President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 03, 2007 02:01 AM UTC
95 Comments
His popularity rating is already at historic lows. Even GOPers seem to dislike Bush. What does he have to lose? This might actually buy Bush a little bit of support from hardcore Republicans who will like him “giving the finger” to a Democratic Congress.
I guess one advantage Bush has is that since he’s alienated virtually everyone already, he has nowhere to go but up.
He’s giving the finger to the courts. To everybody.
We “all” gave him the finger first. (Mine is still saluting). Frankly, one of his few redeeming (or at least endearing) characteristics is that he places personal loyalty above his own popularity. Too bad he’s such a schmuck in every other way.
They want Libby full-pardoned. Commuting the sentence still leaves Libby a convicted felon.
until the end of his term. When Libby lost his bid to remain free while appealing his sentence and was about to go to prison in a few weeks, Bush came up with this lame, cowardly, non-pardon commutation. Maybe Bush has enough of a conscience that he couldn’t face seeing Libby go to prison for the duration of his presidency for lies Libby told under oath to protect Bush and Cheney. More likely he just wants to make sure Libby doesn’t have any good reason to stop being a good soldier. Bush can still give Libby a full pardon later and probably has promised to do just. It works the same way in every crime family: They reward good soldiers who hang tough for the boss to keep loyalty worthwhile.
when you frame the issue that way, I almost agree with the commutation!
Wasn’t that the promise seven years ago?
He’ll have it returned to the White House, then locked up and tortured until someone notices it’s missing. Then he’ll torture it some more and play shell games with it until he’s out of office, everyone stops noticing, or it dies a horrible and permanent death.
This is how it works. I don’t like Presidential Pardons for the most part and I won’t say this is right. But Bush is just following the lead of every other President, cutting his own some slack. Remember Marc Rich? The big difference is Libby didn’t flee the country.
Maybe it’s time the citizens started demanding more from their President than “that’s how it’s done”.
“That’s how it’s done” is the excuse used every time a President wants to do something illegal or horribly wrong.
Marc Rich and I. Scooter Libby have a lot in common. Both received Presidential leniency, both worked with people who behind-the-scenes supposedly illegally traded with Iran… And finally, Mr. Libby should remember Mr. Rich fondly: he was Rich’s attorney during the scandal.
The one difference between Rich and Libby? Libby acted to cover up a serious breach of national security that may limit our ability to oversee WMD developments in the Middle East for decades. On that note, it’s being reported today that A.Q. Khan is essentially free of his house arrest in Pakistan, and may have been so for months…
Marc Rich’s fine: $100,000,000
Scooter Libby’s fine: $250,000
Just an FYI.
Like you, I find Rich’s pardon to be “not right”, but if you’re going to bring up a Clinton memory, at least let’s compare honestly.
or i didn’t make myself clear…I did not approve of either pardon. Our judicial system does things I disagree with, but I don’t believe in *most* cases that pardons are the answer.
and were high because he had practiced fraud on such a massive scale. The real difference was the size of the bribe he funneled the clintons through his ex wife. Bush acted openlky and honestly with Libby, Rich bribed his way to a pardon. There is no comparison. I in general liked Clinton and voted for him twice. But the pardon of Rich was utterly and indefensibly corrupt.
http://www.nytimes.c…
So, if, “Libby acted to cover up a serious breach of national security that may limit our ability to oversee WMD developments in the Middle East for decades,” 30 months and a fine is an appropriate sentence?!
As you describe it, Libby committed treason…that should be your concern, not an “illegal or horribly wrong” act by the president.
Look, Libby lied b/c that’s what he was told to do. If Bush and the gang had done anything less, I personally would have been upset, let alone how Libby and his family would feel.
As Ive said a few times before, Bush will do what he wants, when he wants, and, especially in this case, there’s not a whole lot anyone can do about and he knows it.
But, unfortunately, his obstruction of justice – which President Bush now becomes complicit in with his strategic commutation of Libby’s sentence – prevents us from getting to the root of the issue.
This is where the Right always misses the point: if Libby hadn’t obstructed the investigation, the charges would be much worse, and the prosecutor has already all but alleged that the Vice President would now be charged with said treason.
The proper response to Bush’s intervention – against his own commutation policy, ignoring the standards set by the Supreme Court regarding sentencing guidelines, and against the interests of national security – is to begin impeachment proceedings. That is what the Founders of this country believed, and that is the only thing left for us to do.
that’s the real gem here……we’re use to him not following our rules, but now he doesn’t even follow his own regulations!
