Glenn brought to my attention that Joseph Wilson has announced he may sue Bush and Cheney because of damage done to the career of his wife, the CIA agent who was outed courtesy of Karl Rove.
Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated–at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit–that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?
PAD
• 
Bobb wrote:
Fiscally responsible and freedom loving? You mean like the last Democratic administration that ended deficit spending and didn’t try to or talk about limiting freedom of religion and speech? That was only about using justified, limited force where and when needed? That party?
I’m going to let the sentence about “justified, limited force where and when needed” pass, if you don’t mind. Whether I’ve had that discussion with you or not, I’ve had it too many times in the past, and since I’m inferring that you don’t believe that our current actions are justified or limited enough, I can’t imagine that we’d ever reach any common ground on that front.
—–
Though I have serious problems with Clinton’s foreign policy, I don’t think he was as bad for this country as many conservatives seem to think. However, the fact that Clinton wasn’t that bad doesn’t change the fact that modern Democrats tend to push policies that I find abhorrent (or oppose policies that I like for no obvious reason other than that Bush proposed it). Still, for the sake of discussion, I’ll take a look at Clinton’s administration.
Clinton’s administration saw some good things. The final welfare reform act didn’t do as much as I’d’ve liked, but it was a step in the right direction, at least. The creation of AmeriCorps seems to be a good idea. The Line Item Veto would’ve been great if it hadn’t been undone (partly by the actions of Robert Byrd, who apparently didn’t want a president to interfere with his plot to have everything here in West Virginia renamed after him).
Still, I don’t know if I’d say that administration was any more freedom loving than this one. I was going to go through several of the bills passed during Clinton’s years that were definitely not maximizing freedom, but two specific ones stand out that worried me (in addition to the failed attempt to provide “universal health care”): The Brady Bill, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (the “Assault Weapons Ban”) and the DMCA.
Hampering my ability to defend myself and making it illegal to trick a CD with “copy protection” into letting me burn it to MP3s for use in my personal MP3 player doesn’t seem very freedom loving to me.
Both parties want to screw us over (see the bipartisan support for the McCain-Feingold travesty). They just want to do it differently. I wouldn’t mind seeing the Democrats take Congress in 2006, provided they don’t get the White House in 2008. I think having a divided government means we get less done, and that seems like a good thing to me.
indestructible man wrote:
pardon the digression, but i’m amused that we’ve gone from “flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks” to “slinging poo with sticks.”
Yeah, that kind of wreaks havoc with any claim I had to reading comprehension, doesn’t it?
I wrote Actually, if they’re smart, they’ll make a better argument: that a President cannot be sued for actions committed while President, and AS President.
CJR replied Well, guess what? The president isn’t above the law.
Oh my God, I totally forgot that part. My prediction based on specific legal doctrines about governmental immunity pales next to your pithy platitude. What was I thinking? You went to a better law school than I did, right? It shows.
That’s really the point I was making, Bill.
Oh I know, I wasn’t accusing you of starting this idea. It’s just that it’s so out of the realm of reality and yet it keeps coming up…it’s like a Republican contemplating what would happen if the Democrats decided to field a ticket of Al Sharpton and Ming the Merciless.
One would hope that the uncommitted voter would look at the candidate, not the party which has the largest number of “yes” men.
But when the candidate is held in a large amount of contempt by his own people…I’m saying that Democrats have got to take some responsibility for the sorry state of their party vis a vis winning. The idea that “Republicans are evil, Democrats are incompetant” is not a winning one for Democrats in a dangerous world.
it’s like a Republican contemplating what would happen if the Democrats decided to field a ticket of Al Sharpton and Ming the Merciless.
Ming would never run with Sharpton. I’m holding out for the Zod/Ming ticket, personally — but only if Ming is played by Max Von Sydow. Let the scenery-chewing commence!
TWL
Umm, at the risk of sounding like a Bush defender, there realy isn’t a comparison here. Clinton was directly accused of something, and was brought to trial.
Bush’s underling is being accused. There’s no evidence — or even an accusation — against the president. He shouldn’t go to trial.
