The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

Went about what in the proper way? Firing the lawyers?

Yes, I have no problem with how it was done. I have no probably with how each administration has house cleaned these positions for political reasons. As is so commonly said in administrations of either party: they serve at the discretion of the president. They are political positions. Removal does not have to be "fair."

It wasn't a big deal. It isn't like these firing just happened. They happened a while ago. It didn't become a big deal until somebody could be accused of lying about it. Lying is the charge being pursued, not inappropriate firing. As I said above it is a stupid coverup since there was nothing particularly wrong about the underlying action.

If they didn't do anything wrong, what's the big deal?

In a political environment that has thrived for the last 14 years on finding excuses for manufacturing outrage "where there's smoke there's fire" being taken as coda is not a good idea.

See, for example, the so-called Paul Wolfowitz scandal. Which is 100% manufactured outrage to win political points.

[blueerica]

(Stepping in for perhaps, the first time)

Politics, both sides, has been manufactured pretty much since the beginning; pandering, scandals, heroes, you name it. While there will always be the questions and wanting to know the truth, I hold no illusion of ever knowing, nor do I really think there's a truth out there. After all, it is subjective. One man's truth is another man's lie.

Which is pretty much why I stopped bothering years ago, and will live out my political days in silence and contemplation.

(Stepping out, because my shoes are covered in muck.)

How do you guys do it?

[Alex]

So, a lot of people are upset by the Supreme Court's partial birth abortion ruling yesterday.

Since I think the point where we sanctify life is pretty much an arbitrary decision I don't really have a strong opionion either way and we're in splitting hairs territory. Two inches farther and it is a human being with full rights, two inches farther back and you're within your right so get a dwarf to stick a hand up there just to punch on it for a while.

But there are a special subgroup of people complaining about the ruling, that feel the law should have been struck down as unconstitutional. And those would be certain Congressman who voted for the law in the first place (such as Harry Reid).

Since no new information has come forward on the constitutional merits of this law I can only assume that Mr. Reid voted for a bill he believed unconstitutional for political expediency and with the unstated assumption that a court would strike it down.

In a just world, would not voting for a law you believe unconstitutional be something bordering on treason?

(On a different issue I expect to find a lot of Congressman in the same boat on the suspension of habeus corpus.)

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, treason. Absolutely.


I have no idea what the Supremes voted on yesterday, so I'm not talking about this specific case ... but in the abstract, though it could never be proven, legislators should be strung up if they vote for a law they know to be unconstitutional. They could buck their responsibility all the way to the gallows for all I care. And this will not be a problem once their internal thought-monitoring devices are installed in the cerebral cortex, beginning with the 2037 session of Congress.

Voice-box monitors will be found sufficient for all congressional and white house staffers until the 2059 session.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Here's the really stupid thing: there was absolutely nothing wrong with the firings.

They should have just said (more diplomatically) "these people work for me. They're political appointments. I can fire them anytime I want for pretty much any reason I want. So bugger off.

And had they done that, there wouldn't be hearings this week. But when the DOJ says things like they fired Carol Lam over her performance, specifically her performance regarding immigration, and then we learn that she received a letter of commendation in 2007 for this specific work, something doesn't add up.

From the transcript:

FEINSTEIN: … September 15, 2007, signed by the director of field operations of the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency. It’s sent to Carol Lam. And it is a letter of commendation, and I will just read a few sections.

To address the alien enforcement issue, your office supported the implementation of the Alien Smuggling Fast Track Program, and has demonstrated a commitment to aggressively address the alien smuggling recidivism rate.

In support of Border Patrol referrals for prosecution, your office maintains a 100 percent acceptance rate of criminal cases while staunchly refusing to reduce felony charges to misdemeanors and maintaining a minimal dismissal rate and supporting special prosecution efforts.

In validation of enforcement initiatives, your staff aggressively prosecuted enrollees in the Sentry program who engaged in smuggling to support a zero-tolerance posture. They have focused on cases of fraud, special-interest aliens, prosecution of criminal aliens and supported our sustained disrupt operations.

The prosecution’s unit presented 416 alien smuggling cases, which represents a 33 percent increase over the 314 cases presented in ‘05. The prosecutions unit identified and pursued the prosecution of several recidivist alien smugglers and presented 30 non-threshold alien smuggling cases for prosecution, resulting in a 100 percent conviction rate. This represents a 329 percent increase over the seven non-threshold cases presented in 2005.

Additionally, a cumulation study done by USA Today places Carol Lam as one of the top three attorneys in the United States for the prosecution of these cases. It is a real surprise to me that you would say here that the reason for her dismissal was immigration cases. Now, if I might go on, who, Mr. Sampson, was Dusty Foggo or is Dusty Foggo?

SAMPSON: I understand from news reports, Senator, and from general knowledge, that he was an employee at the CIA.

FEINSTEIN: And who is Mr. Wilkes?

SAMPSON: I don’t know. I understand, again from news reports, that he’s affiliated somehow with Mr. Foggo.

FEINSTEIN: And are you aware that on May 10th Carol Lam sent a notice to the Department of Justice saying she would be seeking a search warrant of the CIA investigation into Dusty Foggo and Brent Wilkes?

SAMPSON: I don’t remember ever seeing such a notice.

FEINSTEIN: But the next day you wrote the e-mail which says, The real problem we have right now — right now — with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day after her four-year term expires, that that relates to her immigration record.

SAMPSON: The real problem that I was referring to in that e-mail was her office’s failure to being sufficient immigration cases.

FEINSTEIN: OK.

If she was fired for actual poor performance, or even just because she serves at the pleasure of the President, that is one thing. If she was fired because she was seeking a search warrant on someone they didn't want her to investigate, I find that far more troubling.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Since no new information has come forward on the constitutional merits of this law I can only assume that Mr. Reid voted for a bill he believed unconstitutional for political expediency and with the unstated assumption that a court would strike it down.

In a just world, would not voting for a law you believe unconstitutional be something bordering on treason?

The first part of this is not strictly true. In passing the law without a health exception, Congress made a "finding" that no health exception was necessary because the procedure could never be justified to prevent damage to the pregnant woman's health. When the law was challenged at the district court, there was testimony on both sides of the issue. Because the testimony conflicted, the Supreme Court said that the law survived a facial challenge. The Court also said that the Congressional finding was hooey, but that other "findings" provided a rational basis for the law. None of this is to suggest that Reid and others actually put their faith in the legislative "findings."

Somewhat less dramatically, the strongest grounds for suggesting the law is unconstitutional is that Congress arguably lacked the power to enact it under the Commerce Clause. Justice Thomas mentions this in his concurrence. Whether he did this out of a genuine limited federal government impulse or out of the desire to push the issue towards whether a fetus is a person under the Due Process clause--which would provide an alternative ground for Congressional action--will have to wait further developments.

For those who like a little light--and disingenuous--reading, here's the opinion.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf

[Alex]

I'm not sure what part you are saying isn't correct?

That there was no new information since voting for the law that would have change Reid's mind on the issue? I'll agree that there was new testimony, but would argue that there was no new information.

Or was it another part?

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm not sure what information actually was before Congress when it pulled its legislative findings out of its collective ass. However, I would assume a politician like Reid probably would say that the district court proceedings contained new information so that he can stand at podiums and disagree with the court with the appearance of good conscience.

[Alex]

Ah. Yes, I'm sure that everybody who voted for it but hoped the SC would knock it down can find some level of plausible deniability (though in the habeus debate I believe several actually said "I'm voting for this though I believe it will not pass constitutional review").

It's still craven wankery.

[Prudence]

Anyone else following the internet radio royalty issue? I love my internet radio. If this causes my favorite Live365 channels to go away, I will be one unhappy camper.