BREAKING - Bush defies congressional subpoenas - Claims EXECUTIVEPRIVELEGE, of course

[Phlip]

> If Gonzales is found to be in Contempt of Congress, should his license to
> practice law be revoked? IIRC, there is a ethical and moral to being
> granted a license; it's not simply passing the bar exam.

The longer Gonzo stays, the lower his job prospects once he leaves. The guy
will stay until Bush tells him to go. The guy's loyalty to Bush knows no
bounds; he will end his career rather than do anything Bush tells him not to
do.

I sure wish I had a lawyer like that!

--
Phlip

 

[David Johnston]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:50:58 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the power
>>>>> and purpose of his office would be nullified, giving the
>>>>> congress a double-dose of authority.
>>>>
>>>> As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been nullified.
>>>
>>> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then
>>> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could
>>> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the
>>> hides of Halliburtons board too.
>>>
>>> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to
>>> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative
>>> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that
>>> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.
>>
>> By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition to Bush
>> he'll be gone anyway.
>>
>> If so,
>>> the congress WILL be able to exert its constituional
>>> authority and overrule the executive branch.
>>>
>>> In short, the system is working exactly the way it
>>> is supposed to. It was NOT designed to allow a few,
>>> or even a simple majority, of malcontents to
>>> short-circuit the authority of the executive or
>>> judicial branches. Each branch gets it's special
>>> "territory" and that authority can only be
>>> usurped in the most extreme circumstances.
>>
>> Congress's power is to make laws, and the President can nullify that
>> power by use of vetos and signing statements as long as he has 41
>> votes in the Senate.
>
>
>"Signing statements" are not law.....
>
>Signing statements may violate
>the intent of congress.....
>
>No executive has that power...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

One example:

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any
combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the
number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief,
can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive
branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

 

[Sid9]

David Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:50:58 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> David Johnston wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the power
>>>>>> and purpose of his office would be nullified, giving the
>>>>>> congress a double-dose of authority.
>>>>>
>>>>> As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been
>>>>> nullified.
>>>>
>>>> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then
>>>> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could
>>>> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the
>>>> hides of Halliburtons board too.
>>>>
>>>> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to
>>>> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative
>>>> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that
>>>> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.
>>>
>>> By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition to Bush
>>> he'll be gone anyway.
>>>
>>> If so,
>>>> the congress WILL be able to exert its constituional
>>>> authority and overrule the executive branch.
>>>>
>>>> In short, the system is working exactly the way it
>>>> is supposed to. It was NOT designed to allow a few,
>>>> or even a simple majority, of malcontents to
>>>> short-circuit the authority of the executive or
>>>> judicial branches. Each branch gets it's special
>>>> "territory" and that authority can only be
>>>> usurped in the most extreme circumstances.
>>>
>>> Congress's power is to make laws, and the President can nullify that
>>> power by use of vetos and signing statements as long as he has 41
>>> votes in the Senate.
>>
>>
>> "Signing statements" are not law.....
>>
>> Signing statements may violate
>> the intent of congress.....
>>
>> No executive has that power...
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/
>
> One example:
>
> Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any
> combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the
> number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
>
> Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief,
> can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive
> branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."


Meaningless unless tested in court.

 

[Blackwater]

"liberalhere@yahoo.com" <liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote:

>bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in
>news:46869313.114403@news.east.earthlink.net:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:27:20 GMT, "Docky Wocky"
>> <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:
>>
>>>blackwater sez:
>>>
>>>"Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power
>>>over
>>> the BUDGET..."
>>>_____________________________________
>>>Congress is too damn corrupt to do anything other than what
>>>they do best..
>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>
>well, clearly the rethug side. One demcrat versus....jees, I've
>clean run out'o fingers.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>I hear they are getting an automatic raise. Up to around
>>>$170,000 for doing nothing.
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile, many local governments are freezing wages,
>> rolling-back wages, firing people, not filling vacancies,
>> slashing health plans and generally freaking out because
>> the property boom "bubble" burst. The locals are screaming
>> bloody murder about assessments made during the artificial
>> price spike and demand serious tax cuts.
>>
>> Meanwhile, American industry sinks further and further
>> into the toilet as jobs are outsourced to the far east
>> and/or Mexico. It would take an act of congress to slow,
>> halt or reverse this trend - but will congress DO anything
>> ? No. Hell no.
>>
>> So, you won't be able to get a paramedic or cop when you
>> need one at home, you and your kids won't find good jobs.
>> Meanwhile, congress enjoys its raise - but then we know
>> full well that their salaries aren't but a tiny fraction
>> of the money they "earn".
>
>The answer here is: tax shield.
>
>Bet you can't see the point.
>
>A business simulation would demonstrate my point.


