TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Who do you think you are?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who do you think you are? - Page 2

post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
At least as poor of a president as Carter was, I always believed in his honesty and absolute integrity of his character. Can't say I have the same view of Bush. Incidentally, Carter was the other Democrat I voted for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
My mom voted for Carter also. I do believe the man had noble intentions even if he was not my choice for President.
I didn't vote for him, but yes, I always thought he was honest. In that respect he was the opposite of the incumbent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig
As to the Rove issue. As much as I detest the man because I believe he put the Republican party ahead of the country and the Bush administration does not truly believe in the open transparency of a true democratic government, as an adviser to the president, he is probably covered by executive privilege. So the question becomes which is more powerful at this point. The implied power of Executive Privilege or the implied power of Contempt of Congress.
Unfortunately, my impression over the last seven years has been that 9/11 has been used as an excuse by the current administration to undermine checks and balances in favor of the executive branch, and Congress has done little or nothing to stop it.

No wonder both Bush and Congress have such low approval ratings.
post #32 of 46
Thread Starter 
In the article, it states that the Supreme Court has ruled over and over that nobody is allowed to ignore a subpoena, not even the President himself, and that nobody but his own lawyers seem to understand any legal basis for his toddleresque refusal.

Add to that, this has naught to do with executive privilege-- they're not asking him to testify about matters of national security or even anything relating to the President unless, of course, Bush knew about it, in which case he is guilty of a crime.

Here's a story from a year ago with a Bush counsel saying Rove would refuse a subpoena, which if you are capable of reading between the lines shows that it would be refused because when he lied he would be charged with perjury. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9047631 He was issued a subpoena by Patrick Leahy two months later. He wouldn't answer it then either.

A little history on executive privilege, and it's obvious that this does NOT qualify. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
post #33 of 46
So will Congress issue Contempt of Congress charges?

Since 1975, about 12 people have been held in contempt of Congress. Only one of those went to trial; Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle was found not guilty on the contempt charge.

Rove probably is quite comfortable waiting it out.
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Unfortunately, my impression over the last seven years has been that 9/11 has been used as an excuse by the current administration to undermine checks and balances in favor of the executive branch, and Congress has done little or nothing to stop it. .
Even with, or maybe in spite of, all the other things this administration has done, abuse of executive power is one of the two I'm most upset with. The other, of course, is the war. The war can be, and will be, brought to an end, but allowing the executive to overstep its authority time and again does more harm to the country in the long term. The President (and those who work for him) are not above the law.
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Even with, or maybe in spite of, all the other things this administration has done, abuse of executive power is one of the two I'm most upset with. The other, of course, is the war. The war can be, and will be, brought to an end, but allowing the executive to overstep its authority time and again does more harm to the country in the long term. The President (and those who work for him) are not above the law.
Well said!!!
That what's so wonderful about Americans - we remember that we have politicians, NOT royalty...
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
Rove's subpoena had nothing to do with terrorism. He is being called in to discuss why judges were fired midterm for not supporting Bush.
.
the same reason clinton fired them?
political appointed job,fire anyone they want, and dont need a reason.
post #37 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
I didn't vote for him, but yes, I always thought he was honest. In that respect he was the opposite of the incumbent.



Unfortunately, my impression over the last seven years has been that 9/11 has been used as an excuse by the current administration to undermine checks and balances in favor of the executive branch, and Congress has done little or nothing to stop it.

No wonder both Bush and Congress have such low approval ratings.
From what I have learned from watching the History Channel is that Executive Privilege waxes and wanes depending on the President. Some give alot of it up to Congress and then another President comes along and takes it back.
post #38 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
the same reason clinton fired them?
political appointed job,fire anyone they want, and dont need a reason.

Silly Bruce, it is okay when Clinton did it, but those nasty Republicans are not allowed to.
post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Silly Bruce, it is okay when Clinton did it, but those nasty Republicans are not allowed to.
Traditionally, the appointees from the previous administration leave at the beginning of the new term. Once the appointment is made, it is very rare that they are fired by the president who appointed them.

The suspicion that these recent firings were because they were not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. The top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. By dismissing these attorneys and with the Patriot Act, interim replacements could be appointed without approval of congress. The department of Justice is supposed to be above the partisanship. The Bush administration messed with that ideal. If Clinton did it, then we should also criticize that. But it doesn't excuse Bush.

Carter got into trouble for this when he fired a Republican who, it turns out, was investigating a Democrat. That was when the rules were put into place that the Congress and the administration would not interfere with ongoing investigations. There appears some of this was going on with the Bush firings.
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
Traditionally, the appointees from the previous administration leave at the beginning of the new term. Once the appointment is made, it is very rare that they are fired by the president who appointed them.
So, people don't like the timing? And is it against the law for the president who appointed them to fire them?
post #41 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
From what I have learned from watching the History Channel is that Executive Privilege waxes and wanes depending on the President. Some give alot of it up to Congress and then another President comes along and takes it back.
There's something to that. President Lincoln actually suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War -- and some historians would say for purely political reasons -- and it took the Supreme Court to get it reinstated after the war was over.
post #42 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Even with, or maybe in spite of, all the other things this administration has done, abuse of executive power is one of the two I'm most upset with. The other, of course, is the war. The war can be, and will be, brought to an end, but allowing the executive to overstep its authority time and again does more harm to the country in the long term. The President (and those who work for him) are not above the law.


This is pure whimsy on my behalf but I have had a long and secretly held dream that one day, without anyone realising it, the three most recent Presidents and Vice Presidents of the US and their closest advisors are all called to a press conference and given truth serum before it starts, thereby meaning they have to answer every question put to them with total honesty. The press would know about it, the presidents et al. wouldn't. Ahhhh but that is a fond dream, even though I know the outcome wouldn't be comfortable for anyone - left or right.
post #43 of 46
Again with Clinton. Just because someone says Bush is wrong it doesn't mean that the person saying it excuses Clinton from anything. You can dislike Clinton and Bush at the same time.
This case of appointees was unusual and on a large scale. It was not like when Clinton or previous President's did it. They don't usually fire their own appointees for political reasons.
post #44 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
You can dislike Clinton and Bush at the same time.
That describes me.

Pres. Reagan was the only one in my adult lifetime that I can say I hold in fond memory. Whatever faults his administration may have had -- he had some real bozos working for him, and the faults were many -- and there was plenty of criticism of him and spoofing his faults; in retrospect, as a President he was a good executive, and as a person he was a great man.
post #45 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
There's something to that. President Lincoln actually suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War -- and some historians would say for purely political reasons -- and it took the Supreme Court to get it reinstated after the war was over.
very true. to stop protests over the war.
silly lincoln should have followed public opinion
post #46 of 46
No, he should have ignored the protests and left the Constitution alone.

I think it was more than protests, though.....I don't have time to research it now, but weren't his political opponents stirring up trouble in Congress to impede and oppose the prosecution of the war?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Who do you think you are?