Patterico's Pontifications

7/12/2009

Democrats Looking Backwards (Updated x2)

Filed under: Government,Obama — DRJ @ 12:22 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The AP reports Attorney General Eric Holder is considering a special prosecutor for a criminal investigation of Bush-era CIA torture allegations. An anonymous Justice Department source claims Holder will decide in the next few weeks, but Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said Holder acknowledged “it would be unfair to prosecute any official who acted in good faith based on legal guidance from the Justice Department.”

This suggests to me the Obama Administration wants to go after the big Bush Administration fish, not the little CIA fish. The mere possibility of a Bush-related investigation is red meat that will keep the liberal base satiated during a time of sinking polls and bad economic news.

In addition, Democratic Senators Feinstein and Durbin are considering investigations into whether VP Cheney and Bush administration “broke the law by concealing a CIA counterterrorism program from Congress.” GOP Senator John Cornyn responded that the Cheney assertion “looks to me suspiciously like an attempt to provide political cover” to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who accused the CIA of lying to her about its use of waterboarding.

UPDATE 1: Sweetness & Light on how quickly the Democrats leaked information on the counterterrorism program to the New York Times:

“And less than two weeks later this information shows up on the front page of the New York Times. What a triumph for all involved.

Oh, and never mind that this secret counter terrorism program never even was implemented. We must warn the terrorists, just in case. And we must excoriate those who were trying to protect us.”

UPDATE 2Jules Crittenden has a lot more thoughts on Cheney, plus this great Crittenden quote on what may be motivating Obama:

“John Cole at Balloon-Juice is indignant no one’s been indicted yet.

I’m not sure what the point of Obama even having an agenda if they don’t go about holding people accountable for what they have done here. Otherwise, we’ll just be going through this again in the future.

Someone tell Cole it might be because Obama doesn’t want to push for indictments is because he doesn’t want to get indicted himself. Especially since he got on board with Bush’s GWOT or whatever they are calling these days. Then, there’s the question of whether you can indict someone for not breaking the law.”

— DRJ

93 Responses to “Democrats Looking Backwards (Updated x2)”

  1. What else can one expect of Obama’s an end to partisanship pledge and his new attitudes promise. Looks like he meant show trials.

    Hope the GOP can remember what the dhimmirats really are. I’d like to see a complete investigation of 28 czars, how the constitution is being shredded on a daily basis and an investigation into the DOJ and its selective investigations.

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  2. Not to worry, Thomas. The next President has a reputation of going after corruption and cleaning up government. I understand she did it in her home state of Alaska and to her own party. You have to wonder what these people think. Most folks know the Vice President is not in charge of the CIA nor is he in anyway in the chain of command. Can you imagine Joe Biden in charge of the CIA, or giving them directions?

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (30e8b2)

  3. And the mere possiblity of a Bush-related investigation is red meat that will keep the liberal base satiated during a time of sinking polls and bad economic news.

    Bad economic news in the early 70’s, too. But this kind of ‘red meat’ is good for the heart (and the soul) of government as well as both political parties. If Dubya and Cheney did nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear.

    “Truth is the glue that holds government together.”– President Gerald R. Ford, August 9, 1974 after the resignation in disgrace of President Richard Nixon, a Republican, for Watergate.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  4. In addition, Democratic Senators Feinstein and Durbin are considering investigations into whether VP Cheney and Bush administration “broke the law by concealing a CIA counterterrorism program from Congress.”

    Yeah that’s right. Start an investigation into the coverup of a program before you even disclose what the program was.

    Pseuss (2e8fa0)

  5. This post was a freakin’ dog whistle to idiots like International Man of Parody.

    JD (7510a7)

  6. Just what the country needs, another distaction from the poor performance of the Obama Administration. They must really be feeling the heat.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  7. How many positions has Teh One taken on this?

    JD (7510a7)

  8. Nuthin’ to see here. Nothing going on. Nope. Move on along. Nothing here.
    Heh-heh. Rahm Emanuel is gonna lose this one, thank you Cheeses. Lotta shoes already droppin’.

    Palin in 2012.
    It’s the right thing.

    Larry Reilly (45e7a4)

  9. We don’t know what the program was, or how far along it was.

    Was it ever launched? Or was it only in the planning stages? Does the CIA/Executive have an obligation to tell Congress about its plans that aren’t imminently underway?

    Daryl Herbert (a32d30)

  10. I’d like to see a complete investigation of 28 czars…

    Comment by Thomas Jackson — 7/12/2009 @ 12:30 pm

    What is the reason for investigating czars?

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  11. Here I go out of town for a few days, and return to find Larry Reilly posting like nishi. Except with slightly better punctuation.

    PWI, I guess. But it is a little early in the day…

    Eric Blair (acade1)

  12. Investigate them for appropriating authority that exceeds the current law’s limitations, for starters.

    And I’m hoping against hope that they attempt to go after Cheney – getting him up on the witness stand to testify vs. Holder’s lackeys would be akin to watching Godzilla vs. Bambi, and nearly as much fun.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  13. “If Dubya and Cheney did nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear.”

    You do not understand the function of show trials. The last thing that matters is whether they did anything wrong; they are already convicted, and the public is already distracted from the real threat(s) to society.

    People didn’t learn one damned thing from the Soviets — or any other totalitarian regime that uses this tactic — did they?

    Federal Dog (2db423)

  14. “How many positions has Teh One taken on this?”

    Indications so far are that this is coming from Holder, not Obama.

    imdw (c71c04)

  15. Craig – Are you not at all curious why the car czar has no auto industry experience? Are you not at all curious about the explosion of czars under this admin, given that they do not require congrssional approval or oversight?

    Mawy Reilly just babbles incoherently.

    JD (7510a7)

  16. Then please tell us who Holder reports to in his current position, and why his boss is so apparently ignorant of this momentous decision.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  17. That is some glorious sophistry there, imdw.

    JD (7510a7)

  18. When pinned down under questioning on the subject, Holder could not come up with any laws that were violated by the EIT. Apart from the show trial aspects of it and further demoralizing the intelligence community, I have no idea what his goals are here. The fact that they are continuing the program, absent waterboarding, along with renditions essentially tips off his hypocrisy here.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  19. I’ve updated the post with a link to Sweetness & Light.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  20. Craig – Are you not at all curious why the car czar has no auto industry experience? Are you not at all curious about the explosion of czars under this admin, given that they do not require congrssional approval or oversight?

    Mawy Reilly just babbles incoherently.

    Comment by JD — 7/12/2009 @ 2:09 pm

    Of course I’m curious. I asked a question, didn’t I? That would seem a clear indicator of curiosity.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  21. This “just asking questions” schtick gets pretty tiring.

    I am curious, also, how the existence of a program never implemented proves that SanFranNan was telling the truth.

    JD (7510a7)

  22. As I pointed out earlier on The Jury site, the point is to provide a distraction from the cratering economy. Waving the Dog does not have to be done overseas — a political circus demonizing your opposition can work just as well.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  23. JD – It seems to me like Obama has assembled what some people might call an Imperial Presidency.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  24. I am curious, also, how the existence of a program never implemented proves that SanFranNan was telling the truth.

    Comment by JD — 7/12/2009 @ 3:01 pm

    I doesn’t. She isn’t.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  25. Craig – Are you not at all curious why the car czar has no auto industry experience? Are you not at all curious about the explosion of czars under this admin, given that they do not require congrssional approval or oversight?

    Mawy Reilly just babbles incoherently.

    Comment by JD — 7/12/2009 @ 2:09 pm

    This “just asking questions” schtick gets pretty tiring…

    Comment by JD — 7/12/2009 @ 3:01 pm

    So am I being criticized for incuriosity or for asking too many questions?

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  26. daley–

    I think we’ll find out, some years from now, that waterboarding is not completely ruled out by Obama. Just reserved for the most pressing situations, using criteria not all that different from Bush’s. It’s just nuanced better.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  27. “Are you not at all curious about the explosion of czars under this admin, given that they do not require congrssional approval or oversight?”

    Would you feel better if they were called something else? What’s the trouble here ?

    “That is some glorious sophistry there, imdw.”

    Seriously. Attorney generals have disagreed with their bosses before. Even appointed independent prosecutors.

    imdw (e6c812)

  28. What are you setting out to “prove” in this one, Craig?

    JD (7510a7)

  29. Unlike Craig, imdw is a dishonest sophist.

    JD (7510a7)

  30. What are you setting out to “prove” in this one, Craig?

    Comment by JD — 7/12/2009 @ 3:33 pm

    My ignorance of people’s specific objections to, to the point of wishing for congressional investigations of, “czars”.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  31. I don’t object to investigations, congressional or otherwise, into the proliferation of “czars”. I think they should be by approval of and under the oversight of Congress, if they exist at all.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  32. Craig R. Harmon,

    One problem with czars is that, unlike Cabinet appointments, there is no Congressional review of their selection even though the czars may have similar responsibilities and authority to Cabinet appointees.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  33. How about appointing a eugenecist quack as the science czar?

    JD (7510a7)

  34. Craig,

    To amplify on my point, the occasional czar has been tolerated in the past but it’s never been used to the extent Obama has. Even Senator Robert Byrd is concerned that the appointment of so many czars is an unconstitutional executive power grab.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  35. The frustrating thing, DRJ, is that there is serious asymmetry going on here. It’s quite basic:

    1. If President Obama does or says something, he receives the benefit of the doubt from the MSM (there are cracks beginning to appear, but the majority of the press is like a teenager with her or his first crush). Don’t even get me started on Biden.

    2. If a Republican does or says the same thing, it is scrutinized under an electron microscope and the MSM does not assume the best of intentions.

    The problem with this is that power swings back and forth. What the folks on the Left don’t appreciate is how they are setting into place precedents that will not be accepted with a Republican in the White House. They are actively making obvious hypocrites of themselves.

    And pundits wonder why the public does not trust the MSM.

    The MSM should be suspicious of ALL politicians. But they sure don’t look at this President very carefully. At least not for now.

    By the way, I have a new rule that I suggest everyone follow: no one gets to attack the honesty of any Republican until Roland Burris is tossed out of the Senate. They have this character on tape offering cash to Blago’s brother in exchange for the Senate seat.

    And people wonder why Sarah Palin, target of many ethics investigations, is so frustrated?

    Ah, but that is…different!

    In a way, I am glad that the Left is acting out in such a hypocritical fashion. It bodes well for 2010. I believe that divided government is the best way to have something faintly resembling responsible government. At least right now.

    Eric Blair (acade1)

  36. How about appointing a eugenecist quack as the science czar?

    Comment by JD — 7/12/2009 @ 3:47 pm

    I am, on principle, opposed to appointing eugenicist quacks to be science “czar”.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  37. One problem with czars is that, unlike Cabinet appointments, there is no Congressional review of their selection even though the czars may have similar responsibilities and authority to Cabinet appointees.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/12/2009 @ 3:43 pm

    Okay, so the objection is to the notion of “czars” rather than to specific people who have been appointed to such positions. That makes sense.

    To amplify on my point, the occasional czar has been tolerated in the past but it’s never been used to the extent Obama has. Even Senator Robert Byrd is concerned that the appointment of so many czars is an unconstitutional executive power grab.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/12/2009 @ 3:52 pm

    I hear that. Thanks for explaining things to me.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  38. Where do we get the information that Cheney’s top secret program was never implemented (as S&L says)?

    MayBee (c43923)

  39. Where were Democratic Senators Feinstein and Durbin when AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin was fired illegally by President Obama?

    The President did so to prevent an investigation that was focusing on potential corruption of his friend and supporter, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

    (from the Washington Times, by S. Lengell, 06/19/09): Mr. Walpin had only weeks earlier submitted two reports highly critical of the agency he was charged to oversee; the Corporation for National and Community Service, an independent agency of the federal government.

    One of the reports dealt with the agency’s handling of a case involving suspicions of misuse of federal grant money by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA basketball star and an Obama supporter.

    The law violated was the Inspectors General Reform Act which required the President to notify Congress 30-days in advance of an IG’s employment termination.

    (from Page 2, section 3, sub-section (b) of The UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 5. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES, APPENDIX 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978, (Incorporating Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-409), pdf file : An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.

    Yet despite this law (which then-Senator Obama helped sponsor), Inspector General Walpin was given 1 hour to “resign or be terminated”

    (from S&L, by B. York, 06/11/09): Last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which added new protections for IGs, including a measure requiring the president to give Congress 30 days prior notice before dismissing an IG. The president must also give Congress an explanation of why the action is needed. Then-Sen. Barack Obama was one of the co-sponsors of the Act.

    ***

    “I was troubled to learn that last night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated,” [Republican Senator]Grassley wrote [to the White House]. “As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions. Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny.”

    Even a Democratic Senator believed the President had not followed the law.

    (from Google AP, 06/16/09):Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said the president failed to follow a law she sponsored, which requires that he give Congress 30 days advance notice of an inspector general’s dismissal, along with the cause for the firing. Obama merely said he had lost confidence in Walpin.

    So where is this investigation (the violation of the Inspectors General Reform Act), as opposed to Feinstein and Durbin’s act of political cover for Pelosi, which is based on only the “leaked” rumors of Democratic politicians?

    Have the Democrats lost their minds — what is more important here?

    Democratic Senators Feinstein and Durbin are so partisan and so corrupt; they will do anything for the Democratic Party; the nation be damned. They lack integrity and honor.

    Holder has the same characteristics, only worse in magnitude.

    Undoubtedly, that is why President Obama selected him as AG –his kind of guy.

    Pons Asinorum (cba947)

  40. Craig,

    I think there are also problems with specific people as well as the overabundance of czars. For instance, the auto czar doesn’t seem to have any relevant knowledge or background in the automobile industry.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  41. DRJ – Between the auto and science “czars”, I am having a hard time deciding which is more egregiously wrong.

    JD (7510a7)

  42. Isn’t looking backwards something that Teh One said was not going to happen?

    JD (7510a7)

  43. #10
    Craig:

    Assuming your question is an honest one I would like to see an investigation for the following reasons:

    These people are being paid at pay grades that normally require Congressional consent yet there is none why?

    The positions they hold both duplicate other positions and make accountibility impossible. Why would anyone do this unless they intended to undercut the authority of Congress to provide oversight?

    All these 28+ czars require large staffs as senior level staffs, probably 50 or more people each. I’d like to know how such expenses can be justified.

    I’d like to hear your reasons why an investigation isn’t justified given the lack of transparency, qualificiations, and disruption of normal lines of accountibility and responsibility.

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  44. “I think they should be by approval of and under the oversight of Congress, if they exist at all.”

    The constitution explains which positions require approval of congress.

    imdw (dc9722)

  45. Imdw – We get it. You are a dishonest twit.

    JD (7510a7)

  46. That’s rather “Imperial” IMHO.

    Techie (482700)

  47. He’s not bright enough to be dishonest. He’s just a parrot.

    nk (d7a872)

  48. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    Article 2 Section 2

    I can’t figure out where “Czars” fit into this either. Public Ministers?

    Techie (482700)

  49. My guess is they’re “inferior officers.”

    imdw (9cbb5f)

  50. I’ve added Update 2 to link a Jules Crittenden post.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  51. DRJ – Crittenden so ripped off my comment #18. I’m going after his butt.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  52. I kind of hope they try this …. it will make them the McCarthy-ists of this millenium.

    They will go down in flames and with them Barack and the rest of the liberal wing.

    HeavenSent (641cde)

  53. I’d like to hear your reasons why an investigation isn’t justified given the lack of transparency, qualificiations, and disruption of normal lines of accountibility and responsibility.

    Comment by Thomas Jackson — 7/12/2009 @ 7:16 pm

    First, yes, my question was serious. Second, thank you for your explanation. It was thoughtful and persuasively presented. Third, I haven’t said that I don’t think investigation is justified; I simply asked the reasons you thought them necessary. To wit, I have written, above at #31:

    I don’t object to investigations, congressional or otherwise, into the proliferation of “czars”. I think they should be by approval of and under the oversight of Congress, if they exist at all.

    Comment by Craig R. Harmon — 7/12/2009 @ 3:42 pm

    Hopefully, that settles that.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  54. DRJ #40, no he has no experience in the auto industry but he has all the qualifications necessary. After all, he’s described as:

    “very smooth” with a mien of formality, reserve, efficiency, and soft-spokenness. “He is a kind of perfect museum-board member,”

    What more qualification could the man need? :-)

    Actually, I think the relevant qualification is found in this:

    Rattner was a major fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., during the Democratic presidential primaries but after Mr. Obama felled his home state junior senator, he quickly began raising campaign cash for him as well, bringing in more than $100,000 for the then-Illinois senator’s successful campaign. Rattner’s wife Maureen White is a former fundraising chair for the Democratic National Committee.

    Now THIS crony is completely different from Bush’s cronies — “Heck of a job, Brownie!” After all, he’s a Democrat crony. Much more impressive credentials!

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  55. Heh. I like smooth museum board members but it’s better when they run museums instead of car companies.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  56. but it’s better when they run museums instead of car companies.

    When I first read that, I read “ruin” instead of “run”. Works either way.

    JD (bdcd86)

  57. I can’t figure out where “Czars” fit into this either. Public Ministers?

    Comment by Techie — 7/12/2009 @ 7:37 pm

    I suggest they might fit here:

    He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    Article 2 Section 2

    It seems to me that the “czars” could fit neatly into the appointments which Congress may by law vest in the President alone.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  58. However, I would rather Congress NOT vest the appointment in the President alone but require the advice and consent of the Senate.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  59. That’s why the scope of czars’ authority matters, Craig. They may not be “inferior officers” if they have the authority and power of Cabinet-level appointees for whom Senatorial advice and consent is required.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  60. The whole “czar” thingie has always bothered me. It just seems wrong.

    JD (bdcd86)

  61. DRJ – The auto czar apparently has greater authority than bankruptcy law, and gets to re-order the pecking order of creditors based on politics.

    JD (bdcd86)

  62. Between the auto and science “czars”, I am having a hard time deciding which is more egregiously wrong.

    I don’t know. My vote, if I had to cast one for the most egregiously wrong “czar”, would have to go with the “forced sterilization” science “czar.” At least the auto “czar” hasn’t suggested that we must forcibly sterilize the CEOs of the car companies…yet.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  63. #59,

    That’s why the scope of czars’ authority matters, Craig. They may not be “inferior officers” if they have the authority and power of Cabinet-level appointees for whom Senatorial advice and consent is required.

    No argument from me there, but that could be taken care of in the legislation passed by Congress establishing such offices, no?

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  64. Craig – Why would you place that kind of faith in the congresscritters ? 😉

    I am leaning your way on the quack science czar.

    JD (bdcd86)

  65. Why would you place that kind of faith in the congresscritters?

    Because placing it in many people with different interests and representing many different constituencies is preferable to placing it in one person, without so much as the chance for many people to grill him or her. You see, I just don’t see them disappearing and I’m not sure they should disappear. After all, Presidents are specialists in getting elected and generalists in most everything else. Better that he bring in genuine experts in varying fields. I would only say that they should go through a thorough vetting process which cannot occur without Senate inquiries.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  66. Also, I prefer the “czar” position to cabinet positions. “Czars” are, by nature, temporary posts. They may be created and filled during emergencies and then vacated once the emergency phase passes while cabinet positions are permanent. Well, that’s my thinking on the subject.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  67. I guess I would not mind it so much if they were genuine experts. There is no evidence of that with the dirty little socialist.

    JD (bdcd86)

  68. “Czars” are, by nature, temporary posts.

    By nature? For emergencies?

    The drug czar first came about in 1982. A short term emergency lasting 27 years. By the way, that position was created by the vote of the Senate. Not the whim of the President.

    MayBee (c43923)

  69. They may be created and filled during emergencies and then vacated once the emergency phase passes while cabinet positions are permanent. Well, that’s my thinking on the subject.

    And let’s not forget President Obama elevated his UN Ambassador Susan Rice to cabinet-level.
    She’s not a czar, and she’s not in the cabinet, but she’s temporarily hanging around the cabinet meetings. That seems a better way to get someone temporarily into more power while still having to be approved by Congress.

    MayBee (c43923)

  70. Well, the drug emergency has continued that long. My suggestion in combating the drug problem is along the lines of either decriminalization or legalization. This might get the drug problem out of the shadows, the criminal underground, and into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies. They could even be taxed just as alcohol and tobacco products are. Instead of piling cash into the bottomless pit of law enforcement and “czars”, the money could go to addiction treatment and the such.

    We could then evacuate and dissolve the “czar” position. A thought, anyway.

    Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0)

  71. The Drug Czar is no longer a czar, Craig. He’s been demoted by Obama, who apparently wants to have other Czars instead.

    In general, I would say temporary, open-ended, “emergency” appointments in Washington last precisely as long as they are beneficial for the people who want them.

    Regardless, the Senate wanted the drug czar. Obama himself is creating these other czars.

    MayBee (c43923)

  72. Yeah, nice that “Mr Constitutional Scholar” has found ways to run rings around the Constitution, and the so-called political leadership and media either hasn’t figure out his subornation or (worse) has figured it out and approves of it.

    It Can’t Happen Here is only fiction if you believe it to be fiction.

    steve miller (772b6e)

  73. “Yeah, nice that “Mr Constitutional Scholar” has found ways to run rings around the Constitution, and the so-called political leadership and media either hasn’t figure out his subornation or (worse) has figured it out and approves of it”

    If these czars are constitutionally improper, then their decisions can be challenged and invalidated in court.

    imdw (7c85b9)

  74. Imdw – who has oversight of the auto and science czars?

    JD (92df48)

  75. The point is that “Mr. Constitutional Scholar” is the one suborning the Constitution for his own needs.

    The irony meter is at 11.

    steve miller (772b6e)

  76. Here is a lot of looking backwards that the Dems won’t like …

    Behind The Meltdown: Many Americans are unaware of the causes of the greatest economic calamity of our lifetime. A new congressional report details how government politicized housing, wrecking the economy.

    Neo (46a1a2)

  77. 74

    You seem to put a great deal of reliance on the infalliability of the courts.

    Do inform us of what the courts said about imprisoning the Japanese without trial or evidence in WWII. Do tell us why J Edgar Hoover said FDR’s actions were fascist and without justification?

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  78. “You seem to put a great deal of reliance on the infalliability of the courts.”

    No more than anyone else. If the appointments are improper then the decisions from that appointee can be challenged by someone with standing. So we have court oversight of the appointment process.

    “Imdw – who has oversight of the auto and science czars?”

    According to this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_czars_of_the_Obama_administration

    The science czar is John Holdren, head of the office of science and technology policy. Previous science advisers and heads of that office (and its predecessor office) are here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Science_and_Technology_Policy

    This report from the congressional research service lays out the options for congress with regards to the OSTP:

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34736.pdf

    Now, do you think you can do the same research with the “car czar”?

    imdw (e6c812)

  79. That research will have to change gears since the current car czar, Steven Rattner, is stepping down “under a cloud with an investigation of an influence peddling scandal back in New York.” He will be replaced by former steelworkers official Ron Bloom.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  80. Heh. WSJ notes Bloom’s tendency to ‘spout profanities’ and accusations of him being “too cozy with the moneymen.” This administration is certainly consistent in some aspects of it.

    Dana (57e332)

  81. Indications so far are that this is coming from Holder, not Obama.

    Ah yes, the latest meme of the Left in an attempt to protect the Obamamessiah.

    If Holder allows himself to be thrown under the bus like that, he’s even dumber than we thought.

    North Dallas Thirty (d7f5d6)

  82. #78:

    Sorry but anyone who trusts the courts will wind up in the camps as the Japanese did or as the jews did.

    Now its rather obvious which category you fall into.

    I belong to the Jacksonian school. You might study what he told the Supreme Court to do and what it did do.

    The next president who follows Jackson will be on Rushmore.

    As for science czar, I certainly could do better. This man is in the same league as Mengele.

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  83. “Sorry but anyone who trusts the courts will wind up in the camps as the Japanese did or as the jews did.”

    You’re an odd one. We trust the courts with sentencing people to life and death.

    “I belong to the Jacksonian school. You might study what he told the Supreme Court to do and what it did do.”

    So guess its not just that people wind up like the japanese and the jews, they wind up like the native americans too.

    imdw (017d51)

  84. You sir are a dullard.

    Your argue you can trust unelected individuals who remain in power for life and find them a superior alternative to those who can be removed for their decisions.

    I have no doubt you are a big fan of states that feature President for Life and Fuhrer’s.

    Truly sad.

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  85. “Your argue you can trust unelected individuals who remain in power for life and find them a superior alternative to those who can be removed for their decisions.”

    It’s not that simple. Judges have a role to play in our separation of powers, and you’ll get a certain oversight from them.

    “You sir are a dullard.”

    You’re right. I’m arguing with a dude that rails against judges but then quotes jackson ignoring them — bringing us to the trail of tears.

    imdw (704cde)

  86. Pathetic I am dealing with someone who argues you can expect justice from someone who is unaccountable for his actions and then uses strawmen.

    Tell us again how well the Japanese made out.

    Tell us about the jews who had their day in court in Hitler’s Germany.

    Rationizing evil cannot be disguised cannot be argued to be superior, it is simply evil.

    So tell us are you merely a sub contractor to Satan or an indentured servant?

    I would expect intelligent argument not the sort of tripe the others post here.

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  87. Frankly, neither of you has been impressing me in this thread for quite some time.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  88. “Pathetic I am dealing with someone who argues you can expect justice from someone who is unaccountable for his actions and then uses strawmen.”

    You know. Lots of people didn’t like Brown vs. Board of education. Including Rehnquist.

    imdw (1f0af4)

  89. Considering the decision had nothing to do with the law I can understand that.

    You seem very adept at not answering questions, why is that?

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  90. SPQR:

    Res ipsa loquitur.

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  91. “Considering the decision had nothing to do with the law I can understand that.”

    Now this is a new one.

    imdw (960795)

  92. Only to the uninformed or those who wear the red star.

    Which category do you fall into?

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  93. Indeed, Thomas, the thing does speak for itself. In this case, the contents of this thread.

    SPQR (5811e9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5298 secs.