Know A Good Discussion Of Mukasey's Arguments Against Pursuing Contempt Charges?
Does anybody know where I can find a good discussion of Mukasey's arguments against pursuing contempt charges against Miers and Bolton? Earlier I expressed some anger about this (I mean, it IS fairly clear by now that this administration has contempt for the Constitution, so this looks like just another plank in that platform), but it didn't take long for me to realize that I really have no idea what the reasoning is here, and that Mukasey could be right for all I know. I did run across this, and it reminded me that Mukasey had already made his position clear on this, so no one should be surprised. However, Steve Cohen's point seems very strong to me (though, of course, I'm a non-lawyer)--that is, it seems that even senior advisers would have to appear and assert their privilege rather than not appearing at all. Reflection on this point makes their non-appearance seem more like a blatant "f*ck you" from the White House. Now, again, my opinion--especially this untutored reaction--isn't worth much on this point. I'm not entitled to an opinion here without, ya know, learning something about what's going on.
Does anybody know where I can find a good discussion of Mukasey's arguments against pursuing contempt charges against Miers and Bolton? Earlier I expressed some anger about this (I mean, it IS fairly clear by now that this administration has contempt for the Constitution, so this looks like just another plank in that platform), but it didn't take long for me to realize that I really have no idea what the reasoning is here, and that Mukasey could be right for all I know. I did run across this, and it reminded me that Mukasey had already made his position clear on this, so no one should be surprised. However, Steve Cohen's point seems very strong to me (though, of course, I'm a non-lawyer)--that is, it seems that even senior advisers would have to appear and assert their privilege rather than not appearing at all. Reflection on this point makes their non-appearance seem more like a blatant "f*ck you" from the White House. Now, again, my opinion--especially this untutored reaction--isn't worth much on this point. I'm not entitled to an opinion here without, ya know, learning something about what's going on.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:02 AM
3 Comments:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/23/privilege/
I usually look to Cass Sunstein, a gentleman of the left, to see if his side is overreaching. He seems to be saying that Miers and Bolten should appear, but the underlying claim of exec privilege is legit.
See Sen. Pat Leahy on p.3, on both sides of the issue depending on which party the president's from.
Thanks, Tom.
I think Sunstein is pretty good, too.
It does seem to me that one should at least have to show up and say "@#$%* you" to Congress in person.
I'll check it out.
We could do worse than Sunstein on the Supreme Court. I of course don't always agree with him, but he's a principled jurist.
I read elsewhere that this issue could and would be litigated past the end of Bush's term anyway, as there's no clear precedent. So, in real terms, the issue's moot.
To pursue it as an abstract or precendent-setting point of law, the SC has historically stayed out of the way in disputes between the exec and the legislative. Absent any clear evidence of criminality [see the Nixon tapes case] in advance of any hearings or subpoenas, I think they'd largely duck it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home