George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution

[LibraryLady]

Some posts split off to AAH. The actual discussion about Rachel Corrie split to here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Also, your argumentum ad populum isn't supporting your point very well here. Various members have asked you to re-don your skeptical thinking cap.

Adding to what I said earlier, I don't see anywhere I've argued a consensus about Bush is the evidence.

....For me the FISA matter is an old yet irritating issue. Given the FISA protocols before the Bush/Cheney team arrived, an agency involved had three days after the fact to get a warrant from the FISA court when something of merit popped up. Someone wanted more efficiency in the process, and I suspect Rummy's driving influence here. He was big on that streamline and efficiency thing.

The "it's inconvenient, we can't be bothered to do the staff work" attitude ran hand in hand with Rummy's denigration of sound processes like the TPFDD. He alluded to it as "an inefficiency" when it had, in fact, created the foundation for a sound planning and estimating process, not to mention semi orderly flow of forces into a theater.

And you think the need to hide the fact reporters were being spied on didn't have anything to do with bypassing FISA?

....Common in the Bush administration was the impression got that there was a desire to get things done 'by decree' (good idea or no) thanks to impatience with the inherent documentation/paperwork that our system demands. (IT's a balance of power issue, the accountability chain.)

Calling that "dictatorship" is a stretch. That inclination, to which all Presidents fall prey time and again, is a common reaction to the balance of powers structure.

If one ignores the balance of power then one assumes the President is in charge and the Legislative and Judicial Branches are subordinate to the President. What do you call that? Mere impatience?

...."Here, I'll just sign an executive order and be done with it." Didn't work for Clinton with his pre don't ask don't tell effort, as both parties in Congress slapped him down. No, you can't do that.

When Bush tried it, you will note that he kept running into resistance, but he had an edge: Congress was not held by the opposing party. So our elected reps in the legislature went along with it. That is not dictatorship, but you can call it an abdication of responsibility on the part of Congress and its critters. It was.

There was facilitation, but there was also initiation by the Bush admin. Just because no one stood up to the dictator doesn't mean he wasn't one.

....Back to the point I was most interested in: FISA structure met the "good enough" standard before it got mugged.

DR

And what about taking over the DoJ for political purposes?

 

[Darth Rotor]

And what about taking over the DoJ for political purposes?

What the heck does that mean?

DoJ is in executive branch? How can the Pres take it over if he already runs it?

I am actually more critical of Rummy and the gang than you grasp, and if you will go back and look at my criticism, the move to bypass and water down the protections of FISA, rather than do the damned staff work, was the incorrect approach to the information gathering needs of the counter terrorism problem, foreign and domestic.

So was creating DHS, but that's another topic.

DR

 

[Skeptic]

And what about taking over the DoJ for political purposes?

You mean the chief executive of the country nominating people to head part of the executive branch (DoJ) that he agrees with and likes?

Just like every other president?

Yeah, some dictatorship.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What the heck does that mean?

DoJ is in executive branch? How can the Pres take it over if he already runs it?

I am actually more critical of Rummy and the gang than you grasp, and if you will go back and look at my criticism, the move to bypass and water down the protections of FISA, rather than do the damned staff work, was the incorrect approach to the information gathering needs of the counter terrorism problem, foreign and domestic.

So was creating DHS, but that's another topic.

DR

And you called me a bimbo? How could you know nothing about this or the fact the DoJ is supposed to be independent from the administration's direct control?

Are you totally uninformed about the attorney firings scandal, the replacement of all the career lawyers in the DoJ with graduates from Pat Robertson's then unaccredited Regency Law School, the use of the DoJ for politically motivated prosecutions, and many many other crimes? There is currently an investigation going on which could result in criminal prosecutions of at least as high up as Cheney. Bush is implicated as knowing all about it. Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales, and Karl Rove are all suspected as being involved.


DoJ Mission statement

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

(emphasis mine) That's the interests of the US, not the interests of the party in power or the President.

Organizational chart
Note the absence of the position of President at the top!!!!!!!