Tax shields aren't a general solution. The money to
run the govt and stuff its friends with pork has to
come from somewhere. If not business, then YOU.

Tax shields CAN be useful if you use them very
selectively to build-up specific sectors of
business you suspect will return large amounts
of revenue later on. A variant would be something
like the way the Japanese government invests
money in certain technology companies, hoping
it will allow them to develop the next iPhone
and dominate the world market. Sometimes it pays
off, sometimes it doesn't.


>>>Pretty sweet. You more excitable types need to toss some
>>>bombs their way to wake them up
>>
>> At this point, the "Throw the bastards out" movement
>> might indeed be revived, with a vengence. Neither GOP
>> or DNC is the answer to our problems. Clean house.
>
>Your judgement on the better replacements is, like every rethug,
>obviously piss poor.

The "replacements" ARE the main problem. They'd be a bunch
of know-nothings at the beginning ... and where do they COME
from anyway ? Get GOP/DNC certified candidates and you'll
just be getting more of the same.

>> Of course that's no guarentee that the new guys won't
>> be just as corrupt as the old guys within a few years.
>>
>> There's something about politics that takes the best
>> of intentions and twists them into greedy self-interest
>> practically overnight. Seems to have always been that
>> way. Maybe it's the nature of politics ... meaning
>> it's something about OUR nature, human nature ?
>
>Well gee, did a light dawn?

Gee, I've know this stuff for 40 years ... how long
did it take you to catch on ? Oh wait, maybe you
haven't. I'll bet you still think Democrats are
somehow "better" ...

>The empowering element is the lack of public financing of
>campaigns. Ya see, when yer buying a politician, you have'ta pay
>more for an honest one.

Campaigns are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg ... and
even then "special interest" money can be slipped into the
pouch marked "public funding" or simply left in a brown paper
bag under a bridge at midnight. Face it, the wealthy interests
will ALWAYS be able to buy or bully politicians. One way or
another, they'll reel them in and make them serve.

As Churchill observed, 'democracy' is the worst system of
government imaginible - except for all the others. The
'democratic' system can be corrupted in SO many ways, bent
to SO many purposes, that it's simply impossible to cope
with. Perhaps it's best to quit whining about the corruption
you can't fix and instead learn how to use the existing system ?


>> This MAY be as good as it gets. Mull THAT bitter
>> possibility for awhile ...

 

[Docky Wocky]

"Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United
States Congress or one of its committees..."
______________________________
Now, that's funny.

Especially using the word "work" in the same sentence as Congress.

How many people have contempt of congress?

 

[Sid9]

Docky Wocky wrote:
> "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United
> States Congress or one of its committees..."
> ______________________________
> Now, that's funny.
>
> Especially using the word "work" in the same sentence as Congress.
>
> How many people have contempt of congress?


Fool.

 

[David Johnston]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:15:48 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>> No executive has that power...
>>
>> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/
>>
>> One example:
>>
>> Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any
>> combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the
>> number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
>>
>> Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief,
>> can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive
>> branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
>
>
>Meaningless unless tested in court.
>

Who chose the last two justices? The fact is, I doubt they'd dare
test it in court right now, for fear of getting a ruling that would
entrench their powerlessness.

 

[Sid9]

David Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:15:48 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>>> No executive has that power...
>>>
>>> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/
>>>
>>> One example:
>>>
>>> Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in
>>> any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the
>>> number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
>>>
>>> Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief,
>>> can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the
>>> executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
>>
>>
>> Meaningless unless tested in court.
>>
>
> Who chose the last two justices? The fact is, I doubt they'd dare
> test it in court right now, for fear of getting a ruling that would
> entrench their powerlessness.


Not to swift an outcome!

If it establishes a precedent
the next (Democrat) president
will have the same power.

Sane Republican will think
long and hard before they
let this happen.

 

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:GMadnd8YV5OlWhvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>> news:zpadnYnoy7UqNxvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>> news:5qadnYB72fFdxhvbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>>>>> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive
>>>>>> privilege.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> White House Asserts Executive Privilege
>>>>>> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern
>>>>>> By TERENCE HUNT
>>>>>> AP White House Correspondent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional
>>>>>> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and
>>>>>> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on
>>>>>> the firings of federal prosecutors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not
>>>>>> turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel
>>>>>> Harriet
>> Miers
>>>>>> and former political director Sara Taylor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WASHINGTON (AP)

 

[Docky Wocky]

liberalhere sez:

"I believe you. Lucky you and Bush were both born in the US,
neither of you would pass the investigation to become naturalized
citizens..."
_________________________________
Yea, Lib, I can imagine the kind of test a leftie like you would dream up,
but you boys just want to do away with the concept of "naturalized citizen"
and replace it with "automatic citizen," if one can crawl, run, or jump over
a border as the main test.

