You know, it’s not as if Congress can’t do something about it. There seems to be plenty of opposition to this on the Hill, so I’m sure that either Bush will rescind it or Congress will pass a law voiding the order.
No one is becoming a fascist state, the system works, give it time.
Pardon my ire.
But I’m really gettig sick of the repeated chants of how Bush is turning this country into a fascist state, and people with, at best, tenuous understanding of the current law in a tizzy over the new law.
The courts typically grant the executive branch wide leeway to interpret legislation. Past interpretations of law by the executive branch are not binding upon the current executives.
Two years after the Miranda decision, Congress passed a law in essence reversing the decision. Congress believed that the Supreme Court in Miranda had a announced a rule of evidence in federal court, not a Constitutional principle. The Supreme Court has every right to make rules of evidence for federal courts, unless Congress has already spoken.
The Justice Department, under Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton refused to enforce that law. They interpreted Miranda as a discovered Constitutional right. That interpretation was vindicated just last year, when the Supreme Court addressed a case and definitively said that Miranda rights derive directly from the Constitution. But one of the persuasive elements, at least to some Justices, was the length of time we’ve been observing Miranda, and how interwoven into society “reading your rights” had become.
I say all this to show that no one came along in a tizzy about the executive directions to interpret the Congressional language then… why now? Bush has wide latitude to interpret the Act; if he’s overstepped his bounds, Congress has the ability to amend the Act to fix it.
Every President and every executive department has interpreted federal law in ways to suit their own leadership goals. This is no more or less true of Bush than it was of Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, and for all I know, Millard Fillmore.
What I wish people would do, then, in light of this historical truth, is stop with the semi-hysterical “lawless Bush” nonsense. If you can make a case for Bush’s interpretation of a particular law as being a poor idea, or contrary to the spirit (or letter) of the law, by all means do so. But lay off the ad hominim attacks on Bush himself (or Ashcroft, or Norton), and the insane inflation of the scope of whatever they’ve done; it’s unworthy of genuine debate.
Yes. Complete control. No one can ever stop him now. Oooooooo… scary… very scary.
Sheesh.
Brav-o, Bricker
What is it about his subject that no one can start a thread about it with title that actually describes what the thread is about? The old one was called “George W. Nixon” or something like that.
[hijack]
Sorry, Bricker, but you are dead-on wrong in at least one of your suppositions.
When George Bush appointed Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior, she was questioned very closely by Congress about her views and her future plans for Interior, because of her past association with the unconsionable behavior of her mentor, James Watt, and for her own actions which would seemingly put her at odds with the position to which she was nominated. The fact that Bush chose this person above all others for the job was also questioned.
She gave Congress every assurance that she would comply with the court order that mandates that the broken Indian Trust fund be fixed immediately.
Six months later, she signed off on untruthful, incomplete reports to the courts on the Indian Trust fund issue, placing her squarely in front of allegations of perjury, lying to Congress, and contempt of court. Right now, she is clearly guilty of incompetence, and because this case is already before a judge, it’s illegal incompetence, because she was in violation of the law from the day she took her oath.
As a result, the Department of Interior announced just today what is tantamount to a partial dismemberment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The ramifications of that dismemberment are only just coming to light–I’ve spent all day on this–but it is already clear that the plan is:
Hastily put together;
Very possibly not legal, as Interior is trying to do this without the consent of Congress; and
Guaranteed to be detrimental to American Indians, for too many reasons to detail here, which is against the purpose of the lawsuit which Interior has already, egregiously, lost.
So, what we have here is bad government policy which stems directly from illegal actions already performed by the Bush Administration.
And everyone saw this one coming. Except the President, of course, who chose this particular person to run the show.
You want to talk scope? The President nominated Gale Norton, someone nobody trusted. The President vouched for her. She promised not to do what everyone expected her to do. Then, she did it anyway.
Then, to cover her ass, she’s creating sweeping changes in a bureau she clearly knows nothing about, without any consultation with the 1.2 million people it is going to affect. It will be argued in court that this, too, is illegal, and chances are that argument will win.
So as you can see, Bricker, I am absolutely justified in attacking Gale Norton’s personal behavior, as well as question the poor decisions that are spawning directly from her own illegal actions.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg, which we happen to see first thanks to a healthy head-start from the Clinton Administration. We would all be well advised to watch this closely.
[/hijack]
I think this deserves its own thread, Sofa. I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t followed this situation at all, so I’m at a loss to evaluate the accusations you’ve made.
However, none of them appear to be strictly ad hominem - that is, you’re not calling Gale Norton a fascist Nazi, which is the kind of thing I objected to above. Instead, you’re making credible, detailed claims, with supporting evidence, that she broke the law – or at the very least, dodged a court order - and that she plans to continue in this vein.
I have no objection whatsoever to the making of accusations in this way - it’s the hysterical, “They’re fundamentally evil! Run for the hills!” to which I object.
Well, shoot, Brick, I’m with you on that one. Godwin never won an argument, as far as I’m concerned. (I, however, have lost a couple thanks to him.)
And you’re right, this hijack does deserve its own thread. Right now, however, it’s a developing situation, and there are… considerations I have to make before I decide how deeply I can involve myself in this issue on these boards.
I want to keep everyone informed, but I also want to kick some ass. I may not be able to do both in good conscience.