Is why he didn’t just give Libby a full pardon? What’s with this “half way” crap? Is he trying to please both sides on this? Because he’s just going to end up pissing off both
By commuting the imprisonment, Libby retains his freedom, can appeal his case and try to win an actual absolution, and – most importantly – Libby can still claim 5th Amendment privileges. If the President had pardoned Libby, then Libby would have no defense if called before Congress to testify on the events in question.
I just presumed it was a weasily half-assed way of keeping Scooter’s butt out of the slammer while not fully pardoning him. I didn’t think about the continued possibility of jeopardy if there’s an appeal pending.
And Scooter can also plead the 5th when they try to take his deposition in Valerie Plame’s civil suit against him, Rove, and Vice.
Interesting theory.
I know I’ve only been back for a day, but I haven’t heard a lot from the courties lately. Vacation?
either the calm before the storm of outrage, or they’ve been heavily medicated! I think they’re more interested in their own petty legal problems than in mega-legal issues facing the nation.
Indeed, I’ve been preoccupied with my petty legal problems, like the fact that I haven’t seen my little girl, now twelve, since she was whisked out of the state and hidden from me four years ago on July 2nd (yesterday).
I’ve been preoccupied by learning a few days ago that, according to one of our most reverend federal magistrates, not one self-represented party has been allowed to present his or her case to a jury in at least twelve year or 7,200 cases (according to him), which explains why I am unable to pursue redress against my ex-spouse in that court, as others have been “allowed” to do before me on the same set of facts.
Like I said in earlier post, below –to, which you didn’t respond– there is no cause for outrage. Bush has the privilege, under the law, to grant a full or partial pardon. Either deal with it or change it. This isn’t about a violation of the rule-of-law.
Tomorrow, Libby’s sentence will remain commuted. And tomorrow morning, I will wake up wondering what my little girl looks like, what she’s thinking and whether the registered sex offender, who moved in three weeks ago at the end of her street in that small town in Texas, has her eye on her on a hot summer day, while her mother is at work.
So, if you don’t mind, I will go back to being interested in my own petty legal problems, rather than this purported “mega-legal” issue facing the nation. Meanwhile, I assume you’ll spend the next few minutes contemplating what kind of nasty reply to respond with.
….I’m sure every here understands your frustration and pain.
I don’t recall if you ever mentioned having representation, you know, a lawyer. I understand the expense – I couldn’t hire one – and the fact that they are frequently ineffective. BUT it looks like that’s your only alternative at this point.
Paul, thanks for asking. Of course, you’re right but, it would’ve saved me a lot of time & money if they just had a NOTICE on the Web site or in the Rules that said, “No self-represented allowed,” just like in the 50’s in the South “No coloreds allowed.” That’s the system we have today and, I don’t care how Oh-Wilike tries to misrepresent what some of us do, that system is in place to keep people like me out, no matter how many years I’ve studied (or even if I have the J.D. and law lic.).
I’m paying an attorney down in Texas (now, her home court advantage) to gain access to my daughter and sue for damages but, her family and uncle practically own the town: the reported attendance of his church comprises of 1/5 the town population and her family is connected with two car dealerships off the highway passing nearby that are practically mainstay of the town’s economy.
However, I have a family to raise and child support to pay and bills like everybody else. I can’f afford a “team” of lawyers. So, if I want redress here in Colorado (going after her Christian attorney, Madeline Wilson, under Hall v. Hall-Stradley ($320K jury award under the same set of facts), and/or going after the CFI for contract/consumer protection act damages, I have no access to the court unless someone will take the case on contingency (and I mean a competent lawyer, not a warm body –I’ve seen plenty of incompetent attorneys, which –believe it or not– can be worse than pro se notwithstanding the institutional bias, because then you’re stuck with both her bill and the fruits of her incompetence). I have a case descript. set up here, if anyone’s interested in helping me collect a potential $320K award (nothing’s guaranteed).
Also, I hope it’s been obvious that I do what I do for the common greater good, not just for myself (which is why I rarely talk about my own case[s]). Later tonight, I have going up a new and very informative page regarding pro se litigation that, I hope, will, not only prevent a few others from wasting their time (which may delight both attorneys and jurists) but also, which may help expose their sub silentio scheme and initiate some reform (which will not delight attorneys and jurists). I have a preliminary dialogue going with Prof. Ron Staudt, who’s done a lot of innovative work and study in this area.
