Although Democrats this week failed to muster the required 60 votes to move forward a resolution of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a majority of senators did express their support for the measure, including Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Said Specter: “I think the attorney general has not done the job, and the Department of Justice would be much better off without him. . . . There is no doubt that the department at the present time is in shambles.”
That’s a pretty remarkable vote of no confidence from a leading member of the president’s party. And the almost total absence of any defense of Gonzales by GOP senators also spoke loudly.
In the Kansas delegation, Sen. Pat Roberts voted against the resolution; Sen. Sam Brownback was missing in action (again).
The vote is certainly “political,” as President Bush charged, but it also accurately reflects how little credibility Gonzales has left in Congress. The Justice Department deserves a stronger leader.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ProudMan on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
69 Comments
blah blah blah.
more anti-gonzales crap from Scholfield…
Randy has nothing better to do with his life.
Article 2, Section 9, United States Constitution:
“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
========
“There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”
United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, January 17, 2007.
The legal system already showed the American people how trustworthy it was when it stopped the recount and five justices countermanded 600,000 votes.
It hasn’t had any credibility with any thinking American patriot since then.
Republicans have whored out the justice system to their political will the same as they have everything else they touch.
Gonzales is just another symptom of win-at-all-cost power grabbing by the imperialists.
The only-est reason Gonzales remains in office is that whomever replaces him is subject to Sentate confirmation.
Shrub will not appoint a replacement with the integrity to investigate the high crimes and misdemeanors of the George WMD Bush Administration. The Senate is no longer structured to confirm another Bushite lackey to the position.
This is a political Mexican Standoff. And it has nothing to do with Gonzales’ ethnicity.
Bush believes DOJ stands for “Department of Just Us.”
I love the smell of Democratic whining in the morning!
They ain’t got nothing! :D
It is unfortunate that the Democrats do not yet have enough to impeach. But the White House’s stonewalling on this despite huge questions of competence and integrity are like a game of chicken–the WH believes the public doesn’t care and the Democrats continue at the risk of losing whatever popular leverage they may currently have.
Then there’s the confirmation issue.
So the cards are on the table–the Democrats will likely continue this investigation until they get impeachable evidence, and Mr. Gonzales will finally have to be removed.
But don’t forget, this is only a political stunt and it’s the Congress that’s stonewalling. Seperation of Powers isn’t guaranteed by the constitution either!! (When you get down to it, really nothing is, except maybe #2).
The worst thing the Repukes can do is keep Gonzales and rally ’round him.
He’s the gift that keeps on giving.
I forgot, Genghis RepubliKhan believes he’s paty of the “Us” in Bush’s DOJ.
Bush and his hired shyster, Al “Gonzo” Gonzales, believe they have the power to grab American citizens and indefinitely “deep-six” them into military dungeons. They believe they get to do this on Bush’s own say-so, with no judicial oversight, no access to the US courts, and no access to attorneys on the part of the imprisoned.
The Founders believed that rights are inherent and inalienable, which is why there is no specific enumeration of rights listed anywhere in law. However, the Founders also had direct personal experience with Monarchical abuses of power, and enshrined only one right, that of habeas corpus, in the body of the Constitution itself. The Founders considered habeas to be so important, so critical to a free society that it HAD to be included in order to protect them, and us, from future monarchs who would use the power of the government to suit their own ends.
Even more than the war in Iraq, even more than terrorism, the assault on habeas corpus by this administration is the most grievous danger our nation faces. Without habeas, NO OTHER RIGHTS ARE POSSIBLE.
Once the government can grab native-born American citizens, imprison them indefinitely without trial, and execute them without due process in the civilian courts, this great experiment in human freedom is over.
It is purely political when any Senator of good conscience would have not voted to stop the no-confidence vote. I knew the loyal lap dog would cast his vote politically, just like he cast his Senat Intel. Committee investigations.Wake up Kansas, we need a Senator(s) with ethics.
Puts on Soviet National Anthem for Tom.
Read my lips: Theory of the Unitary Executive…
…the dirty secret of the Bush-Cheney power grab that resists all oversight and legitimizes everything the King wishes to do.
Democracy? Hah! This is a Republic of RepubliKhans!!
When you look at the smug arrogant face of Bush, the childlike spoiled brat of that halfwit seems to glow.
Bush knows he’s not earned the right to be president nor is he capable of making good intelligent decisions.
The Israelis have played him for a fool, yet he’s none the wiser.
I’ll no doubt be hearing from the Zionists plants on this blog with their ritual complaints about me pointing to the short comings of their rogue terrorist enterprise and crime capital of the planet, as it murders and pillages to satisfy some dark need to make other peoples life unbearable.
If ever there was a case study, the ruling class disgusting cult does serve that purpose, while even their subservient class’ children go to bed hungry.
The Gonzales’s mediocrity meets the Bush standard and buddies with ease.
Republican swoons over Gonzo and the dream of a fascist dictatorship in America. It’ll be good to be a dictator with Republican around, boots will be so shiny from the licking Republican will give them.
Having trouble with your suppositories lately, Republican, from all that doggy-style from the party line?
Catching, not pitching. Be proud!!
delsol appears to be jealous be I stand for something without wavering.
The mere thought of an unwavering stance on a matter must be apoplectic to Liberal Democrats. :)
Clinton didn’t inspire confidence, but he didn’t resign.
Harry Golden once wrote about state treasurers elected in the reconstruction south. He said they were always war veterans who had lost an arm or leg, the theory being they could only dip one hand in the till, or couldn’t run off with the funds.Gonzales is a liar; an obvious liar. In liars, this is a desirable trait, since it’s easy to know when he’s lying. He can’t easily escape detection.If we get rid of Gonzales, we can’t expect an honest AG under this administration, but we may get a more adroit liar, one who can lie convincingly. We’re much better off with Gonzales!
“Clinton didn’t inspire confidence, but he didn’t resign.”
Clinton inspired confidence in 67% of the American public, more than twice what George W Bush currently inspires.
Why aren’t you asking why George hasn’t resigned?
I said it before, and I will say it again… Since the Constitution guarantees Habeus Corpas… and since Gonzo has stated before Congress that it isnt IN the Constitution… and since the AG takes the oath of office that says he will “protect and defend” the Constitution… What is the reason why he cant be impeached for violation of his oath of office??
The Republicans have adopted the Internationale as their anthem?
I guess with Bush & Gonzales trying to turn the US into a police state, that makes sense.
The Republicans have adopted the Internationale as their anthem?
I guess with Bush & Gonzales trying to turn the US into a police state, that makes sense.
Posted by: Tom | June 12, 2007 at 06:09 PM
What?
Littlejohn,
Check the post made at 2:58pm by the person who is currently using the nic “Republican”
This is why we just walk on by…………
Motto of the Bush administration: “it’s not fascism when WE do it . . . “
I stand for something without wavering.
The question, Republican, is about WHAT you stand for. If you stand for a flat earth in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you’re just an idiot.
Tiahrt Amendment Facts
The “Tiahrt Amendment” is named for its original sponsor, U.S. Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS).
The Tiahrt Amendment is a provision that members of Congress have tucked into federal spending bills that restricts cities and police from accessing and using Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) trace data from guns recovered in crimes.
No access to a city’s own aggregate crime gun data:The Tiahrt Amendment restricts local governments from accessing the ATF gun trace data they need in order to understand and address citywide and regional gun crime trends.
No access to data from other cities and states:The Tiahrt Amendment prevents local governments and police from accessing ATF gun trace data from areas outside its geographic jurisdiction, greatly undermining regional efforts to control gun crime.
No access to or use of gun trace data for efforts to hold accountable dealers that break the law:The Tiahrt Amendment blocks trace data from being used as evidence in any state or local civil action—even a gun dealer license revocation.
No access to national ATF reports:The Tiahrt Amendment stops ATF from publishing reports that use gun trace data to analyze nationwide gun trafficking patterns.
For example, in February 2007, ATF denied Jersey City, NJ’s request for all “trace data for all firearms involved in crimes in Jersey City” between 2001 and 2006. In a letter, ATF explained that “unfortunately” it is unable to provide the data because of “a Congressional appropriations restriction.”
http://protectpolice.org/facts/
“I wanted to make sure I was fulfilling the needs of my friends who are firearms dealers” – Rep. Tiahrt in Washington Post.
That’s correct delsol, New Jersey cannot go on a fishing expedition in the database for the ATF.
If they have a specific case, then they can request data.
Got a problem with that? Or do you want the Court system turned upside down? :)
This is what I have a problem with, Republican:
No access to or use of gun trace data for efforts to hold accountable dealers that break the law:The Tiahrt Amendment blocks trace data from being used as evidence in any state or local civil action—even a gun dealer license revocation.
Get over it delsol. This topic was discussed in spades in the Tiarht thread on this topic. The reasons were very sound why the database must be kept secure and not an info-base for every District Attorney in the U.S.
La de da, walk on by……………
The left anti-gun lobby just won’t give up. I saw a deceptive commercial on the tube yesterday with similar disinformation as above.
The real Tiahrt Amendment facts:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=208
Also check out the links in this article.
Such an objective source, the NRA…whenever I want the truth about guns, they’re the first place I go!
Just joining, back on subject – I want a Senator to ask Gonzalez or any of the other accomplished people who come before congress and claim they cannot remember – how can you explain the years of education, the Harvard degree, the high position and high regard, and the 40 hours of preperation you have put into preparing for this testimony – and you cannot remember what you did a few months, or years ago? How can you perform your job with such a limited capacity to recall, especially when you have a staff around you to remind you of things you have done?
Littlejohn,
Check the post made at 2:58pm by the person who is currently using the nic “Republican”
Posted by: Tom | June 12, 2007 at 06:16 PM
Got it.Thanks
Perhaps john feex, Gonzales had more than that particular subject on his plate.
A person in charge of several thousand people most likely gets several briefings a day and not to include the briefings that Gonzales might give. Plus all the sign here, we need this immediately type of correspondence.
It’s not like one has a Court Stenographer on the the ready and asking them, “Can you read that back to me.?”
I remember when our Division Chief took a stroll down the halls, he was pulled to the side by a dozen people in each hallway, each with their own differing message. That doesn’t include all the boring slide briefings and other things in the day.
That statement about his education, whoever made it was just a jab with no focus – it didn’t land.
They ain’t got nothing.
It’s finito, kaput, all over!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, walk………………on…………….by………………
Just walk on by…
Article 2, Section 9, United States Constitution:
“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
========
“There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”
United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, January 17, 2007.
That’s right Tom… And thats why I think he should be impeached for violation of his oath of office…
While I would prefer he resign from office, and save the country the whole impeachment thing, he needs to go. Regardless. I am not sure in what context he made the statement, but apparently he hasn;t got a clue. He needs to go.
LJ it was sworn testimony, and it was a blatant false statement… and so easy to prove..
yea, i know — it depends on what the definition of “is” is… I guess he could try that one again…
It wasn’t just a single statement. Gonzales argued with Specter for almost an hour, and kept restating his position. (This was back when Specter was still Judiciary chair).
Well, I would think that in itself would be an impeachable offense, if he denies the Right in the Constitution itself…
Habeas is a privilege, not a right. If it were a right, then it could have never been suspended several times throughout our U.S. History.
Read it again Repub… It is IN the Constitution as a Right… and has only the limitations listed therein…
Article 2, Section 9, United States Constitution:
“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
The keyword there is “Shall Not Be Suspended”
Chas,
If the troll had done its homework in civics class, it would know that the two times habeas has been suspended by a President, that President has been slapped down by the courts.
Lincoln tried to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War; Supreme Court Chief Justice Tanney, ruling on a circuit court case (Ex Parte Merryman), made it clear the President didn’t have the power.
Only Congress has the power to suspend habeas, and only in certain circumstances permitted by the Constitution. The Congress does _not_ have the power to delegate its Constitutional powers to the Executive.
It’s amazing that Gonzales, and the troll, don’t get this.
Or maybe not.
Habeas corpus has been a part of law since the English established it as a RIGHT in 1679. The original concept of habeus corpus was founded in 1215. The American Constitution incorporated the RIGHT in 1787.
Any suspension of habeas corpus has been illegal. If President Clinton had suspended habeas corpus, the Republicans would have wanted him to hang.
Habeas corpus is far from a privilege, it is the cornerstone of the American judicial system.
WS,
Without habeas, no other rights are possible. How can one exercise their free speech, right to a jury trial, due process, etc., rights if they’re in a military dungeon without charges or recourse?
Yes, the Limits on Congress Chas. to suspend the privilege except as described in that article.
And as I said before, it is a privilege that has been several times before in our history and on several occasions not challenged and if it was challenged, it was approved by Congress and passed as a Bill.
And what do you think the “Bill of Rights” encompass Chas?
Does it include the Articles, the Preamble? Look to examine what rights and privileges was meant by the founding fathers.
Besides, if you read the latest legislation, the detainees cannot even present a writ under the Habeas Corpus venue as they must first meet the Convening Board under the code of the Military Jurisdiction court, whose final arbiter is the Court of Appeals.
This means there is no time limit in which the Detainee may even get to the Board governing their privilege to submit a writ as they have not been described with status.
By the way, even the Supreme Court cannot re-examine a Court of Appeals case in this regard as they have been expressly forbidden by law.
As I said, it’s a privilege, not a right. It even states so in the article.
Walk on by……………………..
Bill Clinton! Bill Clinton! Thought I would throw that in before on I offered the following from Wikipedia.
“In 1996, following the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress passed (91-8-1 in the Senate, 293-133-7 in the House) and President Clinton signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The supposed reasoning behind the AEDPA was to “deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.” The AEDPA contained the first limitations on habeas corpus since the Civil War. For the first time, its Section 101 set a statute of limitations of one year following conviction for prisoners to seek the writ. It limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was (1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. It absolutely barred second or successive petitions. Petitioners who had already filed a federal habeas petition were required to first secure authorization from the appropriate United States Court of Appeals, and the AEDPA took away from the Supreme Court the power to review a court of appeals’ denial of that permission, thus placing final authority for the filing of second petitions in the hands of the federal courts of appeals.”
Let me repeat that for those who don’t like to read a lot of text.
“The AEDPA contained the first limitations on habeas corpus since the Civil War.”
Bill Clinton! Bill Clinton!
Wasn’t he a Lawyer? :)
Tom, name the U.S. Citizens in Guantanamo that should be afforded these rights.
I’ll wait.
“Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that “the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Even republican idiots can read and understand that clause.
Is there an invasion – no.
Is there a rebellion – no.
Therefore, no suspension of habeus corpus.
Easy.
If we violate our own laws regarding the prisoners at Gitmo, then we forfeit the moral high ground that we claim that is inherent in the American democratic society.
In other words (for aforementioned idiots) we would be hypocrites.
Name the U.S. Citizens in Guantanamo WSClark that have these Constitutional rights.
“The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) was signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 17, 2006, is careful to state that it applies only to “alien unlawful enemy combatants” and not to American citizens. Who is and who is not an “alien unlawful enemy combatant” is solely up to a military Combatant Status Review Tribunal.”
“If we violate our own laws regarding the prisoners at Gitmo, then we forfeit the moral high ground that we claim that is inherent in the American democratic society.”
Are you stupid or willfully ignorant?
The detainees cannot forfeit a privilege or a right they never had or earned.
“If we violate our own laws regarding the prisoners at Gitmo, then we forfeit the moral high ground that we claim that is inherent in the American democratic society.”
Are you stupid or willfully ignorant?
Damn, do you want us to sink to the level of Iran or North Korea?
I guess then, WSClark, you are calling President Clinton willfully ignorant and stupid as he started the ball the rolling with the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 as described above.
No reason to re-define that for WSClark as he will refuse to admit he’s wrong. :)
As usual, you are again willfully ignorant AND stupid, so once again, it’s back to walk on by………….
Christ, what a little sad man you are.
Sad.
Once again WSClark thinks he is smarter than several Presidents, hundreds of Congressman and dozens of lawyers who passed the legislation on this matter.
Like I have said before, if WSClark doesn’t have the answer, he just calls names.
It’s the Liberal Leftist way. :)
President Bush on the proposed Senate No-Confidence vote in Attorney General Gonzales.
“They can have a vote. But it won’t determine who serves in government.”
Yeah. His government. He just lets us live here. Can anybody explain why the media goes on fellating this miserable puke of a President?
Oh, and here are some good pictures of President Bush, apparently drinkin’ down the liquor last week, at the G-8 summit.
http://www.dependablerenegade.com/dependable_renegade/2007/06/angie_wont_mahn.html
“Non-alcoholic beer?” Not judging by that recent job performance.
Calling Republicans hypocrits just makes their arrogant pointy litte heads bigger. These people actually believe they are above the law. That’s why we have Bush and his cronies acting like dictators instead of servants of the American people.