[i]Hampering my ability to defend myself and making it illegal to trick a CD with “copy protection” into letting me burn it to MP3s for use in my personal MP3 player doesn’t seem very freedom loving to me.[/i]
You can’t seriously be comparing this to what’s happened under Bush’s administration? ‘Cause I’m sure this happens all the time. “Uh, Mr. Crazy person trying to break into my house? Can you wait while I go get me a firearm? I have to wait 5 days because of that pesky Brady bill, so can you, like, come back on Tuesday?”
You want to get a weapon? Go get one. Making you wait to pass a registration check interferes not one bit with your right to bear arms.
And protecting copyrights? Are you serious? Show me where your license that you purchase includes unlimited use on your MP3 player. You bought a CD, and your license covers use of the material in the form you’ve paid for. Nothing more.
You’re putting these up against the man that has all but said that he wants to put religious teachings into public schools, made it legal to have American citizens declared enemy combatants, held indefinetly without charges, and established the precedent to then have them shipped over seas and tortured? Who’s attorney general has created an FBI task force who’s stated goal is to crack down on legal adult entertainment?
Clinton may have placed some restrictions on the excercise of rights…Bush wants to pretend rights don’t exisit. Why else do you think it’s become a big deal that Miers has been said to support the landmark case that talks about rights to privacy?
Crap, my attempt to use italics didn’t work. Phooey.
“Well, guess what? The president isn’t above the law.”
Should we call in Judge Dread? He IS the law….
Please note that this is all my prediction from a casual conversation without access to case files. I’m not trying to practice law through the blog. I’m actually treating this more like a bar or law school exam question than anything else.
Den (in quotes) and Bobb wrote, “The question then, David, would be, is leaking the name of a CIA agent acting in the official capacity of the office of the presidency, or is the act of a politician trying to dig up dirt on someone who had to nerve to publicly criticize his propaganda?
I’d lean towards the latter.”
I’d agree. I don’t see any purpose in revealing the identity of a secret operative. Such an act, made by anyone, of an active operative on mission would be an act of treason. The only saving grace here is she was not on assignment, but her outing has essentially eliminate a security asset of the country. The President serves the country, he doesn’t own it, and he has the same obligations to observe the integrity of our security agencies that any other citizen has. If Bush knew about, or gave the order for the outing, that was any act of “presidenting,” that was the act of a bitter politician getting retribution for what he percieved as a yapping dog. If true, then it amounts to him not being able to touch the man making the comment, so he gets to him the only way he can…by ending the career of the man’s wife. Which, y’know, if that’s true…what a spineless move.
I’d agree it’s spineless if that’s what happened. (I.e. that someone in the Administration leaked the name of a CIA agent as a retaliatory strike; we’ll have an idea whether that’s true when the Special Prosecutor releases his report. Incidentally, in a few minutes you’ll see why I think it’s hilarious that the Special Prosecutor is named Fitzgerald.) What I don’t agree about is the civil liability for that decision. With my presently limited knowledge, I see two problems with that liability.
One is a proof problem. As I mentioned before, a lawsuit only begins when someone files a complaint in court. In order for a complaint to be filed, the attorney has to allege that he (or she, the practice of law being quite well integrated by now) has information sufficient for a good faith belief that the person being sued committed the tort (or breach of contract, etc.) alleged in the complaint. In this case, I have no idea how you get that information before the suit. Once a suit is filed, it is possible to seek “discovery,” which is the legal procedure to compel your adversary to provide information that you hope to use against him. Ordinarily, at least in jurisdictions with which I am familiar, it is not possible to get discovery without a pending case, which opens up a chicken-and-egg (Catch-22 is probably a better comparison) problem for Wilson: without the information he could get through discovery there’s no way to file suit against Bush, but there’s no way he can get the discovery without filing a suit. What he can do is sue Rove, and hope he gets some useful information about Bush in the discovery about that suit; it’s possible to add more defendants as the suit progresses. It is possible for a criminal investigator to get information without a pending case (although the probable cause necessary for a search warrant is more demanding than the standard for filing the lawsuit to begin with, it’s sort of an apples and oranges comparison), which is presumably the reason Wilson is waiting until Fitzgerald is done, just in case he finds and publicizes something interesting.
The bigger (and in my mind at least, more interesting) issue is whether the President enjoys qualified or absolute immunity from suit. There is an old rule called “sovereign immunity.” The sovereign (formerly mostly kings) could do no wrong; he was quite literally above the law. When the sovereign became identified with the state apparatus, the doctrine carried over. The Government of the United States cannot be sued without its consent; it has given its consent in a variety of contexts through the Federal Tort Claims Act, because otherwise a random citizen would be SOL when the mailman hit his car with his USPS truck. Only things enumerated by statute (including the FTCA) are deemed to be outside sovereign immunity. I’d be very surprised if the Congress had ever specifically waived sovereign immunity in this circumstance, so I very seriously doubt that the Executive Office of the President or the President in his official capacity could be sued in the Wilson case.
No big loss. Wilson is probably much more interested in suing Bush personally than the EOP or the Presidency itself. The problem is that governmental immunity does not end with offices: it extends to the holders of those offices. This includes occasions when the office holders do something absolutely wrong. Suppose I, as a prosecutor, simply forget to ask the court to award restitution to the victim of a break-in when the defendant is sentenced. The victim cannot sue the Office of the District Attorney for the reasons discussed above. How about suing me, personally? Was it my fault? Yes, in this hypothetical (not that I would ever do that in reality). Is the victim–or at least the victim’s insurance company– out some money as a result of my mistake? Yep. How much can I be sued for? Not a cent. I had 200 cases on my docket today. The court system would be paralyzed if I were looking over my shoulder and picking apart each individual decision because I might be on the hook personally for each decision I made in the course of my duties. Even if I made the right decision– not all victims are innocent, not all their demands are reasonable, and I have a mandate to do justice to the best of my ability, not to act as the victim insists– the nuisance factor of having to defend suits would make it impossible for me to work. Now if the time demands on a rural prosecutor would be egregious without immunity, imagine the demands on the chief executive of a 300 million person republic. He wouldn’t even have time to attend all of his own depositions, let alone do any governing. There are good reasons for official immunity.
This may be a bit of a digression, but this is why we have an exclusionary rule in criminal law: evidence gained illegally cannot be used in the prosecution of the person whose right was violated. That was a solution crafted by the courts to address the problem of dissuading the police from “cheating;” it’s not actually mandated by the Constitution. The courts could have allowed the evidence to be used, but allowed the police to be sued for malfeasance. This was the rule at common law, and was still the rule in Britain and her Empire (and a number of US States) at the time the SCOTUS adopted the exclusionary rule. (Britain no longer being an Empire, it’s entirely possible they have changed their rule since. I have no idea.) When the exclusionary rule was being discussed in the Supreme Court a number of the justices derided the lawsuit alternative as ineffective, but the problem was really that it was too effective– by the time the SCOTUS imposed it on the States, many of the States had already replaced civil liability for officers with the exclusionary rule, largely because cops cannot do their jobs if they are excessively worried about being sued if they screw up. (It’s an error in perception by Justice Murphy– he once wrote that “even if the plaintiff hurdles all these obstacles, and gains a substantial verdict, the individual officer’s finances may well make the judgment useless” because cops have no money. But it doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that the cop can’t afford to be sued even for relatively minor amounts because cops have no money.) The exclusionary rule and qualified immunity for the officer is really the best solution.
Back to the subject at hand: how broad is the President’s immunity? Well, remember the definition at the beginning of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy about how big space is? It’s big. It is all but insurmountable. One reason for giving the President absolute immunity is the practical barrier to civil suit I mentioned above– the President cannot function if he is susceptible to lawsuits by 300 million potential malcontents while he is in office, or if he must fear the financial burden of even defending a large number of suits while he leaves. The second basis for immunity is separation of powers: any court that tried to engage in the regular determinations about the qualified immunity that I or other public servants possess– i.e. that we have it barring “bad faith” misconduct– would essentially provoke a constitutional crisis by applying that standard to the President. No court will ever– or should ever– pass judgment on the policy decisions of a President, even if he’s alleged to have engaged in willful misconduct, such as sacking a career civil servant who gave damaging testimony before a Congressional committe. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=457&invol=731 Rove gets a less-robust form of immunity under Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 800 (1982), so he might be in trouble, but Bush and Cheney are very, very, well protected. Clinton v. Jones did not overrule Fitzgerald; it didn’t have to because it raised such different issues. President Clinton was being sued for something that occurred before he took office; like Nixon, Bush or Cheney are mentioned as targets of a suit based on their alleged mishandling of secret information, and their alleged mistreatment of a woman who was their subordinate by virtue of their Article II offices. The Fitzgerald cases involved the deliberate screwing of a civil servant because of a public embarrassment that servant caused the Administration. Sound familiar? I don’t see how Wilson and Plame get anywhere with their suit. (Actually, I don’t know why Wilson is mentioned as a plaintiff at all; his wife was the victim. Let her sue one of the Assistants to the President.)
Crap, there was supposed to be an end italics tag after “Fitzgerald;” in the last paragraph.
And protecting copyrights? Are you serious? Show me where your license that you purchase includes unlimited use on your MP3 player. You bought a CD, and your license covers use of the material in the form you’ve paid for. Nothing more.
I think the complaint here is that copyright law has traditionally made an exception for “fair use” of a copyrighted work. Making a (small) number of personal copies– backups and such– has historically been considered fair use. Transmitting infinite copies on the internet clearly is not fair use. The problem with the DMCA is that it hosed consumers’ ability to engage in the former in the zeal to prevent pirates’ efforts at the latter. It’s rather like carpet bombing California to kill the Zodiac killer– it’s excessive and there’s no guarantee it’ll work.
Bobb-if the use of tracks on an MP3 player is so heinous, why isn’t THAT regulated?You know, have a waiting period for MP3 players like they have with firearms. Although, I agree with you that it’s sort of a lesser problem to bring up when all the , er, stuff is flying around like , um, flying stuff.
And as far as Miers goes…isn’t it sorta traditional that Supreme Court justices be, um, judges?
And as far as Miers goes…isn’t it sorta traditional that Supreme Court justices be, um, judges?
Not really. Now, my knowledge of the rules about SC Justice nominations is far from absolute, but I believe that, in theory at least, the president could nominate Bucky the drive-thru guy if he wanted to. Doesn’t mean he’ll get confirmed, but I’m pretty sure the age and citizenship requirements are the only ones.
-Rex Hondo-
David, I’m not an attorney, but I do work for a regulatory agency and have spoken to our department attorneys about sovereign immunity at length. What you said is correct for the actions of a government official in their official capacity. However, I believe he can still be sued for doing things outside his official duties as president. Hypothetical: Let’s say the rumors are true and he has started drinking again. Suppose during his next five-week vacation, he gets hammered and takes his truck out for a spin around Crawford. He hits and kills a man. Is liable for a wrongful death suit? That question has never been tested, but given the Paula Jones precedent, I don’t see how he wouldn’t be. Even though Clinton was sued for actions before he became president, in my hypothetical case, Bush was not acting as president when he hit and killed that man.
Oh my God, I totally forgot that part. My prediction based on specific legal doctrines about governmental immunity pales next to your pithy platitude. What was I thinking? You went to a better law school than I did, right? It shows.
The point some of you seem to be trying to make is that the president should be above the law (or immune from it) while in office.
Oh, unless it’s Clinton we’re talking about.
I say no to that, and you decide to be a prìçk. Thanks for playing “Who Wants to be a Jáçkášš”.
I say we should elect Kurtwood Smith, but only on the condition that he must make all public apperances as the perz in the makeup he wore in Star Trek 6 as the prez of the ufp. Furthermore he behavior and mannerisms must be that of red from that 70’s show. Yep that would show the world we mean business!!!!!!!
JAC
Red Forman for President: Because my opponent is a dûmbášš!
I’d vote for that ticket.
Stuff it! Lets go all the way here!
Go for the ticket of Christopher Walken and William Mapother. Watching the debates would be a blast and NO COUNTRY’S Leaders would screw with us after just five minutes of talking to either of them in a locked room.
Oh, and then they can get Steve Railsback as Sec. of State. The world would be ours!!!!
Why stop there I say next term we confuse the hëll out of the rest of the planet. Let every living actor who has played the prez in tv or film to get a 1 week crack at it. Played more than once in different stuff, you get a week for each time. I particularly would look forward to Ronny Cox’s (Captain Edward Jellico, now admiral thanks to PAD) 4 weeks in the white house. Also I think we should give a week as an honerable mention to Jerry Haleva. He hasn’t plauyed a us prez, but he has played Saddam Hussein, and only Saddam Hussein 6 times since 1991. Imagine him giving the state of the week address on cnn. I’m telling you this plan gives up 4 years of comedy gold!!!!!!!
JAC
Only if they can play the President that they played on film. Sam Waterston as Lincoln giving the State of the Union Address on Iraq would be just too screwed up for words.
Hey, think of the fun we could have with all the SNL stars doing their presidents as President on a State of the Union. If nothing else, Chevy could use the work.
Ronny Cox also played the VP in Stargate: SG-1, so he’d get another week if say, Martin Sheen or Geena Davis died.
Yes, actually. Anyone not totally blinded by ideology would see that the two cases are totally different. And seeing as how this s0-called “conservative” courtvoted to allow the Jones lawsuit to go forward, I don’t see anything differnt happening this time.
Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that liberals, including those on this board, will never admit that this was a partial “witchunt”, eben if Rove is fully exonerated?
Oh, I have no doubt that there are those involved in this case who are in it for the pleasure of nailing Rove’s head onto their wall.
But, what do you call witchhunt that actually finds a real witch?
Jerome, I don’t know if it can be called a witchhunt, even a partial one. If a crime was committed a crime was committed. Let’s wait and see what the prosecutor brings. One must admit that he has so far apparently run a fair investigation, free of the many leaks that one usually sees. He’s no Ronnie Earl or whoever that goober down in Texas is who will probably end up making Tom Delay into a sympathetic figure before it’s all over.
Now in the long run I have a feeling that prosecuting Libby or Rove for leaking classified data will have a chilling effect on our freedoms, especially if it turns out that the crime was more inadvertent than calculated–can you imagine anyone willing to speak to reporters about sensitive issues when they know that A-it might get them indicted and B-any talk of it being “off the record” is worth less than the paper it isn’t printed on.
I also rather doubt that congress will pass a reporter protection bill when the purpose of such a thing would be to make it easier to investigate, well, congress.
But if Rove or Libby gets indicted the long term consequences will not matter–it will be a media feeding frenzy and the first “good” news for starving Democrats in a long time. Me, I think they are peaking early. By next year the Republicans may have had a chance to regroup and hopefully re-evaluate.
The worst thing for the Democrats would be for Cheney to resign, as some of the totally unsubstantiated rumors would have it. Assuming Bush doesn’t tap Meirs to replace him, he could pretty much wipe the Plame story off the map with a chance to make history (Coff, Condi Rice, Coff).
Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that liberals, including those on this board, will never admit that this was a partial “witchunt”, eben if Rove is fully exonerated?
Last I checked, this isn’t a Republican spearheaded & controlled investigation, unlike the Lewinsky witch hunt.
IIRC, Fitzgerald is actually a Republican, and the Dems have nothing to do with this.
The only thing that really pìššëš me off about all of this is that it took this dámņ long for somebody to investigate it.
Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that liberals, including those on this board, will never admit that this was a partial “witchunt”, even if Rove is fully exonerated?
So, a crime was committed (the outing of the undercover CIA agent), and therefore the independent counsels pursuit of said criminal (the one responsible for the outing) constitutes a witch hunt? I think not. Now, on the other hand, you mmight be able to make a case that all the grand conspiracy theories being espoused on various websites and blogs might constitute a ‘witch hunt’, but that’s stretching it. Those sites really appeal to a very select group of people. You make it sound as if the Democrats are the one pulling the strings of the Patrick Fitzgerald. That sort of goes against the whole notion of “independent counsel”. My point is this: It’s no witch hunt, it’s a criminal investigation.
“Now in the long run I have a feeling that prosecuting Libby or Rove for leaking classified data will have a chilling effect on our freedoms, especially if it turns out that the crime was more inadvertent than calculated–can you imagine anyone willing to speak to reporters about sensitive issues when they know that A-it might get them indicted and B-any talk of it being “off the record” is worth less than the paper it isn’t printed on.”
Inadvertent? Do you honestly think these people are that stupid? I sure as hëll do not.
(a) Authorities.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an independent counsel appointed under this chapter shall have, with respect to all matters in such independent counsel’s prosecutorial jurisdiction established under this chapter, full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, and any other officer or employee of the Department of Justice, except that the Attorney General shall exercise direction or control as to those matters that specifically require the Attorney General’s personal action under section 2516 of title 18. Such investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers shall include—
(1) conducting proceedings before grand juries and other investigations;
(2) participating in court proceedings and engaging in any litigation, including civil and criminal matters, that such independent counsel considers necessary;
(3) appealing any decision of a court in any case or proceeding in which such independent counsel participates in an official capacity;
(4) reviewing all documentary evidence available from any source;
(5) determining whether to contest the assertion of any testimonial privilege;
(6) receiving appropriate national security clearances and, if necessary, contesting in court (including, where appropriate, participating in in camera proceedings) any claim of privilege or attempt to withhold evidence on grounds of national security;
(7) making applications to any Federal court for a grant of immunity to any witness, consistent with applicable statutory requirements, or for warrants, subpoenas, or other court orders, and, for purposes of sections 6003, 6004, and 6005 of title 18, exercising the authority vested in a United States attorney or the Attorney General;
(8) inspecting, obtaining, or using the original or a copy of any tax return, in accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations, and, for purposes of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the regulations issued thereunder, exercising the powers vested in a United States attorney or the Attorney General;
(9) initiating and conducting prosecutions in any court of competent jurisdiction, framing and signing indictments, filing informations, and handling all aspects of any case, in the name of the United States; and
(10) consulting with the United States attorney for the district in which any violation of law with respect to which the independent counsel is appointed was alleged to have occurred.
Last I checked, this isn’t a Republican spearheaded & controlled investigation, unlike the Lewinsky witch hunt.
I should probably clear this statement up:
Last I checked, this isn’t a Democrat spearheaded & controlled investigation, unlike the Lewinsky/Jones witch hunt, which was initiated and pushed by Republicans all for the purpose of trying to get Clinton out of office.
Last I checked, this isn’t a Republican spearheaded & controlled investigation, unlike the Lewinsky witch hunt.
As someone on another blog commented, if, by chance, there are no indictments in the Plame thing, watch how quickly ‘Independent Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’ becomes ‘Republican-appointed Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’.
Inadvertent? Do you honestly think these people are that stupid? I sure as hëll do not.
Belief is less important than proof, unless you’re a creationist.
There’s an interesting article by a woman who actually helped write the Agent identities protection Act– http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9742
BTW, Knuckles, was that last post the Independent Council statute? Hasn’t that expired? People keep talking about how significant it is that Fitzgerald has decided not to issue a report but without the statute I’m not even sure he could have legally done so. (the media has done a pretty poor job explaining the law in this controversy.)
Fitzgerald’s grand jury is set to expire on October 28th. And yes, you are correct. Fitzgerald is a ‘Special Counsel’ for the Attorney General’s office, NOT an independent counsel as I erroneously stated.
General Powers of Special Counsel
And as I recall, Fitzgerald is a member of the Republican party. However, his entire career (from what I’ve read) is one completely void of partisanship.
A few other big differences between this and the Clinton “witchhunt”– there have been no attempts to assert legal privileges or attack the prosecutors.
Which may change and may not mean anything anyway, though it’s the kind of behavior one might reasonably expect from someone who thinks they are innocent.
“…though it’s the kind of behavior one might reasonably expect from someone who thinks they are innocent.”
Or thinks they are above the law…
“if the use of tracks on an MP3 player is so heinous, why isn’t THAT regulated?You know, have a waiting period for MP3 players like they have with firearms.”
Have I missed an epidemic of killings (death by Ipod…film at 11). I’m not saying that I believe that k-mart selling a shotgun without an ID check and 5 day wait is going to lead to more shootings…although there’s at least one case that I’ve read where exactly that happened…but I’ve yet to see a sustainable argument that such restrictions interfere in any way with someone ability to aqcuire firearms. So a regulation that may actually save lives, and imposes a minimal, if you can even call it that, inconcienenve on the acquisition of firearms, seems to be to be a good thing.
David, I understand that the chafing caused by the DMCA is derived from the conventional understanding of fair personal use and copying. The problem is that digital media is so much more accessible than magnetic tape. Before MP3 files, you could buy a CD, copy it onto a tape, and give your copy away. But all that would take time, and you had to have a pretty substantial set-up in order to mass produce illegal copies. With an MP3 file, you can convert your CD, post the file on line, and anyone with the proper software can get a same-quality illegal digital copy. The ease of proliferation is geometrically greater than the tape example.
Or thinks they are above the law…
That would be awfully stupid. Do you honestly think these people are that stupid? I sure as hëll do not.
🙂
“Ronny Cox also played the VP in Stargate: SG-1, so he’d get another week if say, Martin Sheen or Geena Davis died.”
I’m not sure that could count as I was counting his apperance as pres in the Stargate SG1 ep 2010
lol
JAC
I think I may have just out geeked most of the people here
You have a much higher opinion of most of our elected officials than I do, that is clear.
Media Matters has posted a rebuttal to Ms. Toensing. This is not specifically regarding the article you linked to, but rather to her ‘Hardball’ appearance where she repeated many of the same claims she makes in that piece.
Jeff: I saw the movie once in the theatre. That was it. I’ve not been able to get into either show, so rather than thinking of it as ‘geeking out’, just think of it as ‘talking over our heads’.
The point some of you seem to be trying to make is that the president should be above the law (or immune from it) while in office.
I didn’t say “should,” although frankly I think the arguments in favor of immunity are pretty compelling. I said that he *is* immune from a variety of things under current law. That’s one of those “reality based” issues that Democrats are so fond of. You don’t like it, start a petition to amend the Constitution. Don’t shoot the messenger, and before you start arguing legal theory with a lawyer, please consider the possibility that I know something you don’t.
Oh, unless it’s Clinton we’re talking about.
I say no to that, and you decide to be a prìçk. Thanks for playing “Who Wants to be a Jáçkášš”.
You’re just jealous because they made you retire as champion. In any event, you said “no” to a question the answer to which is at least a qualified “yes” and I called you on it. “Being a prìçk” != “having more information than you.”
David, I’m not an attorney, but I do work for a regulatory agency and have spoken to our department attorneys about sovereign immunity at length. What you said is correct for the actions of a government official in their official capacity. However, I believe he can still be sued for doing things outside his official duties as president. Hypothetical: Let’s say the rumors are true and he has started drinking again. Suppose during his next five-week vacation, he gets hammered and takes his truck out for a spin around Crawford. He hits and kills a man. Is liable for a wrongful death suit? That question has never been tested, but given the Paula Jones precedent, I don’t see how he wouldn’t be. Even though Clinton was sued for actions before he became president, in my hypothetical case, Bush was not acting as president when he hit and killed that man.
In that case, I think he’s pretty clearly on the hook for both civil and criminal liability. That’s different from what we have here. Assuming arguendo that Cheney himself was somehow involved in releasing confidential information, he had access to that information by virtue of his Article II position, and he has supervision of the agencies involved by virtue of his Article II position. The decision of what information to divulge to the press is an executive prerogative. If he release information the release of which is a crime, then he performed his job in an illegal fashion; but the upshot of the Fitzgerald cases is that the performance of an Article II job in an illegal fashion is not susceptible to criminal or civil prosecution. (I’m making the assumption that the Vice President would receive immunity equivalent to that of the President. I feel safe in that assumption.) At the very least it comes close enough to the line that I believe the court would punt and blame separation of powers.
Jeff,
Doesn’t count unless it’s under the “alternate realities clause” of office holding. 2010 got wiped out by the events in 2001. Maybe it needs to be thrown to the Independent Counsel…. err.. Special Counsel for a ruling on playability.
🙂
Re: Jeff Coney’s plan for “acting” presidents – well, lol, first off 🙂 And hey, we’d actually get President Bartlett, as so many of us have dreamed …. And John Goodman, too, remember – President for a few days on West Wing, when Zoey was kidnapped. Could we do it with Congress, too? A week of Senator J. Billington Bulworth could be pretty interesting ….
Don’t know if I could get behind a Zod presidential ticket (and it’s odd that this comes up, because something made me think of Superman II, and that Zod-for-president site PAD alerted us to, at work earlier; so this is actually the second time today that I’ve considered the weaknesses of Kryptonian General Zod as a U.S. Presidential candidate. Talk about “geeking out” ….). For one thing, looking at the movie, he just doesn’t stike me as all that bright ;). And, do we want a president who can be depowered by a bunch of flashing red lights, and can be removed from office by a “No Confidence” call from Natalie Portman’s computer-doctored voice?
Red Forman for President! Den’s slogan has sold me!
“…do we want a president who can be depowered by a bunch of flashing red lights…”
Hey, we got one that got depowered by a salty pretzel. Couldn’t be that much worse.
🙂
“Being a prìçk” != “having more information than you.”
Actually, I think a great deal of current American society DOES equate the two, quite frankly. I don’t know that it describes anybody here (I hope not and I certainly can’t think of anyone), but how often are educated or knowledgeable people derided as “the elites”?
For that matter, our current president boasts about not reading newspapers, and his father boasted about how much he despised math and science in school (and then had the unmitigated gall to speak at a Caltech commencement, but that’s another story).
And that’s not even getting into the whole “science is really just another religion” bromide spread by the ignorant or the manipulative, or the insistence of the media to treat facts as only one side of a multi-sided story.
So, David, while I agree that knowing more than someone doesn’t equate to being a prìçk (and is quite relevant to both our professions), I think a disturbingly large portion of the American populace would disagree with you — “and they vote”, as the saying goes.
TWL
Jerry C – This one’s for you:
http://www.walken2008.com/
(and the Snopes page on this site:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/walken.asp )
Tim,
You know, while there is a great deal of truth in what you say, I think that for many people “being a prìçk” is not just a matter of being smart–it’s more a matter of not being as smart as you think you are.
The BTK Killer– now THERE was a prìçk. Standing up there lecturing the court like he was some kind of Dr Lector, when the reality is that he was a mediocre little no-talent who “earned” his fame snuffing out the light of people who were, however modest, infinitely better than he was.
The smartest college professor I ever had (Howard Nemerov–and no, I didn’t fully appreciate my good fortune at the time)– not even close to being a prìçk. The comparative economics guy who flunked anyone who was either too dumb or had too much integrity to tailor their essays to his 100% incorrect predictions of the future of the world–total prìçk.
Looking at the political arena it was pretty obvious that Howard Dean was much smarter than John Kerry but it was Kerry who got labeled as the prìçk. In my opinion this was probably due to a few factors–Kerry’s patrician delivery, accent and, oh yeah, the fact that he was a prìçk. But anyway, the point is, I don’t think that a majority of the public is actually hostile to intelligence and accomplishment. At least I hope not.
As someone on another blog commented, if, by chance, there are no indictments in the Plame thing, watch how quickly ‘Independent Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’ becomes ‘Republican-appointed Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’.
Well, that’s what I wondered at first (and I believe I stated as much on this site).
But the fact that Fitzgerald actually seems to be doing his job has lead me to change my mind about him.
Obviously, indictments against Rove & Libby would go a long ways as well. 🙂
That’s one of those “reality based” issues that Democrats are so fond of.
That’s funny, because I’m registered Independent. Both parties and shuffle off and die for all I care.
Being a prìçk” != “having more information than you.”
Never said it did, did I?
And, as you’ve shown again, being a prìçk = pompous ášš who makes poor assumptions about others.
The “having more information than you” I think that relates more to your ego than anything else. Unless you use that information to be a prìçk. 🙂
“Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated–at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit–that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?”
PAD, I’m confused, how can a mere civil suit distract Bush? We have seen that a catagory 4 hurricane barely distracts him.
JAC