 

[KingMerv00]

SG,

I hated Bush...a lot, but you seem to be unfamiliar with administrative law. The attorney general is part of the President's cabinet and serves at his pleasure. In my opinion, the president should not remove the attorney general frivolously but he certainly can. Long story short, the president IS at the top of the organizational chart even if he isn't pictured.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

SG,

I hated Bush...a lot, but you seem to be unfamiliar with administrative law. The attorney general is part of the President's cabinet and serves at his pleasure. In my opinion, the president should not remove the attorney general frivolously but he certainly can. Long story short, the president IS at the top of the organizational chart even if he isn't pictured.

I don't believe you are exactly correct. The AG advises the President, but the independence of the DoJ is critical in that advice, unlike other cabinet positions.

This interpretation, of course, has varied from President to President and Federal law is very vague on the matter. But Bush pushed the envelope, to say the least, in his interpretation of the independence of the DoJ. But the claim, serves at the pleasure of the President was grossly mischaracterized by the news media and the Bush administration. Surely no one believes the DoJ is supposed to be the office of political henchmen for the President? Yet Bush tried to use the office for this very purpose.

Justice Department's Independence 'Shattered,' Says Former DOJ Attorney

Since the day he arrived at the Department of Justice in February 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has "shattered" the department's tradition of independence and politicized its operation more than any other attorney general in more than 30 years.

So says Daniel Metcalfe, a senior attorney at the department who retired in January, before the current controversy over the firing of U.S. Attorneys erupted. He views the episode as an "awful embarrassment" that has only worsened already-low morale at the department, especially among career attorneys.

Metcalfe, 55, served most recently as director of the Office of Information and Privacy. He co-founded the office in 1981 with Richard Huff. But his career at the department began in 1971. He started as an intern, working at the department full-time while attending law school at George Washington University. Later, he worked as a trial attorney in DOJ's Civil Division before founding OIP.

You have to remember that this is a Cabinet department that, for good reason, prides itself on the high-quality administration of justice, regardless of who is in the White House. Ever since the Watergate era, when Edward Levi came in as attorney general to replace former Sen. William Saxby soon after Nixon resigned, the Justice Department maintained a healthy distance between it and what could be called the raw political concerns that are properly within the White House's domain. Even Reagan's first attorney general, William French Smith, did not depart greatly from the standard that Levi set; as for Meese, I knew him to be more heavily involved in defending himself from multiple ethics investigations than in bringing the department too close to the White House, even though he came from there.

More recently, of course, the DOJ-White House distance hit its all-time high-water mark under Janet Reno, especially during Clinton's second term. And even John Ashcroft made it clear to all department employees that, among other things, he held that traditional distance in proper reverence; he proved that this was no mere lip service when, from his hospital bed, he refused to overrule Deputy AG Comey on what is now called the "terrorist surveillance program." Especially in the wake of 9/11, which strongly spurred the morale and dedication of Justice Department employees, myself included, I saw only a limited morale diminution in general during the first term.

But that strong tradition of independence over the previous 30 years was shattered in 2005 with the arrival of the White House counsel as a second-term AG. All sworn assurances to the contrary notwithstanding, it was as if the White House and Justice Department now were artificially tied at the hip -- through their public affairs, legislative affairs and legal policy offices, for example, as well as where you ordinarily would expect such a connection (i.e., Justice's Office of Legal Counsel). I attended many meetings in which this total lack of distance became quite clear, as if the current crop of political appointees in those offices weren't even aware of the important administration-of-justice principles that they were trampling.

There may be little news on this at the moment given all the other pressing issues for the country, but don't think it has amounted to nothing just yet.
September 29, 2008; Special prosecutor to investigate firings of U.S. attorneys

A special prosecutor will conduct an independent investigation into the conduct of Justice Department officials involved in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced Monday.

Connecticut federal prosecutor Nora Dannehy will have the power to empanel a grand jury if she chooses.

The announcement came within minutes of the release of a report by the Justice Department inspector general that found that the 2006 firings were "fundamentally flawed" and a special prosecutor should be appointed to examine potential criminality in the controversial removals.

The report calls the firings "unprecedented" and is harshly critical of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for not paying attention to the actions of his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, whom the report identifies as the driving force in the firings.

A prosecutor should examine "whether Sampson or other Department officials made false statements to Congress or to us" about the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico, the report says.

Also to be examined is whether obstruction of justice or wire fraud was involved in the Iglesias firing, the report says, and whether there was an effort by Sen. Pete Domenici or Rep. Heather Wilson, both New Mexico Republicans, to press Iglesias to bring an indictment before an election.

 

[Brainster]

Ah, yes, the US Attorney's Firing Scandal.

Of 1993:

Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski.

We haven't yet had the 2009 version of this soap opera, but you can expect it; indeed some Democratic activists are getting impatient.

51 US Attorneys did not resign. Are some still pursuing Bush Political prosecutions??

How many of these remaining 51 US Attorneys were hired through Monica Goodling and Bradley Schlozman’s partisan loyalty litmus test?

Ask Pres. Obama to fire these slugs already!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here is a bit more, (emphasis mine)
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is a United States political scandal initiated by the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[2][3] The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization.[4][5][6][7][8]

The dismissed U.S. Attorneys had all been appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate, more than four years earlier.[9][10] Two other attorneys were dismissed in controversial circumstances in 2005-2006. Twenty-six or more U.S. Attorneys had been under consideration for dismissal during this time period.[11][12][13] The firings received attention via hearings in Congress in January 2007, and by March 2007 the controversy had national visibility. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated that the U.S. Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the president" and described the affair as "an overblown personnel matter."[14][15]

By mid-September 2007, nine of the highest-level officers of the Department of Justice associated with the controversy had resigned,[16][17][18][19] most prominently, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales[20][21][22][23]

A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary," "fundamentally flawed," and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions."[24]

Just like the fact, "serves at the pleasure of the President" has been misconstrued in this case as if that meant the DoJ was supposed to be a partisan office, so has the claim everyone dismisses all the attorneys with each new administration. There is a changeover of key personnel at the beginning of each new administration. The firings in this scandal were loyal Republican Bush appointees in the middle of a term who all testified before Congress they were fired after refusing to cave to pressure to carry out politically motivated prosecutions. That differed from being AGs appointed under a previous administration.

In addition, the 150 Regent Law grads were hired to replace career employees, not political appointments. And according to the testimony of Monica Goodling who was involved in hiring them, political affiliations were illegally considered.

Goodling appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, on May 23, 2007, under a limited immunity agreement[17], and provided to the committee a written statement that she read at the start of her testimony.[18][19] In response to questions during the hearing, Goodling stated that she "crossed the line" and broke civil service rules about hiring, and improperly weighed political factors in considering applicants for career positions at the Department of Justice.[20] [21] Link to Washington Post transcript of the hearing.

Investigation of Goodling's hiring practices

On May 3, 2007, the Washington Post reported that the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General launched an internal probe into whether or not Goodling "illegally took party affiliation into account in hiring career federal prosecutors" in her work at the Department.[22]

On May 12, the New York Times published an article about Goodling repeatedly engaging in “prohibited personnel practices” while at the Justice Department. “You have a Monica problem” several Justice Department officials told Robin C. Ashton, a criminal prosecutor at the Department of Justice. “She believes you’re a Democrat and doesn’t feel you can be trusted.”[23]

One week after Goodling's testimony before the House, the Department's Office of the Inspector General and Counsel for the Office of Professional Responsibility confirmed in a letter[24] to the Senate Judiciary Committee, that they were expanding their investigation beyond "the removals of United States Attorneys" to also include "DOJ hiring and personnel decisions" by Goodling and other Justice Department employees. [25]

On July 28, 2008, a Justice Department report concluded that Goodling had violated federal law and Justice Department policy by discriminating against job applicants who weren't Republican or conservative loyalists. Goodling improperly subjected candidates for certain career positions to the same politically based evaluation she used on candidates for political positions, the report concluded. In one instance, Justice investigators found, Goodling objected to hiring an assistant prosecutor in Washington because judging from his resume, he appeared to be a liberal Democrat. In another, she rejected an experienced terror prosecutor to work on counterterror issues at a Justice Department headquarters office "because of his wife's political affiliations,".... Goodling may also face a criminal investigation into her conduct.[27] Hagan has since been rehired to her old job.[28]

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because the tired "they did it too" claim also comes up that Janet Reno tried to affect a prosecution of Dan Rostenkowski by firing the AGs involved in the case, Rostenkowski's prosecution was not stopped with Reno's 'beginning of her appointment' routine AG firings. In fact he was convicted and the Deputy AG under Reno who prosecuted the case is now Obama's AG, Eric Holder.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Your argument is that because Bush only overstepped some bounds and not all bounds he therefore cannot be said to have abused his power? I do believe that falls into an argument by false logic category.

No, it isn't, so stop being blatantly dishonest. Said another way, stop trying to put words into my mouth.

My point was that you use the word dictator badly, incorrectly, and with deliberate attempt to deceive. Your usual histrionics weren't worth wasting an argument on here. All you rated was a point.

Whether Bush tried to grab more power than you were happy about isn't a matter of dispute. He and his trusty sidekick Cheney tried to get away with as much as they could.

He's not the first president to try that. See, once again, FDR's attempt to stack the supreme court. See some of the stunt's Nixon tried. Why do we have the War Powers act? A reaction to Nixon, as well as the environment of the Cold War in general.

The balance of power between Congress and the Executive is not static. It's dynamic tension.

If you'd be honest about what a dictator is, then you'd use the term correctly. Since you prefer to be dishonest, you attempt to use it where it doesn't apply. You claim he flouted the Constitution, yet the arguments frequently put forward from his team -- he lawyered up a plenty in his two terms -- was in showing how (or attempting to show how) what they were doing was Constitutional.

That his team kept referencing the Constitution as a justification -- regardless of if we disagree or agree with their tack -- means that the Constitution was not being flouted, but rather interpreted in a very narrow, or perhaps even irrational, manner.

Scrap of paper approach? No. Curious legal justificaitons? Opportunity for a rich discussion for the next few decades.

DR

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, it isn't, so stop being blatantly dishonest. Said another way, stop trying to put words into my mouth.

My point was that you use the word dictator badly, incorrectly, and with deliberate attempt to deceive. Your usual histrionics weren't worth wasting an argument on here. All you rated was a point.

Talk about dishonesty, I didn't choose the word, dictator. It was chosen by the author of the OP article and in the article the author explains why he chose the description.

He's not the first president to try that. See, once again, FDR's attempt to stack the supreme court. See some of the stunt's Nixon tried. Why do we have the War Powers act? A reaction to Nixon, as well as the environment of the Cold War in general.

The balance of power between Congress and the Executive is not static. It's dynamic tension.

If you'd be honest about what a dictator is, then you'd use the term correctly. Since you prefer to be dishonest, you attempt to use it where it doesn't apply. You claim he flouted the Constitution, yet the arguments frequently put forward from his team -- he lawyered up a plenty in his two terms -- was in showing how (or attempting to show how) what they were doing was Constitutional.

That his team kept referencing the Constitution as a justification -- regardless of if we disagree or agree with their tack -- means that the Constitution was not being flouted, but rather interpreted in a very narrow, or perhaps even irrational, manner.

Scrap of paper approach? No. Curious legal justificaitons? Opportunity for a rich discussion for the next few decades.

DR

"You" "you" "you", very dishonest. Why don't you post honestly and address the author of the OP article's use of the word, rather than posting as if I initiated the discussion by first using it? Or how about discussing the OP article points instead of focusing on this semantics side track?

As for past Presidents, how does that excuse Bush or make his actions less dangerous to our democracy? We know Nixon broke the law. He tried to use his office to cheat on the elections. So did Bush, among other things. John Dean thinks Bush was worse than Nixon. So do I. You are welcome to your own opinion.

As for FDR wanting to change the political leaning of the Supreme Court, he acted via the Congress, not via a Presidential order. That is in keeping with the Constitutional balance of powers. I find the political nature of some Supreme Court rulings to be problematic. Bush's (along with the whole Jerry Falwell movement's) attempt to stack the entire Federal Judiciary with Evangelicals quite worrisome. The more it comes to light, the better.