Comments on: Above the Law http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/ Firedoglake weblog Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:20:26 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Fozzetti http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867409 Fozzetti Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:34:06 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867409 <p>why, Why, WHY doesnt Congress stop *all* funding for the Executive Branch?</p> why, Why, WHY doesnt Congress stop *all* funding for the Executive Branch?

]]> By: peony http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867131 peony Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:01:50 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867131 <p><a href="#comment-866706"><em>Richmond @ 74</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>On supremes as Republican tool now, what would happen (assuming we do get a Dem president and increase Dems in Congress-big ifs) if they seek to increase the size of the court as Roosevelt attempted, thereby mitigating some of the power of the Opus Dei cult members now in control there?</p></blockquote> <p>Richmond, if I’m not mistaken, I believe additional justices have been added several times. The Roberts and Alito hijacking of the Supreme Court must be reversed.</p> Richmond @ 74

On supremes as Republican tool now, what would happen (assuming we do get a Dem president and increase Dems in Congress-big ifs) if they seek to increase the size of the court as Roosevelt attempted, thereby mitigating some of the power of the Opus Dei cult members now in control there?

Richmond, if I’m not mistaken, I believe additional justices have been added several times. The Roberts and Alito hijacking of the Supreme Court must be reversed.

]]> By: James Joyce http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867125 James Joyce Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:58:42 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867125 <p><a href="#comment-867035"><em>Kathleen @ 173</em></a></p> <blockquote><p><a href="#comment-866627"><em>mental_equinox @ 3</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>Bush has declared himself utterly beyond <em>any</em> accountability for <em>anything</em>. It’s worked thus far for his whole life. Ya daince wit’ da one what brung ya, as long as we let him get away with it.</p></blockquote> <p>A ture sign of an addict…never take responsibility for your actions. The congress and the people of the U.S. need to do an intervention.</p></blockquote> <p>…..an enenma!</p> Kathleen @ 173

mental_equinox @ 3

Bush has declared himself utterly beyond any accountability for anything. It’s worked thus far for his whole life. Ya daince wit’ da one what brung ya, as long as we let him get away with it.

A ture sign of an addict…never take responsibility for your actions. The congress and the people of the U.S. need to do an intervention.

…..an enenma!

]]> By: MRx http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867113 MRx Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:50:46 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867113 <p>What is the process for citing someone for inherent contempt? If Jennings or whoever pissed Leahy off to the point that he’d had enough, and said, “Enough! That’s contempt of this committee! I move that this committee hold you in contempt for failure to answer the most innocuous of questions! That letter from <strike>your mother</strike> White House Counsellor Fielding doesn’t grant you the right to flout the law. That’s merely a piece of paper, his opinion. Executive Privilege - in my opinion, in the constitution, and in established legal precedent - is not carte blanche, and the questions I just asked you are not seeking privileged information. They do go to the matter of assisting this committee to carry out its mandate, and you are obligated under law to answer such questions when you are asked.” could the committee vote immediately? Or does there need to be notice? IANAL but on TV a judge can cite someone for contempt on the spot.</p> <p>Does the committee get copies of these letters from Fielding to White House staff which apparently deny the staffers the right to answer civil questions from elected Senators?</p> What is the process for citing someone for inherent contempt? If Jennings or whoever pissed Leahy off to the point that he’d had enough, and said, “Enough! That’s contempt of this committee! I move that this committee hold you in contempt for failure to answer the most innocuous of questions! That letter from your mother White House Counsellor Fielding doesn’t grant you the right to flout the law. That’s merely a piece of paper, his opinion. Executive Privilege – in my opinion, in the constitution, and in established legal precedent – is not carte blanche, and the questions I just asked you are not seeking privileged information. They do go to the matter of assisting this committee to carry out its mandate, and you are obligated under law to answer such questions when you are asked.” could the committee vote immediately? Or does there need to be notice? IANAL but on TV a judge can cite someone for contempt on the spot.

Does the committee get copies of these letters from Fielding to White House staff which apparently deny the staffers the right to answer civil questions from elected Senators?

]]> By: Kathleen http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867035 Kathleen Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:07:15 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867035 <p><a href="#comment-866627"><em>mental_equinox @ 3</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>Bush has declared himself utterly beyond <em>any</em> accountability for <em>anything</em>. It’s worked thus far for his whole life. Ya daince wit’ da one what brung ya, as long as we let him get away with it.</p></blockquote> <p>A ture sign of an addict…never take responsibility for your actions. The congress and the people of the U.S. need to do an intervention.</p> mental_equinox @ 3

Bush has declared himself utterly beyond any accountability for anything. It’s worked thus far for his whole life. Ya daince wit’ da one what brung ya, as long as we let him get away with it.

A ture sign of an addict…never take responsibility for your actions. The congress and the people of the U.S. need to do an intervention.

]]> By: Kathleen http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867034 Kathleen Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:05:41 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867034 <p>Scott Jennings “I must decline at this time”</p> Scott Jennings “I must decline at this time”

]]> By: RockPaperScizzors http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867016 RockPaperScizzors Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:42:42 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867016 <p><a href="#comment-866963"><em>Malcontent @ 165</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>So, when’s congress going to get pissed off enough to make the case that “Executive Privilege” doesn’t have any constitutional basis and their witnesses actually have to answer their questions?</p></blockquote> <p>If Bush sticks Congress with the <strike>finger</strike> Executive Privilege bullshit, Congress should cart Meiers scrawny behind and Rove’s hairy ass off to the slammer and call that SENATE PRIVILEGE. They are, after all, co-equal branches of government.</p> Malcontent @ 165

So, when’s congress going to get pissed off enough to make the case that “Executive Privilege” doesn’t have any constitutional basis and their witnesses actually have to answer their questions?

If Bush sticks Congress with the finger Executive Privilege bullshit, Congress should cart Meiers scrawny behind and Rove’s hairy ass off to the slammer and call that SENATE PRIVILEGE. They are, after all, co-equal branches of government.

]]> By: Goalkeeper http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867000 Goalkeeper Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:13:44 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-867000 <p><a href="#comment-866676"><em>cancer_cures @ 49</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>rwcole @37,</p> <p>True, but the hearings is what gets them to be in contempt. Or better, to catch them lying. And finally the by-product is a citizenry more and more turned off not only from Bush, but from every Republican who has to defend this mafia ring.</p> <p>So I think it’s got advantages. Certainly more action needs to be done by US.</p> <p>Which is of course why, I am eager about August 27. President Bush is coming to visit my town (Bellevue, outside of Seattle) for a re-election campaign fund booster for Representative Fourth Reichert. So time to don the protest suit!</p></blockquote> <p>You are so LUCKY!!! W wouldn’t dare come to Massachusetts these days!!</p> cancer_cures @ 49

rwcole @37,

True, but the hearings is what gets them to be in contempt. Or better, to catch them lying. And finally the by-product is a citizenry more and more turned off not only from Bush, but from every Republican who has to defend this mafia ring.

So I think it’s got advantages. Certainly more action needs to be done by US.

Which is of course why, I am eager about August 27. President Bush is coming to visit my town (Bellevue, outside of Seattle) for a re-election campaign fund booster for Representative Fourth Reichert. So time to don the protest suit!

You are so LUCKY!!! W wouldn’t dare come to Massachusetts these days!!

]]> By: cynic http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-866992 cynic Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:02:39 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-866992 <p>It is becoming fairly clear that We the People of the United States have no effective representation in Washington. If the Congress critters dare to come back to face their constituants, the uniform message they should be getting is “you are allowing King George to run roughshod over the constitution. You will not be back in your seat, come the next election, if King George allows another election.”</p> It is becoming fairly clear that We the People of the United States have no effective representation in Washington. If the Congress critters dare to come back to face their constituants, the uniform message they should be getting is “you are allowing King George to run roughshod over the constitution. You will not be back in your seat, come the next election, if King George allows another election.”

]]> By: tejanarusa http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-866981 tejanarusa Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:51:32 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/02/above-the-law-3/#comment-866981 <p><a href="#comment-866634"><em>scarlet p. @ 9</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>Off Topic I know, but over 4,000 people have written me now saying they were going to start signhanging, and I’m not only out-posting the lot of them, I’m about to start kicking their collective asses.</p> <p><a href="http://freewayblogger.blogspot.com/2007/08/stayed-up-late.html">http://freewayblogger.blogspot.....-late.html</a><br /> blockquote></p> <p>Hi, Scarlett -<br /> Not on your level, I know, but while out scouting houses for sale or rent, I passed a yard with two motherly-looking older women talking, and at the very front were these two signs:</p> <p>IMPEACH!<br /> and<br /> Impeach.org</p></blockquote> scarlet p. @ 9

Off Topic I know, but over 4,000 people have written me now saying they were going to start signhanging, and I’m not only out-posting the lot of them, I’m about to start kicking their collective asses.

http://freewayblogger.blogspot…..-late.html
blockquote>

Hi, Scarlett -
Not on your level, I know, but while out scouting houses for sale or rent, I passed a yard with two motherly-looking older women talking, and at the very front were these two signs:

IMPEACH!
and
Impeach.org

]]>