When you and I first corresponded, you thoguht I was obssessed. That may be but, we’ve always needed people like me to bring awareness to a cause. I think this cause is every bit as important as the Women’s Suffrage Movement was.
…about the Tex-ass lawyer, glad to hear that. Wish you the best.
I think and hope that you would agree that when you came in this blog room, you were a bull in the china shop. But you receptive to guidance and are now much more part of the family. Of the “courties”, you and Condor are the readable ones. Kate and rio – where’s he been, anyway? – often sound like troubled souls. I don’t get that with you.
I agree that what you are fighting for is important. No great changes ever came about with luke warm passion. Unfortunately, often it is through tragedy that people get motivated. MADD comes to mind.
Kay is a troubled soul, indeed. Condor is a good guy, who’s working on his skills of persuasive writing. Rio is sharp guy, who, perhaps, hits the [Post] button a little prematurely at times. He emailed me to inform me that his Rio Grande account, then his Shatnerologist account and, finally, his Rio Banned accounts were all forthwith canceled by the site administrator.
Actually condor is ok.
I feel bad for K (for now), but she is eroding my compassion.
I hate televangelists too, but if I met Kenny in a bar he would be lucky to leave with his teeth.
I like your posts Tilt, and I agree with many of your fundamental arguments, but the noise is too great to dig in.
… So he was shatnerologist, too, eh?
I didn’t know Pols banned anyone. I would have banned Kay, but not rio…..although close to the edge.
Your phrase of hitting the Post button prematurely is a good one.
? ? ?
. . . according to this document, anyway. I had always thought that it was applicable only in criminal cases. I have no practical experience in crimlaw.
Maybe Bush could have waited until his term was just about over to pardon anyone, like Clinton did? Bush has just lowered the shenanigan bar.
The shenanigan bar has been lowered so far by this administration that I’m not sure it has anywhere to go but up right now – kind of like Cheney’s approval numbers.
This may be a blessing in disguise. Remember the effect Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon had on the ’76 election? 🙂
A stupendous find, quoted from the Judiciary Committee follow-up to Watergate, over at Daily Kos:
“What Bush has just done is made it clear to the World that his administration is above the law.”
Umm… the Constitution in the highest law in the United States, above the laws that Libby was convicted under. The U.S. Constitution expressly gives the President the power to pardon people for federal crimes.
“shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States”
How in the world does exercising his constitutional power make him “above the law.” I have to say, the analysis on this site has being going down the tubes lately.
1) Read the Founding Fathers on the power of the pardon and the proper response thereto.
2) By commuting Libby’s sentence, Libby is still technically a convicted man undergoing an appeals process. That means he still has 5th Amendment rights and can continue the cover-up. This act essentially says that his administration is “above the law”.
3) This nation has already rejected the concept that just because the President does it, it’s legal.
What the President did is legal. But there’s a difference between a legal action and a law-abiding administration.
“…there’s a difference between a legal action and a law-abiding administration.”
I agree. I also agree that the Bush administration has broken many laws both domestically and internationally. In addition, I think it was a scuzy, sleazy thing to do to pardon this guy. That said, the pardon itself was completely 100% legal. Despite what the founding fathers may or may not have said, this is a situation where the Constitution is perfectly clear. If someone breaks the laws of the United States, the President has the power to pardon them. There are no limitations other than if that person was impeached. In that case, no pardon is allowed. The only reason Ford was able to pardon Nixon was because he was not impeached. No future President could pardon Clinton for the perjury junk though.
Anyway, my only point is that what Bush did was clearly spelled out in the Constitution. To say that particular act puts the administration above the law is only correct to the extent that the United States Constitution puts the President above the law. That would be silly though, because the Constitution IS THE LAW…and the highest law in the land at that.
If we don’t like the President’s power to pardon, there are plenty of things we can do about it. I, for one, think it is a good check and balance against partisan prosecutions. Anyway, Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States…just not for the reason of pardoning Libby.
I think that because Clinton was not “convicted” of his impeachment, he could still be pardoned, had his crimes actually been entered into the record books. However, Clinton was found in civil contempt, but no perjury charges were ever filed against him.
I do maintain that the act of commutation could itself be considered as obstruction of justice, due to the unique position it places Libby in to continue avoiding testimony that might be damaging to Cheney or Bush himself. Only an impeachment proceeding would tell, though, and it looks like Democrats are more interested in counting votes before hearing charges than they are in maintaining the other part of our Constitution – the one that the Founders so eloquently pointed out as the proper response to today’s action.
using the power of the pardon – then they do put themselves above the law.
I think maybe it is time to consider impeachment.
Or was impeachment “already on the table” as far as you were concerned?
I thought impeachment was both il-advisied and not a slam-dunk. Even the stonewalling on the DOJ testimony I thought should be handled as it is now – subpeona first.
But this basically says that Bush will do absolutely anything to insure that no one in his administration faces justice.
I think we may be at the point where anything short of impeachment will be ineffective with Bush doing an end-run around it regardless of the law.
It’s interesting to see just what pushes people over the edge on this call. Impeachment is a tool that the Founders I think wished used with relative frequency, but that civil politics has largely pushed into the “for emergency use only” cabinet. When to break the glass on that cabinet is a pretty undefined circumstance.
“How in the world does exercising his constitutional power make him “above the law.” I have to say, the analysis on this site has being going down the tubes lately”.
This site has devolved into an Air America blog. Serious discussion of law and policy are not nearly as fun as Bush bashing – What is most revealing is the selective amnesia over the Clinton Pardons.
I already commented on the “Clinton Pardons”. Clinton never pardoned anyone who was complicit in a crime and cover-up committed in his own White House.
What’s most revealing about your own comment is that you can’t discuss the current issue – you have to revert back to something Clinton did or was perceived to do.
it of course doesnt matter who the Prez pardons. No, Clinton didnt pardon anyone “who was complicit in a crime and cover-up committed in his own White House.” But why does it matter legally…not based on feelings or moral imperatives?
And also, what was your earlier point about reading the founders in respect to pardons? I assume you speak of Federalist 73ish (maybe 74, I dont recall off the top of my head). My point is that whatever the founders “thought” doesnt change the actual text of the Constitution and the Prez’s right to do whatever he wants (in respect to pardons) despite how we feel or how things appear.
It’s in a nice gray block, at the main level…
There was a back-and-forth during the Constitutional Convention about the power of the pardon. Mason asks about the case where the President pardons a crime that he himself ordered done as a means to obstruct justice; Madison responds that the appropriate counter-balance in the Constitution is that the President should be impeached, tried and removed for such an act.
If there is a clearer set of instructions on how to use the powers enumerated in the Constitution under a particular circumstance, I don’t know where to find it.
Re: Clinton, I had only one point – Clinton is the first fallback of anyone who doesn’t want to discuss a particular issue here and now. I addressed at least some of it, and you’re *still* trying to use him as a shield.
I see your point. Thanks. Buuuut, in words similar to yours, this is where the Left gets it wrong. Attacking Clinton instead of defending Bush (potentially) resonates with far more people…especially one’s base. “Defending” any pardon, Clinton’s or Bush’s, is a difficult proposition…hence, just attack someone else. Is it a valid “argument” or way to support one’s point?…not so much. But it generally works…
In reality, I agree w/ almost everything youve posted on this topic…I would love Arbusto to be booted out of office…but I think we both know it’s not going to happen.
But I kind of agree with you….although for different reasons than you have I’m sure. One of the reasons that I think Air America failed was because most liberals don’t like the truth being twisted around. This is the reason that so many liberals listen to NPR, because they give accurate reporting. I tried listening to Air America at various times but always found myself banging my head because the hosts were twisting and spinning to try to get to the result they wanted. But why make stuff up when there is so much really wrong with Bush and his cronies. That program insulted my intelligence.
ColoradoPols is not as bad as Air America… but they certainly are changing into an outlet for Progress Now or somebody. I certainly didn’t start coming here to hear people agree with me. Why would I waste my time? I’m not sure if the writers here are different people, or simply changed agendas…either way things are certainly different.
I do think the Dead Guvs – or as many as still run the blog – are trending a bit more liberal in their front page posts and promotions. But it’s no secret that two of the three originals trended that way from the start.
The only recent change is the coming of David Sirota, who is definitely a liberal presence with a national name.
The rest doesn’t seem to have changed much, except that the Republican posters are a bit more quiet as of late.
If Bush keeps it up it will soon be unpatriotic to be a Republican. This has gone so far beyond different policies and the White House has become almost a mafia family – with the power to pardon.
NPR sucked right up to the White House dick when it came to the invasion of Iraq. Now they have Tucker Carlson and they recently hired Frank Lundberg to run a poll. NPR has shifted significantly rightward in the last five years. I stopped listening long ago.
From where? You must be fairly left of center if you view NPR as being to the right of yourself.
Let’s be honest: NPR’s reporting has slipped significantly in the past 6.5 years. It’s gone from insightful to “balanced” to slipshod almost overnight. At this point, the only thing it still has going for it is the length of time they spend on a story. (Whether or not they *do* anything with that time is a hit-or-miss proposition…)
It ain’t your father’s public radio, that’s for sure.
With pride….
However, I am an independent thinker, and find myself pretty much out of step with my liberal brothers and sisters on several issues. That includes immigration levels, both legal and illegal, worrying about “equality” in many venues where people make their choices, etc.
…to testify as to why he pardoned Tricky Dick. Anyone think that the Shrub will do the same?
Ford was a member of the House before his stint as V.P. and President. I think he did that out of respect for his roots more than anything.
If a President wanted to make nice, they’d go to the Senate, not the house
Like, his half brother, Roger?
If you REALLY want to see a long list of pardons from Clinton, here’s a list that reads like a hall of shame.
http://www.usdoj.gov…
Don’t forget the medications.
So – what about *this* commutation? Is it right? Wrong?
It’s like ADD, but different.
“So, what do you think about today’s issue?”
“Well, I think… Hey, look at what Clinton did!”
Certainly different than President Clinton’s widely criticized pardon of the 16 Puerto Rican terrorists (members of the FALN) over the objections of law enforcement officials, and after the Justice Department consulted representatives of the FALN prisoners, but not the victims. These terrorists actually MURDERED people with bombings in New York. But, Hillary was running for the senate and the votes she got from certain communities as a result seemed to be a, umm, side benefit?
Has there been any condemnation?
Personally, I think the Democrats are making a mistake. It only allows the point to be made of Clinton’s greater magnitude of moral turpitude. Sort of like when Edward Kennedy was on the Senate Judiciary Committee and pretty much kept his mouth shut on accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas. His hypocrisy (Chappequidik) would have made him the laughing stock if he suddenly pretended to stand on higher moral ground. It’s the same for the Democrats, especially Hillary, in attacking Bush. It gives Republicans the easy way to remind the electorate of Marc Rich, Roger Clinton, the Puerto Rican terrorists.
(psssst….what does that mean?)
Literally, “which was necessary to be demonstrated”. Used as an endnote in mathematical (and other) logical proofs to state that the proof is completed by the steps just performed.
CD5 Line pretty much fulfilled the proof of my point with his response.
Excellent proof! 😉
Oh wait, I guess people who are not criminals don’t need a pardon. My favorite is the one for “Theft of four pounds of butter”. I can see why you’re so upset.
As to pardoning his half-brother, what kind of person would he be if he did not pardon a family member in that situation?
She’s got to get elected first. 🙂
Beat me to it David ! Damn butter thiefs.
http://en.wikipedia….
Good list, similar to Clinton’s though not as long yet. Bush something like 115, Clinton had 395 over 8 years with 140 on the last day.
that’s a hell of a difference from this situation!
Clinton pardoned about as many people as Reagan did.
Thanks for providing the source for the above statistics.
Raymond Phillip Weaver U. S. Navy summary court-martial 1947 Theft of four pounds of butter
I’m not making it up – it’s on the list !
…is cough.
When a judge “zips down his fly and takes a piss on the rule of law and our entire system of government,” the courties get uncontrollably angry, but everyone else insists it’s no big deal. But when President Bush uses the power the Constitution specifically gives him to “take a piss on the rule of law and our entire system of government,” it’s a crisis??? While I would have preferred to continue to lurk, your whining is “so beyond ridiculous that it couldn’t be ignored.”
Rio, Condor, and Tilt get the last laugh. You’ve all been hoist on your own petard, and are starting to sound like that crazy lady. Hypocrites. Get over it.
I took a brief break and came back in in the middle of the whole courtie kerfuffle. I haven’t had time to catch up on them, they use a lot of space arguing about whatever it is they’re arguing about, and perhaps they have a valid issue. Perhaps not, but perhaps. Regardless, *this* particular issue I’m up-to-date on, and it is in fact a Big Deal™.
“Uncontrollably angry,” is probably not how I’d describe my rants. In observing the frenzy over this issue there are two ways I could view it: (1) alienate everybody by accusing them of being a bunch of hypocrites over the issue of the “rule of law” based on the measure of response to this post as opposed to some others; or (2) recognize that the measure of responses here by comparison to other diaries doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone didn’t care about the rule of law (until now). I think #2 is more on point. Most people care about the rule-of-law, particularly when it affects them personally or some issue important to them.
maybe their thorazine and seroquel cocktail has kicked in, and they’re sedated….
Judging by the volume of posts on this subject, I’d say that a lude may, indeed, be in order.
Bottom line is, he has legal right to pardon. Clinton had a legal right to pardon. Presidents in this country have a legal right to pardon. Deal with it or change it. There is no “rule of law” violation here, hence I have no particular bitch on this subject.
What I have a bitch about (made crystal clear in other diaries and posts) is when an illusion is set up about a right of access to the court or about legal ethics & professional responsibility and, in fact, it’s a bunch of bullshit and lies.
On more than one ocassion, ParsingReality and a couple other (you, in fact) have asked me to confine my rants to the relevant diaries. So, I do. Now, you’re pissing and moaning because I’m haven’t posted a barking mad rant in this section? What’s up with that?
Not sure if anyone raised this point, yet. If Bush had decided to pardon either partially or entirely, he should’ve pulled the extraordinary privilege and done so without comment. His commentary [that the court’s sentence was harsh] undermines confidence in the judiciary (the rule of law). If Bush can second-guess our imperialist judiciary (Scalia’s words; not mine) by speaking to the merits of their decision-making, rather than just granting the friggin’ pardon, then why should any American not second guess judicial decision-making in their cases and, in effect, disregard rulings on that basis?
The answer, of course, is the Rule of Force –i.e., who has the bigger stick. The ultimate analysis is that the Rule of Law is to be respected only because the gov’t has the bigger stick. Period. If this analysis is adopted by homegrown terrorists or militias, we now have a recipe for disaster based only upon who can compete based on the size of sticks.
And this, my friends, is why I rant about the importance of attach integrity with the independence of the judiciary. Regrettably, it seems that my attorney colleagues are too busy making billing hours and making a dollar to give a rat’s ass about the long-term, which all of our children will have to deal with.
“To distrust the judiciary,” said Honoré de Balzac, “marks the beginning of the end of society.”
Except, what took you so long? Undermining the independence of the judiciary is a hallmark of the Bush Administration. Ignoring the law and attacking “activitist judges” is chronic with Bush. This is absolutely consistent…even tho the key members of the judiciary in this instance were all Bush appointees…
Articles of Impeachment Adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary
July 27, 1974
Article 1
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:
[…] 9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
Is everyone going to start posting in color now? Then I get dibs on this one!
. . . ’cause no one can read what the heck you wrote!
What I’m saying is that everyone gets to pick a new color but me. You gotta be fast…
I just thought that deserved a bit of “extra attention”. I’ve known how for a long time, just haven’t exercised my “authority”.
The Bush Administration’s disregard for Federal Courts, Federal Law, the Constitution, Congress, the Justice Department, the Geneva Convention, and the American people is nothing new. Is it really surprising to any of you that Bush commuted Libby’s sentence and will it be surprising to you when he grants Libby a full pardon in January of 2009? Hello…..
Bush and Cheney have been legislating from the seat of their pants throughout their entire administration and it is just now starting to smell to you? A known “courtie”, the message that I am trying to convey here is that just as the Bush Administration has ignored the rule of law to the detriment of our Country, so have many judges legislated from their respective benches to the detriment of the individual and family in our society. One is no less contemptible than the other. Either we have a government and society that operates fully under and respects the rule of law or we have anarchy.
Since our present government displays no discernable regard for honesty, integrity, servitude, justice, individual rights, or humanity; is it any wonder that the citizenry has an escalating contempt for it at every level? As a Christian I do not advocate violence, however notwithstanding divine intervention, I personally believe that the time for debate is over and only by revolution will the American people regain our Country.
A perfectly fitting phrase, and a new addition to my lexicon.
The average sentence for obstruction of justice? 70 months. Bush’s take on Libby’s 30 month sentence? “Excessive.”
From L.A. Times article:
[snip]
“We can’t find any cases, certainly in the last half century, where the president commuted a sentence before it had even started to be served,” said Margaret Colgate Love, a former pardon attorney at the Justice Department. “This is really, really unusual.”
Said Ellen S. Podgor, a professor at Stetson University law school: “This is a classic case of executive activism as opposed to judicial activism.”
[snip]
http://www.latimes.c…
professor of law over at Ohio State (and runs the Sentencing Law and Policy blawg) had to say: