"Don't You Ever Get Tired of Being Wrong All the Time?"*
I have lost track of the court decisions rebuking this administration. But the latest one is fairly important in terms of restoring the rightful constitutional balance between Congress and the Executive. Of course, this decision and the entire set of facts underlying it illustrate my belief that the constitutional design of separation of powers is defunct and incapable of functioning unless the opposite parties occupy the elected branches.
Without further ado, here's my favorite benchslap line from Judge Bates:
The Volokh Conspiritors are analyzing this significant decision rebuking Bush's warped constitutional theories as quickly and thoroughly as the purported University of Chicago tenure offer to Sen. Obama.
*Homer: "Don't You Ever Get Tired of Being Wrong All the Time?"
Marge: "Sometimes"
Bonus points if you name the episode without googling.
Without further ado, here's my favorite benchslap line from Judge Bates:
In the thirty-four years since United States v. Nixon was decided, the courts have routinely considered questions of executive privilege or immunity, and those issues are now “of a type that are traditionally justiciable” in federal courts, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 697(citation omitted), and certainly not unprecedented, as the Executive contends.
Indeed, the aspect of this lawsuit that is unprecedented is the notion that Ms. Miers is absolutely immune from compelled congressional process. The Supreme Court has reserved absolute immunity for very narrow circumstances, involving the President’s personal exposure to suits for money damages based on his official conduct or concerning matters of national security or foreign affairs. The Executive’s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law.
The Volokh Conspiritors are analyzing this significant decision rebuking Bush's warped constitutional theories as quickly and thoroughly as the purported University of Chicago tenure offer to Sen. Obama.
*Homer: "Don't You Ever Get Tired of Being Wrong All the Time?"
Marge: "Sometimes"
Bonus points if you name the episode without googling.
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 10:18 AM
10 Comments:
Oh man. That's a tough one.
I am picturing... something about donuts.. Homer turns into a donut? No.. ah! Different Treehouse of Horrors.
Giant Lard Lad. Destroying town. After Homer gives the donut back. Yes?
Just don't look! Just don't look!
"Homer, just give him the donut..." Guest-starring Paul Anka.
It's got Paul Anka's guarantee.
Guarante void in Tennessee.
Given that there have been enough decisions rebuking this administration that the might Armen has lost count, I would say separation of powers is alive and well.
I would argue that the fundamental flaw in our government lies in the legislative branch - specifically the amount of power that lobbyists and special interest groups have over elected representatives and how much accountability to the population that elected these officials there really is.
Given that "the might [sic.] Armen" cannot even decipher this comment, my significant shortfalls in all regards should not be used to bolster any argument. But taking the comment at face value (a dangerous proposition), I don't think it squares with the political realities of today or the history of days before.
First, separation of powers requires three parties. Two branches are meant to check the remaining branch. During the first 6 years of the Bush administration, there was only a single branch offering a modest check on its excesses. Sure they lost Rasul and Hamdi in the SCOTUS, but they also scored some pretty big victories re Cheney's secrecy, detention in the 4th Cir., etc. As today's decision highlights, there were no congressional subpoenas flowing. So no, separation of powers was not functioning.
As for the influence of lobbyists, that's a concern that goes back to the days of U.S. Grant visiting the Willard in DC (nice hotel, but I would like my nice pen back from OCIP 2005!!!). Incidentally, we don't know too much about lobbyists in the executive branch because of ummm...lack of oversight. As originally drafted, the president was not (and is not) elected directly, while senators and judges were appointed. The government of the United States has never been democratic. And states are only guaranteed a republican form of government. We can debate the influence of lobbyists, but the lack of responsiveness to the electorate is a non-starter. By design, our government is not meant to be responsive to the electorate. Only one house, out of one of the branches was meant to really represent the people. Frankly, I'm glad they're not responsible to the electorate. Just look at the fine mess the state of California is in because of the electorate.
Taking anything at face value is always a dangerous proposition.
I'll won't get into a debate on how the federal government was set up (or was intended to be set up) until after I have taken a Con Law course. The following elucidation of my earlier comment is based on what I learned in my middle school social studies class and observations I've made over the past year.
1) The legislative branch of the government is broken. It comes down to the problem of who watches the watchers. Congress is much like the State of California in this regard: when people are voting on something that directly affects them, they are much more likely to vote in their own self interest rather than in the interest of the common good.
2) I might have erred in my phrasing that separation of powers is "alive and well." My point is that the give and take between the executive branch and the judicial branch is functioning the way it was intended to (although it seems to have taken longer for the process to start than it should have). The reason separation of powers is not functioning as well as it should (congressional subpoenas, etc.) is related directly to point 1. It's entirely possible that the reason for this is party loyalty, but I think it has more to do with the exorbitant amounts of money that can be made by a Congressman or Senator in the right position (see, e.g. Abramoff, DeLay, Stevens). Why start issuing subpoenas when that might ruin a good thing?
3) I'm not sure where your pen is. Perhaps you should check the bottom of your filing cabinet. That's where mine tend to end up.
I think I liked the Simpsons game better.
Congrats on being done with the bar exam, Class of '08. I'm sorry I'll be bringing down the pass rate.
There is always someone who thinks separation of powers isn't working because they don't like the direction of the country and who is running. Blame the American people for voting for Bush and the Republicans in Congress 2004. The flaw here isn't separation of powers, it's the limit of separation of powers in a democratic society. Maybe that limit's a good thing. Obstruction for the sake of obstruction isn't useful.
Spoken like a true nightmare, 8:45.
Allow me to paraphrase: The people are idiots, yet those few who dislike the direction this country is taking are hysterical. And separation of powers is de facto obstruction of progress.
Post a Comment
<< Home