NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289053,00.html

WASHINGTON — BREAKING NEWS: The House Judiciary Committee battled Thursday over whether former White House counsel Harriet Miers was in contempt when she claimed executive privilege and defied a congressional subpoena to testify on the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys.

So what do you people think? Should she be held in contempt? I personally think she should not but at the sametime...I feel that she should have showed up to the hearing despite executive privilege.

Just because someone says you're covered by executive privilege doesn't mean you get to not appear. You have to appear and then refuse to answer questions. It may seem like a bit of a kabuki dance, but there are reasons for following procedures. Miers is absolutely in contempt.

The shitty part of all this is that the people in charge of prosecuting any contempt finding is the Justice department, and they've already said they won't do it. Congress is going to have to impeach someone or they'll find themselves as irrelevant as the Roman Senate under Octavian.

She's in contempt she should be held as such. You don't get to ignore subpoenas just because you claim you're immune.

Unfortunately I think Congress is picking a fight they can't win. Bush et al have decided they're above all this and won't play ball even if it is illegal.

You'd think there'd be a limit as to how many times you can call 'executive privilege.' It's like a friend in Primary school who calls, 'Timeout' every time he's about to be tagged. Eventually you just push him on the ground every time he calls it until he starts crying and leaves.

You'd think there'd be a limit as to how many times you can call 'executive privilege.' It's like a friend in Primary school who calls, 'Timeout' every time he's about to be tagged. Eventually you just push him on the ground every time he calls it until he starts crying and leaves.

They call that an election.

So what do you people think? Should she be held in contempt?

Yes. Executive privlidge is a constitutional matter. Ergo it is up to the courts to determine the full extent of that privlidge. It is the duty of the judicial system, not the executive or legislative to determine what is, and is not, within the power of the constitution.

See City of Boerne v. Flores. While the executive may assert executive privlidge they do not have the power to determine executive privlidge.

If she wishes to exercise that privlidge, it is full and proper for congress to hold her in contempt. If she desires, she may appeal that contempt charge to the courts, on the grounds of executive privlidge as defense. Then the courts may decide whether such privlidge exists in this matter.

But the mere fact that the executive branch claims privlidge is not determinative of whether or not such privlidge exists. They lack the power to do so, only the courts may do that. They may assert it as a defense, but congress is under no obligation to believe, or give credance to the assertions of the executive branch on a judicial interpretive matter.

I personally think she should not

You corny? Shocking.

Congress is going to have to impeach someone or they'll find themselves as irrelevant as the Roman Senate under Octavian.

really, they're already being treated as such. i'm somewhat shocked that they don't seem to understand that yet.

*snip*

Thank you for your explanation. It is well appreciated.

You corny? Shocking.

And I see you did not read the rest of the statement. I wanted her to show up. Anyways, I am not going to play the game of you are corny (whoever that person is).

And I see you did not read the rest of the statement. I wanted her to show up.

You wanted her to show up, but did not support any penalty against her if she did not. That's a useless paper tiger, tantamount to saying "well, it'd be nice if she did, but she doesn't have to"

Ms. Miers has an absolute responsibility to show up, even if she refuses to answer questions.

The act of contempt is in failing to answer the subpoena by refusing to appear.

It is clear cut and the Justice Department has no choice. If Congress cites her for contempt they must prosecute....oh, wait a minute, I forgot. The Justice Department is being headed by a lawyer who slept through his Constitutional and Procedural Law classes.

~S

You can't just blow off congress and expect to get away with it.

You can't just blow off congress and expect to get away with it.

Sucking off congress, that's a whole other matter.

Sucking off congress, that's a whole other matter.

Let's not bring Mark Foley or congressional pages into this. :p

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289053,00.html

So what do you people think? Should she be held in contempt?
Yes. Unequivocally.

Congress is going to have to impeach someone or they'll find themselves as irrelevant as the Roman Senate under Octavian.
Probably, but still that's horribly insulting.
Octavian > BushX10000000

Respect your dead Roman Emperors.

In any case, nothing will come of this.

Congress should find her in Inherant Contempt. That way they don't have to go through the crooks in the DoJ.

Congress is going to have to impeach someone or they'll find themselves as irrelevant as the Roman Senate under Octavian.

You'd think at this point they could go around to all the Republican senators and say, "Look man, there's a pretty good chance that we're gonna win this next one. And with a Democratic congress...and all this shit we're tacitly giving to Ol' George here-they're gonna pass to a Democratic president.

Now.

You can slap the wrist now and put that shit in check, or you can complain ineffectually when you get flattened by it in two years. Don't make us rule Gay Marriage with a flag burning at the ceremony mandatory."

You'd think at this point they could go around to all the Republican senators and say, "Look man, there's a pretty good chance that we're gonna win this next one. And with a Democratic congress...and all this shit we're tacitly giving to Ol' George here-they're gonna pass to a Democratic president.

Now.

You can slap the wrist now and put that shit in check, or you can complain ineffectually when you get flattened by it in two years. Don't make us rule Gay Marriage with a flag burning at the ceremony mandatory."
Yeah, except the Republican Senators know that Democrats don't stand a chance for the presidency and never will again.

Yeah, except the Republican Senators know that Democrats don't stand a chance for the presidency and never will again.

And why is that actually?

It's not that I like democrats, but that sounds a bit strong considering they got nearly 50% of the vote last time.

You didn't actually buy the permanent republican majority shit, did you?

(gonna vote Paul myself. Only, I'd have to register republican to vote in the primary, and republicans still instill a strong feeling of EWWW in me)

Probably, but still that's horribly insulting.
Octavian > BushX10000000

Respect your dead Roman Emperors.
true. I doubt Bush will ever be able to say that he "found Iraq brick and left it marble". More likely he'd say he "found Iraq on the map, after just 3 hours searching and Karl Rove helping me".

Fried Tuna;12870800']And why is that actually?

It's not that I like democrats, but that sounds a bit strong considering they got nearly 50% of the vote last time.

You didn't actually buy the permanent republican majority shit, did you?

(gonna vote Paul myself. Only, I'd have to register republican to vote in the primary, and republicans still instill a strong feeling of EWWW in me)

After the next security crises, be it a successful or very nearly successful terrorist attack, the Dems will be labeled as soft on terrorism, and believe it or not, in the eyes of the distorted American viewpoint, the war in Iraq will be justified (kill as many brown people as possible) and Americans will finally be willing to completely give up whatever rights the government wants to take away.

If we're trying to subpoena Miers over the US attorney firings, I believe that unless Congress has probable cause that a criminal offense has been committed, there should not be any subpoena power at all.

It's not a criminal offense to fire political appointees for ANY reason whatsoever.

That is untrue.

If we're trying to subpoena Miers over the US attorney firings, I believe that unless Congress has probable cause that a criminal offense has been committed, there should not be any subpoena power at all.

It's not a criminal offense to fire political appointees for ANY reason whatsoever.

You could say, "I hate the way you fucking look at me" and fire them.

More likely he'd say he "found Iraq on the map, after just 3 hours searching and Karl Rove helping me".

http://archive.democrats.com/images/bush-debate-12.gif

But ... he's "the Decider".
*sobs*

If we're trying to subpoena Miers over the US attorney firings, I believe that unless Congress has probable cause that a criminal offense has been committed, there should not be any subpoena power at all.

It's not a criminal offense to fire political appointees for ANY reason whatsoever.

You could say, "I hate the way you fucking look at me" and fire them.

No reason to hide anything then, huh?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6772678,00.html

So argue through that now, eh?