Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Does the rule of law matter?

  1. #1
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,798

    Does the rule of law matter?

    Apparently trump plans to kill it once and for all this coming weekend. It will be fascinating to read the justifications for pardons for war criminals by all the sad slobs who still support the orange turd. And the equally sad "I don't support this particular thing but I still support him" justifications. I suppose if there's anything good that's come from this presidency it's that it has created a harry potter-style sorting hat for us to figure out the content of everyone's character.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/u...ar-crimes.html

  2. #2
    Senior Member Teacher Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    7,924
    Disgusted!

  3. #3
    Senior Member KayLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SW Washington State
    Posts
    1,881
    This is just a heinous misuse of power.
    My therapist told me the way to achieve true inner peace is to finish what I start. So far today, I have finished two bags of M&Ms and a chocolate cake. I feel better already!

  4. #4
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    7,969
    I think the rule of law is being shredded.

  5. #5
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    10,801
    Apparently you don't need to respond to subpoenas now. Good to know.

  6. #6
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,798
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    Apparently you don't need to respond to subpoenas now. Good to know.
    Well, since we don't have an attorney general anymore to enforce the rule of law this shouldn't be a surprise. William Barr's title would more accurately be Trump Defense Attorney.

  7. #7
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,485
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Well, since we don't have an attorney general anymore to enforce the rule of law this shouldn't be a surprise.
    I may be wrong, but I don't think it's a violation of law to ignore a Congressional subpoena. I believe that for it to be enforceable by law the Congress must first find the witness in Contempt of Congress and then have a Federal Court order the witness to appear. If the witness still fails to show, the witness can then be found to be in Contempt of Court with appropriate legal remedies applied.

    I would be surprised to see any of this happen in the Barr case since one of the requirements to finding a person in contempt is to show that the subpoena had a legislative purpose and this one seems to be more political in nature.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  8. #8
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,798
    The courts have tended to defer to congress to decide whether a subpoena has a legislative specific legislative purpose need not be a part of the subpoena.

    Congress could also revert back to using inherent contempt and avoid the judicial branch altogether.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cont...ress#Subpoenas

    From the link:

    As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[7] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

    The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[8] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena. For example, attorney-client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized.[9]

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    5,291
    Wasn’t Eric Holder held in contempt over the gun running thing? He didn’t seem to suffer for it.

  10. #10
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,485
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    The courts have tended to defer to congress to decide whether a subpoena has a legislative specific legislative purpose need not be a part of the subpoena.

    Congress could also revert back to using inherent contempt and avoid the judicial branch altogether.
    Then I think Congress should forget the Sturm Und Drang theatrics and move to a jurisprudence approach, although they may have good reason to avoid that.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •