Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 19

Journal by pudge

Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, says, "if I had known the details of Judy's entaglement with Libby, I'd have been more careful in how the paper articulated its defense, and paerhaps more willing than I had been to support efforts aimed at exploring compromises." So if her source had been a Democrat, he'd feel better about supporting Judith Miller?

Miller's attorney is Bob Bennett, which I presume is the same Bob Bennett who defended Preident Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal.

And to tie these two scandals together further, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) said on Sunday's Meet the Press, "I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

Note that Hutchison voted that President Clinton was guilty on the charges of perjury and objstruction of justice in his impeachment trial. Russert -- not remembering her vote -- brought up that trial, and she responded: "Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice."

Actually, not in the impeachment trial, no, those were the only two counts they voted on. She continues:

"And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process--and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. And I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully and not just jump to conclusions, because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward. I really object to that."

I don't think Starr went for "technicalities" (even if you think it is reasonable to label perjury and obstruction as such). I think he investigated charges as was his job, and in the end, the only strong charges that remained were obstruction and perjury. And I don't think Fitzgerald is going for "technicalities," either.

And while on the same transcript, let's not presume the Republicans are the only ones who think the public is stupid. Chuck Schumer goes through and lists many reasons why Miers would not be a good Supreme Court Justice, which are many of the same reasons the conservatives opposing her are giving: "The first is qualifications. Does she have a good, firm knowledge of the law, of constitutional law? ... Second is independence. The president seemed to nominate judge Miers or Miss Miers because he knew her, he was close to her. ... And third, and most importantly, and in this one I would agree with George Allen and some of the very conservative people, we have to know her judicial philosophy."

That's fine, but then two seconds later, he adds: "I will say this, if he were to withdraw the nomination, it would be a stunning defeat for George Bush, and here's what I think it would show. I think it would show that a small group way over at the extreme had power over the White House. After all, not a single Republican senator has at this point called for Harriet Miers' resignation. And so if President Bush is going to march to the drum of a group that I think most Americans would consider out of the mainstream, it's going to be a real revelation to the American people and that's why I think he can't do it."

So she is not a good candidate, and you agree with the conservatives about why she is not a good candidate, but for Bush to back down would show people with "extreme," "out of the mainstream" views (which were the backbone of one of the main campaign promises that got him more votes than any President in history, and which also happen to mirror your own views, as just stated!) have power over the White House. Senator Schumer, verily, I say to you: you are full of crap.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:
  • which were the backbone of one of the main campaign promises that got him more votes than any President in history

    Are you saying a particular campaign promise is credited with getting Bush more votes? Which one? Or did Bush simply get more votes overall than previous candidates? If it's the latter, can that be explained by the national voting-age population growth over the past 4, 8, and 12 years?
    • Are you saying a particular campaign promise is credited with getting Bush more votes?

      I am saying it was a key part of the Bush campaign package that won him the election.

      Which one?

      The one to nominate conservative justices like Scalia and Thomas.

      If it's the latter, can that be explained by the national voting-age population growth over the past 4, 8, and 12 years?

      Yes, that it is the most in history is largely due to a combination of interest in politics (mostly because of the war) and population growth, but
      • Kay thanks, that makes sense.
      • Well I don't think that Bush's promise on judges was a major factor for anyone who would have seriously considered voting for Kerry. Nor do I think it increased the turnout all that much.

        That still doesn't mean Schumer isn't being a bit of an idiot. I agree with the bit about Meirs not being all that well qualified, but to turn around and say withdrawing would be caving into the far right is a bit much.

        Personally I would hope we could go back to the day when people who were highly qualified were picked for
        • Well I don't think that Bush's promise on judges was a major factor for anyone who would have seriously considered voting for Kerry.

          I believe that is true.

          Nor do I think it increased the turnout all that much.

          I think it probably was a significant factor in voter turnout. It's been a huge issue for a great many conservatives for many years, and I think this drove more turnout than the anti-gay marriage amendments did. But, we can't know for sure, of course: at the very least, his clear promise to nominate
          • More the confirmation process.

            There also seemed to be for a while in the recent past a desire to appoint the most qualified people and be a little less concerned about ideology. But that might have been a brief historical quirk.

            Of course there is also a long history of using judical appointments to reward political friends as well. I seem to recall Earl Warren's appointment being some form of political payback.
            • There also seemed to be for a while in the recent past a desire to appoint the most qualified people and be a little less concerned about ideology. But that might have been a brief historical quirk.

              Yeah, I don't know either way. I just know it goes back over 200 years, and has been common, but I don't know if it has been more the exception or the rule throughout our history. I'd guess that neither is a quirk per se, that we've gone through phases of both.
  • Visiting the wayback machine, here are some Republican Senator's thoughts on perjury and obstruction of justice from a few years back: (via the DSCC)

    Sen. Frist: "There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors...Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor...The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are public crimes threatening the administration of justice." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

    Sen. Kyl: ".

    • Yeah. Pointing out the obvious two-facedness by some Republicans here is about as easy as pointing out how some Democrats were two-faced on the issue of judicial filibusters.
      • Yeah. Pointing out the obvious two-facedness by some Republicans here is about as easy as pointing out how some Democrats were two-faced on the issue of judicial filibusters.

        As were some Republicans.

        For that matter I'm sure there were a number of Democrats who tried to claim not so long ago that perjury and obstruction of justice were BS charges too.

        Ain't politics fun?

        (though being two faced on judicial filibusters is far less of a problem than being two-faced on perjury and obstruction of justice)
        • As were some Republicans.

          Yeah, but not as bad. There was one major two-faced Republican that I could find, Bill Frist. Remember, a lot of the Republicans actually voted for cloture for Clinton's nominees, and then voted against the nominee later. But yeah.

          (though being two faced on judicial filibusters is far less of a problem than being two-faced on perjury and obstruction of justice)

          I don't agree, because I see the filibuster problem as a much more important long-term problem for the Union itself. But
          • I don't agree, because I see the filibuster problem as a much more important long-term problem for the Union itself. But I get what you mean: for the here and now, the criminal charges are more significant.

            I don't know one is a matter of parlamentary proceedure and the other is a criminal offense. That inclines me to see the latter as more serious. Especially since the line of attack seems to be to trivalize the crime and attack the rule of law.

            I'm also of a mind to think that public officials should be hel
            • I don't know one is a matter of parlamentary proceedure and the other is a criminal offense. That inclines me to see the latter as more serious.

              Right, and I understand that. But to me, it is not mere parliamentary procedure: it strikes at the heart of the separation of powers, the meaning of our Republic, the independence of the judiciary, and so on. I think filibusters themselves are a terrible and harmful abuse of the Senate's mandate, and where those filibusters affect the actions of another branch, fa
              • Right, and I understand that. But to me, it is not mere parliamentary procedure: it strikes at the heart of the separation of powers, the meaning of our Republic, the independence of the judiciary, and so on. I think filibusters themselves are a terrible and harmful abuse of the Senate's mandate, and where those filibusters affect the actions of another branch, far moreso.

                Well I read the relevant section of the Constitution to mean there is an equal role for the executive and legislative branches in appoint
                • Well I read the relevant section of the Constitution to mean there is an equal role for the executive and legislative branches in appointing the judical branch.

                  That's beside my point, which is not that the legislative branch cannot kill a nominee, but that a minority of elected officials should not be able to do so.

                  Furthermore there is long tradition of protecting the rights of the minority in the Senate, hence the parliamentary procedures allowing fillibusters.

                  Yes, a tradition that violates the intent of t
                  • Something I was going to mention above but feeds into your reply a bit is that I do agree with some of the founders that political parties were probably a bad idea.

                    For example in your fillibuster example there would be far less of a problem if the natural tension between the Senate and the Executive wasn't being subverted in the name of party loyalty. There are plenty of other (and perhaps better) examples where party-line voting (and other forms of 'party loyalty') has undermined intended friction between
                    • For example in your fillibuster example there would be far less of a problem if the natural tension between the Senate and the Executive wasn't being subverted in the name of party loyalty. There are plenty of other (and perhaps better) examples where party-line voting (and other forms of 'party loyalty') has undermined intended friction between the President, The Senate, The House, and The several States.

                      Oh sure. But these are temporary (though recurring) problems that are IMO less important than the prob
  • Apparently Nicholas Kristof [nytimes.com] today joins Kay Bailey Hutchison in the gee-shucks response. Well I know that Valerie Plame thing was not real nice, but gee shucks, shouldn't we only prosecute, you know, real crimes?

    I'm not paying the NYT for its disasterous experiment in information lockdown, but here are some of the quotes from Kristof's article that are appearing in bits and pieces:

    Instead, Mr. Fitzgerald is rumored to be considering mushier kinds of indictments, for perjury, obstruction of justice or r

Slashdot Top Deals

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side. - Han Solo

Close