As for me passing a test, remember, you can always find a liberal who will
take a bribe.

 

[liberalhere@yahoo.com]

"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in
newsjFhi.1849$Of2.1488@trnddc06:

> liberalhere sez:
>
> "I believe you. Lucky you and Bush were both born in the US,
> neither of you would pass the investigation to become
> naturalized citizens..."
> _________________________________
> Yea, Lib, I can imagine the kind of test a leftie like you
> would dream up, but you boys just want to do away with the
> concept of "naturalized citizen" and replace it with
> "automatic citizen," if one can crawl, run, or jump over a
> border as the main test.

Umm, ****head...???? Hello??? I suggest you look for another post
of mine today dealing with the question of illegal aliens.

I've also posted many times that the answer to illegal aliens is
to reward anyone who turns in an employer of an illegal with a
$25,000 reward...paid for by the employer, and the one receiving
the reward can be an illegal working for that employer. The
employer also pays first class transportation back to their home
country for every illegal in their employ plus the illegals'
family.

Your imagination is as limited as your IQ.

Oh, I know, you don't have time to read a substantive cross-
section of posts...just being an idiot is a full time job for
you.

>
> As for me passing a test, remember, you can always find a
> liberal who will take a bribe.
>
>
>

 

[liberalhere@yahoo.com]

Blackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote in
news:a9kg83hoc9gvfa7cjl0q74incuhpk515dj@4ax.com:

> "liberalhere@yahoo.com" <liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in
>>news:46869313.114403@news.east.earthlink.net:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:27:20 GMT, "Docky Wocky"
>>> <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>blackwater sez:
>>>>
>>>>"Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power
>>>>over
>>>> the BUDGET..."
>>>>_____________________________________
>>>>Congress is too damn corrupt to do anything other than what
>>>>they do best..
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>>well, clearly the rethug side. One demcrat versus....jees,
>>I've clean run out'o fingers.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I hear they are getting an automatic raise. Up to around
>>>>$170,000 for doing nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, many local governments are freezing wages,
>>> rolling-back wages, firing people, not filling
>>> vacancies, slashing health plans and generally freaking
>>> out because the property boom "bubble" burst. The locals
>>> are screaming bloody murder about assessments made
>>> during the artificial price spike and demand serious tax
>>> cuts.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, American industry sinks further and further
>>> into the toilet as jobs are outsourced to the far east
>>> and/or Mexico. It would take an act of congress to slow,
>>> halt or reverse this trend - but will congress DO
>>> anything ? No. Hell no.
>>>
>>> So, you won't be able to get a paramedic or cop when you
>>> need one at home, you and your kids won't find good
>>> jobs. Meanwhile, congress enjoys its raise - but then we
>>> know full well that their salaries aren't but a tiny
>>> fraction of the money they "earn".
>>
>>The answer here is: tax shield.
>>
>>Bet you can't see the point.
>>
>>A business simulation would demonstrate my point.
>
>
> Tax shields aren't a general solution. The money to
> run the govt and stuff its friends with pork has to
> come from somewhere. If not business, then YOU.
>
> Tax shields CAN be useful if you use them very
> selectively to build-up specific sectors of
> business you suspect will return large amounts
> of revenue later on. A variant would be something
> like the way the Japanese government invests
> money in certain technology companies, hoping
> it will allow them to develop the next iPhone
> and dominate the world market. Sometimes it pays
> off, sometimes it doesn't.

Son of a gun...you are bright enough!!! Pity your emotional
maturity is so limited that you think animal abuse is good if it
"annoys" a liberal. Child abuse "annoys" me too...go rape a kid
in your neighborhood in order to piss me off.

The reason we're in the economic situation we're in is precisely
due to the tax shield effect....more specifically, tax rates are
too low and economically useful deductions so few that companies
find it profitable to outsource and screw their remaining
employees. Higher expected value and all that.

Reagan started this mess with his cut taxes and deduction
argument. I doubt rethug voters can ever be smart enough to begin
rejecting the so-called low taxes means more investment nonsense.

You do make the mistake of thinking tax cuts are only needed at
the start of a new industry. Nope. Globalization/outsourcing
means tax policy must always make outsourcing more expensive.


>
>
>>>>Pretty sweet. You more excitable types need to toss some
>>>>bombs their way to wake them up
>>>
>>> At this point, the "Throw the bastards out" movement
>>> might indeed be revived, with a vengence. Neither GOP
>>> or DNC is the answer to our problems. Clean house.
>>
>>Your judgement on the better replacements is, like every
>>rethug, obviously piss poor.
>
> The "replacements" ARE the main problem. They'd be a bunch
> of know-nothings at the beginning ... and where do they
> COME from anyway ? Get GOP/DNC certified candidates and
> you'll just be getting more of the same.
>
>>> Of course that's no guarentee that the new guys won't
>>> be just as corrupt as the old guys within a few years.
>>>
>>> There's something about politics that takes the best
>>> of intentions and twists them into greedy self-interest
>>> practically overnight. Seems to have always been that
>>> way. Maybe it's the nature of politics ... meaning
>>> it's something about OUR nature, human nature ?
>>
>>Well gee, did a light dawn?
>
> Gee, I've know this stuff for 40 years ... how long
> did it take you to catch on ? Oh wait, maybe you
> haven't. I'll bet you still think Democrats are
> somehow "better" ...

Of course I do. More greedy old perverts have gone to prison or
resigned in disgrace in every rethug administration than
democratic since Eisenhower.


>
>>The empowering element is the lack of public financing of
>>campaigns. Ya see, when yer buying a politician, you have'ta
>>pay more for an honest one.
>
> Campaigns are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg ...
> and even then "special interest" money can be slipped into
> the pouch marked "public funding" or simply left in a
> brown paper bag under a bridge at midnight. Face it, the
> wealthy interests will ALWAYS be able to buy or bully
> politicians. One way or another, they'll reel them in and
> make them serve.

Hogwash, audits of officeholders' finances for every year in
office and five years after leaving would go far to prevent
bribery...as would ten year prison sentences for briber and
bribee. Plus, if a bribee decides to wait out the five year post-
office audits...put no statute of limitation on the crime.
Accepting a bribe in public office should be only a lesser crime
than treason.

(Afterthought: an audit of the two years prior to running for
office may be necessary too. May sound harsh, but look where we
are and where we're going.)


>
> As Churchill observed, 'democracy' is the worst system of
> government imaginible - except for all the others. The
> 'democratic' system can be corrupted in SO many ways, bent
> to SO many purposes, that it's simply impossible to cope
> with. Perhaps it's best to quit whining about the
> corruption you can't fix and instead learn how to use the
> existing system ?

"Perhaps"? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Nothing like long, long,
long prison sentences to keep a wobbly politican on the straight
and narrow. And white collar business crime needs sentences at
least equal to armed robbery. Enron proves white collar crime is
neither amusing nor minor.

I've recommended that lobbyists only contact an officeholder in
an official office and all such meeting be recorded and "YTubed"
on a government website. Let the public see what lobbyists and
officeholders discuss.

But there is another issue you've ignored or missed. The problem
we have today isn't the mere existence of corruption...it's how
endemic it has been in the republican party and White House.
There is venality in a number of democrats...but only Jefferson
seems to have risen to the GOP level. And, I think, only in some
petty business deals having to do with African telecommunications
businesses. Not national defense issues like Cunningham.

>
>
>>> This MAY be as good as it gets. Mull THAT bitter
>>> possibility for awhile ...
>
>

 

[liberalhere@yahoo.com]

David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote in
news:ed7e83hpdcmrfck2aki79qq4cjsk5dg8ef@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:15:48 -0400, "Sid9"
> <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>>> No executive has that power...
>>>
>>> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/exampl
>>> es_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/
>>>
>>> One example:
>>>
>>> Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from
>>> participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases
>>> of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in
>>> Colombia at 800.
>>>
>>> Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander
>>> in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed
>>> forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as
>>> advisory in nature."
>>
>>
>>Meaningless unless tested in court.
>>
>
> Who chose the last two justices? The fact is, I doubt they'd
> dare test it in court right now, for fear of getting a ruling
> that would entrench their powerlessness.
>

No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme
Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally
conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts
understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative thoughts
they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress was
considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted
prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a
prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of
appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.
Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an
innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.

 

[David Hartung]

liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:

> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme
> Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally
> conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts
> understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative thoughts
> they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress was
> considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted
> prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a
> prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of
> appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.
> Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an
> innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.

Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of liberal "tolerance"?

 

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:

> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
>> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme
>> Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally
>> conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts
>> understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative thoughts
>> they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress was
>> considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted
>> prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a
>> prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of
>> appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.
>> Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an
>> innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.
>
> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of liberal
> "tolerance"?
>

Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should
have no power to overturn the death sentences of innocent
people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993

 

[David Hartung]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
> news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
>>> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme
>>> Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally
>>> conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts
>>> understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative thoughts
>>> they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress was
>>> considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted
>>> prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a
>>> prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of
>>> appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.
>>> Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an
>>> innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.
>> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of liberal
>> "tolerance"?
>>
>
> Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should
> have no power to overturn the death sentences of innocent
> people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993

Actually, that is not what he said:

http://tinyurl.com/2d8t3j

Once again you twist meanings to suit your purpose.

 

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:btudnfVGe7ZJIhrbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>> news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
>>>> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme
>>>> Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally
>>>> conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts
>>>> understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative thoughts
>>>> they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress was
>>>> considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted
>>>> prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a
>>>> prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of
>>>> appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.
>>>> Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an
>>>> innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.
>>> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of liberal
>>> "tolerance"?
>>>
>>
>> Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should
>> have no power to overturn the death sentences of innocent
>> people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993
>
> Actually, that is not what he said:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2d8t3j
>
> Once again you twist meanings to suit your purpose.
>


Actual quotes from the case:

"claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence
have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief"

"Federal habeas courts (i.e. appeals courts) do not sit to correct
errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned
in violation of the Constitution."

"Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual innocence
claim. He may file a request for clemency under Texas law".

Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZO.html

 

[Deliri]

In article <GumdnRHeiY_OmRrbnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@adelphia.com>, "Phlip"
<phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > If Gonzales is found to be in Contempt of Congress, should his license to
> > practice law be revoked? IIRC, there is a ethical and moral to being
> > granted a license; it's not simply passing the bar exam.
>
> The longer Gonzo stays, the lower his job prospects once he leaves. The guy
> will stay until Bush tells him to go. The guy's loyalty to Bush knows no
> bounds; he will end his career rather than do anything Bush tells him not to
> do.
>
> I sure wish I had a lawyer like that!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU HAVE. Gonzales is his name, YOUR Attorney General.
-------------------------------------------------------------

 

[David Hartung]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
> news:btudnfVGe7ZJIhrbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>> news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
>>>>> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme
>>>>> Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally
>>>>> conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts
>>>>> understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative thoughts
>>>>> they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress was
>>>>> considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted
>>>>> prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a
>>>>> prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of
>>>>> appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.
>>>>> Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an
>>>>> innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.
>>>> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of liberal
>>>> "tolerance"?
>>>>
>>> Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should
>>> have no power to overturn the death sentences of innocent
>>> people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993
>> Actually, that is not what he said:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2d8t3j
>>
>> Once again you twist meanings to suit your purpose.
>>
>
>
> Actual quotes from the case:
>
> "claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence
> have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief"
>
> "Federal habeas courts (i.e. appeals courts) do not sit to correct
> errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned
> in violation of the Constitution."
>
> "Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual innocence
> claim. He may file a request for clemency under Texas law".
>
> Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZO.html

Scalia was correct. Herrera's recourse was the State of Texas, not the U.S.
Supreme Court. Unless there was a Constitutional issue, the Federal courts did
not have jurisdiction.

 

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:O62dnTdZhJnOexrbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>> news:btudnfVGe7ZJIhrbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>> news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they
>>>>>> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme
>>>>>> Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally
>>>>>> conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts
>>>>>> understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative thoughts
>>>>>> they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress was
>>>>>> considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted
>>>>>> prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a
>>>>>> prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of
>>>>>> appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.
>>>>>> Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an
>>>>>> innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.
>>>>> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of liberal
>>>>> "tolerance"?
>>>>>
>>>> Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should
>>>> have no power to overturn the death sentences of innocent
>>>> people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993
>>> Actually, that is not what he said:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2d8t3j
>>>
>>> Once again you twist meanings to suit your purpose.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actual quotes from the case:
>>
>> "claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence
>> have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief"
>>
>> "Federal habeas courts (i.e. appeals courts) do not sit to correct
>> errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned
>> in violation of the Constitution."
>>
>> "Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual innocence
>> claim. He may file a request for clemency under Texas law".
>>
>> Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390.
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZO.html
>
> Scalia was correct. Herrera's recourse was the State of Texas, not the
> U.S. Supreme Court. Unless there was a Constitutional issue, the Federal
> courts did not have jurisdiction.
>


Only because the federal courts do not WANT to
have jurisdiction. Doesn't it bother you that the
Supreme Court has sanctioned the execution of innocent
people?