Loaded Questions From The Federalist Society

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:44:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The New York Times asked four attorneys what questions they would ask Alberto Gonzales. Truth be told the questions are, imo, pretty awful and not much related to the issues at hand. But only one set of questions had me bursting in laughter. Read what the co-founder of the Federalist Society would ask:

Congress’s Role By Steven G. Calabresi
1. Can politics truly be kept out of the investigations into the recent dismissal of several United States attorneys if such oversight is being led by a senator who is himself responsible for the election of Democratic senatorial candidates in 2008?

[He's talking about Schumer and the silly GOP talking point that somehow a Senator involved in electing Dems can't do his job as Senator. First, the investigation is being led by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, not Schumer. Second, every Senator will be involved in getting folks of their party elected. By Calabresi's logic, no one in Congress can investigate anything ever. This is one of the stupidest talking points in the history of talking points.].

2. Doesn’t the Constitution make the president the law enforcement officer in chief precisely so he can make sure that all 93 United States attorneys are following the law enforcement priorities that he was elected to enforce? And doesn’t the Constitution specifically limit Congress’s role in removal of United States attorneys to impeaching them or their superiors for high crimes and misdemeanors?

[More nonsense. The President and his Attorney General are supposed to enforce the priorities of the Congress, to wit, enforce the laws passed by Congress, not his "law enforcement priorities." As for the Congress' role, this is not a subject Calabresi should be bringing up since the Bush Adminsitration engaged in some dirty stealth language changes in laws in orer to circumvent Congress' role in CONFIRMING US attorneys]

3. Have you, President Bush or anyone else in the administration ever, to your knowledge, sought to stop or start a criminal investigation by a United States attorney for political reasons?

[Why I would NEVER do that. But Karl Rove would. And so would Pete Domeneci.]

< New Poll: Giuliani's Lead Shrinks, Hillary's Holds | The Case Against Mandatory Minimums >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Loaded Questions From The Federalist Society | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Federalist Society as Janus (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by SeeEmDee on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 06:31:15 AM EST

As in 'two-faced'. They claim to be working for 'conservative' goals, but when you examine their actions on traditional conservative issues, such as protecting individual rights as free speech from encroachments upon them by government, you find they usually side with the government. Typical NeoConsrvative behavior. The instance of Federalist Society member Ken Starr working for the side favoring government in the (ridiculous!) "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Supreme Court case is a perfect example.

Another example is the vote the Supremes made on the Raich case; clearly favoring maintaining the (bloated) power of the Federal government when a golden opportunity had availed itself for the FS members on the bench to 'walk the talk' of State's Rights. Scalia's specious use of Wickard to vote against Raich, when previously he had held Wickard to be affront to the concept of 'federalism', can be construed as another example of Federalist Society expediency to preserve central power at the expense of individual rights.

They're no more 'consrvative' than the very people they rail against...

The Five Powerful Questions (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by gollo on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 07:30:03 AM EST

that should be asked of authority are;

What Power have you got?
Where did you get it from?
In whose interests do you exercise it?
To whom are you accountable?
How can we get rid of you?

ONLY Democracy gives us that right, that is why NO-ONE with power likes Democracy, and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it - including you and me right now. (Tony Benn former member of Parliament.)

And the answers are (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:38:12 AM EST

As defined in the Constiutution.
From the Constitution.
In the interest of the Constutution.
To the citizens of the United States.
By failing to elect me at the end of my first four years, by constututional law at the end of my second four years or by impeachment as defined in the constitution.

Since you refer to Parliment I note that the US is a Constitutional Republic and not a Parlimentary Democracy. There are many differences. Among them is that there are set lengths of service and election dates. The government can not be changed based on a "lack of confidence."


Huh?? (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:09:04 AM EST

The President and his Attorney General are supposed to enforse the priorities of the Congress, to wit, enforce the laws passed by COngress, not his "law enforcement priorities."

One of the things I enjoy about TalkLeft is that I learn things.

Can you show me where the Constitution says what you have written?

And how would the President, or the citizens, know what the priorities of the Congress would be? Would the sitting Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader draw up a list in advance of each and all elections and then all candidates of both parties swear to adhere to the list? What if control of the House and/or Senate changed? Would the new majority be permitted to subject their list? What if the majorities were split?

What would happen if the President refused to accept the orders from Congress? How would Congress enforce its will?

Doesn't the Constitution provide for a way to change the law enforcement priorities of any President? I think it does. I think it happens every four years.

Be patient Big Tent, 2008 is coming soon and you will have the opportunity to test your belief that an anti-war Democrat can be elected... hmmm.. Come to think of it, that would be any Demo.

"Faithfully execute the laws" (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:11:05 AM EST

in Article 2.

Man you really never have read the Constitution haver you?


Just a god*amn piece of paper. </sarcasm> (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Edger on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:06:59 AM EST

BTD - Not what you said. (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:16:41 AM EST

Fathfully execute the laws?

That wasn't your claim. Your claim was:

enforce the priorities of the Congress, to wit, enforce the laws passed by Congress,

Your complaint is that you want to set priorities, and you can not.

Now, if you want to claim that the DOJ is not enforcing some laws, please do so.


To wit, enforce the laws passed by Congress (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:30:47 AM EST

In other words, faithfully execute the laws.

Give it up Jim. When you are in a hole, first thing to do, stop digging.


BTD - You can run but not hide. (1.00 / 2) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:49:08 AM EST

Give up? If you misspoke, just say so.

Priority and faithfully are not the same. You never mentioned "faithfully."

The context of the post is that you disagree with the questions. Question 2 makes the claim/point that the President has the right to set the priorities based on the fact that he was elected.

It doesn't say that he will not faithfully enforce all laws.

What laws aren't being enforced?


Geez, you keep digging (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:10:55 AM EST

Faithfully execute the laws is what the Constitution requires the President to do.

Will you take a moment and actually READ the Constitution?


I am right. (1.00 / 1) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:19:59 AM EST

I have read the constitution.

What I have done is point out that you claimed that Congress sets the "priorities."

What you are claiming is that congress has the right to set the priorities, otherwise you wouldn't have used the word "priorities."

Priority and faithfully are not the same.

Please show where what laws are not being enforced.


Jim (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Edger on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:24:15 AM EST

All you're doing is making yourself look like ppj.


While your world collapses (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Edger on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:28:57 AM EST

over here.


Nice suck up, edger (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:13:38 PM EST

: description (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:27:52 PM EST

The Congress does more than set priorities (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:42:43 AM EST

It makes the law.

The law that the President is bound to faithfully execute.

What part of that do you not understand?


Trying to change the subject, eh? (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:12:44 PM EST

What part don't you understand that my comment wasn't about Congress making laws, or the Pres executing them.

My comment was about:

The President and his Attorney General are supposed to enforce the priorities of the Congress, to wit, enforce the laws passed by Congress, not his "law enforcement priorities.

What you are clearly saying here is that Congress is supposed to set the President's priorities in enforcing the laws passed by Congress.

I have asked for proof, and you whip out "faithfully."

Faithfully and priorities have distinctively different meanings.

So how about quit ducking the point and address my actual comment??


it's imposssible ... (none / 0) (#18)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:31:57 PM EST

... to address an insanity defense when it's made by a person representing themselves.


: and your point is??? (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:05:23 PM EST

One last ime with you (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:41:56 PM EST

Calabresi wrote:

Doesn't the Constitution make the president the law enforcement officer in chief precisely so he can make sure that all 93 United States attorneys are following the law enforcement priorities that he was elected to enforce?

Answer, No, the Constitution makes the President the law enforcement officer in chief so that he can "faithfully execute the laws" passed by Congress.

I can not make it any easier for you to understand.


Quit dodging. (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:04:33 PM EST

You have a wonderful way of stating the obvious.

But that is not what you said.

You know. I know it.

Quit dodging.


What? (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:19:33 PM EST

That is precisely what I said.

My gawd Jim, you really are not getting it are you?

I have answered you head on every time. But I see you do not comprehend the point.

I can't help that. I do not know what else to tell you.

Please refrain from accusing me of dodging just because you can not understand the obvious point.

Yes Jim, it is obvious. Why are you missing it?


He's repeating and just trolling (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:36:39 PM EST

to take your time and attention, that's all.


: Keep sucking up, edger (none / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:37:06 PM EST

Nope (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:36:17 PM EST

No Big Tent.

You haven't addressed my point, you have dodged it.

One more time. This is what you wrote:

the President and his Attorney General are supposed to enforce the priorities of the Congress, to wit, enforce the laws passed by Congress, not his "law enforcement priorities."

What you are saying there is clear. You believe that congress is supposed to set the priorities of the DOJ. The constitution doesn't say that. It says:

(the President)he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,.....


Modus Oprandi (none / 0) (#26)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 07:31:11 PM EST

Jim's comments fall into 3 categories:

you failed to answer his question, therefore he is right.
The King can do no wrong (and Bush is King).
He is the greastest military strategist since Clausewitz. No-one else is fit to comment on any military related issues.