The dispute is about executive privilege. From what I have read, some presidents give Congress alot of their EP and some Presidents keep EP.

Just because someone got "charged" for contempt doesn't mean diddley.
It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Bush didn't do anything that other presidents haven't done. Clinton fired his share also.

Why doesn't Congress actually try to get something constructive done, they may up their 10% approval rating if they would.

They leave for 12 days and let the Spy Bill run out. So typical of them.

But they right in there going after sports figures over steroids. Just WHAT is their priority anyway?
post #4 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
But they right in there going after sports figures over steroids. Just WHAT is their priority anyway?
I have to agree with Ckblv again ('magine that ). This congress does seem to have some screwy priorities, and so far have been a disappointment, at least to me. The only thing I disagree on it the spy bill. From my understanding, there are two completed versions of it that they are trying to merge into one, and Bush is saying "Bill A or no way". So, it seems to me that, on that point, everyone is letting the spy bill expire.
post #5 of 9
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
The dispute is about executive privilege. From what I have read, some presidents give Congress alot of their EP and some Presidents keep EP.

Just because someone got "charged" for contempt doesn't mean diddley.
It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Bush didn't do anything that other presidents haven't done. Clinton fired his share also.

Why doesn't Congress actually try to get something constructive done, they may up their 10% approval rating if they would.

They leave for 12 days and let the Spy Bill run out. So typical of them.

But they right in there going after sports figures over steroids. Just WHAT is their priority anyway?
Every president has fired attorneys and replaced them at the start of their term in office. No one... ever.. has fired attorneys midterm. This is unprecedented. Also, one can invoke EP unless they are present. Blowing off a hearing is something no-one has ever done before.

As a side note about the spy bill, I wouldn't have passed it either. Bush wants telecom companies to have immunity for the illegal acts that he asked them to do, and that they went along with. The people who went along with this should be in jail, and they know it.
post #6 of 9
It may be unprecedented but I am betting it wasn't illegal.
post #7 of 9
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
It may be unprecedented but I am betting it wasn't illegal.
No, but blowing off a Congressional hearing is. It would be akin to you needing to testify at a court case, and instead you go shopping. That's exactly what happened here. She's a lawyer, prior nominee to the Supreme Court, so she should understand that on some basic level. She also should understand that EP has to be invoked in person. It's kind of like the 5th Amendment.
post #8 of 9
I don't think it is like that at all. But, we will see.
post #9 of 9
It is like that. No administration has ever overused Executive Privilege like this one. It's as though Clinton had used Executive Privilege in refusing to give depositions in the Paula Jones case.

I will never forgive Cheney for using EP to refuse to hand over records of his meetings with Enron high muckety mucks during the investigation of their phony rolling blackouts in California. Later a recording of them laughing while planning them came out. It just boils my blood that they have gotten away with so much.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Former Supreme Court nominee given contempt charge by Congress