View Full Version : Does the rule of law matter?
Apparently trump plans to kill it once and for all this coming weekend. It will be fascinating to read the justifications for pardons for war criminals by all the sad slobs who still support the orange turd. And the equally sad "I don't support this particular thing but I still support him" justifications. I suppose if there's anything good that's come from this presidency it's that it has created a harry potter-style sorting hat for us to figure out the content of everyone's character.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/trump-pardons-war-crimes.html
Teacher Terry
5-22-19, 11:04pm
Disgusted!
This is just a heinous misuse of power.
I think the rule of law is being shredded.
Apparently you don't need to respond to subpoenas now. Good to know.
Apparently you don't need to respond to subpoenas now. Good to know.
Well, since we don't have an attorney general anymore to enforce the rule of law this shouldn't be a surprise. William Barr's title would more accurately be Trump Defense Attorney.
Well, since we don't have an attorney general anymore to enforce the rule of law this shouldn't be a surprise.
I may be wrong, but I don't think it's a violation of law to ignore a Congressional subpoena. I believe that for it to be enforceable by law the Congress must first find the witness in Contempt of Congress and then have a Federal Court order the witness to appear. If the witness still fails to show, the witness can then be found to be in Contempt of Court with appropriate legal remedies applied.
I would be surprised to see any of this happen in the Barr case since one of the requirements to finding a person in contempt is to show that the subpoena had a legislative purpose and this one seems to be more political in nature.
The courts have tended to defer to congress to decide whether a subpoena has a legislative specific legislative purpose need not be a part of the subpoena.
Congress could also revert back to using inherent contempt and avoid the judicial branch altogether.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas
From the link:
As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[7] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.
The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[8] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena. For example, attorney-client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized.[9]
Wasn’t Eric Holder held in contempt over the gun running thing? He didn’t seem to suffer for it.
The courts have tended to defer to congress to decide whether a subpoena has a legislative specific legislative purpose need not be a part of the subpoena.
Congress could also revert back to using inherent contempt and avoid the judicial branch altogether.
Then I think Congress should forget the Sturm Und Drang theatrics and move to a jurisprudence approach, although they may have good reason to avoid that.
Using a method they used to use all the time and only stopped using because they found something easier doesn't really strike me as strum and drang. Storm and drang is making up out of whole cloth bizarre lies about doctors and mothers committing infanticide in order to whip up anger over women having autonomy over their bodies.
frugal-one
5-23-19, 10:17pm
After all the drama and fiasco ... it is hard to understand how anyone could still be in favor of Trump.
Well, he DOES hate on the brown people. And nominate radical activist judges.
iris lilies
5-23-19, 10:53pm
Well, he DOES hate on the brown people. And nominate radical activist judges.
Stock market loves on Trump.
Stock market loves on Trump.
Rich people mist be thrilled with him too then. Despite his idiotic trade war.
And yet again the white house makes plain that the rule of law does not apply to them. Not particularly shocking and I'm sure his supporters won't care because they don't seem to care about our country or constitution any more than the traitor in chief. They only seem to care about "sticking it to the libs".
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/government-watchdog-calls-kellyanne-conway-be-removed-office-violating-hatch-n1017241
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.