home
Inviting Inherent Contempt | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Didn't Know (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:37:54 PM EST
That you were against inherent contempt. It is the next logical step for blowing off subpoenas. They have been warned by Waxman and Leahy that if they disregard oversight they would be in contempt of Congress. I don't remember you saying that was foolish. Impeachment yes, but contempt no.

Am I missing something here?

[ Parent ]

Inherent contempt (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:44:58 PM EST
is a spoecific proceeding conducted solely by the House or Seante where it is prosecutor judge and enforcer, through the Sargeant at Arms, of the penalty. imprisonment.

[ Parent ]
Thanks BTD (none / 0) (#12)
by squeaky on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:03:37 PM EST
I read over the links and am a bit clearer now on the distinctions. One question though, if the house rules inherent contempt does the Senate have any say, or is the house decision final and binding?

[ Parent ]
My understanding is (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:07:10 PM EST
each House manages its own business.

[ Parent ]
I was for crimial contempt (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:42:26 PM EST
via a special House counsel, not the US Attorney.

But since Olson and the Bush Admionistration say the court does not bbind them on this, then inherent contempt is merited now.

[ Parent ]

Inviting Inherent Contempt | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft