Wrong. That is the questions that I am asking. While I applaud you in your knowledge of the procedures of congress, while I even concede that you are more knowledgeable about this than I, at the end of the day that is still the question that I am asking you.
When you get right down to it, now that I think about it, you and Sensenbrenner seem to share some of this letter of the law fetishist behavior and it would seem to me serve the same masters. You yourself have admitted that his behavior, was boorish and against the spirit of the rules and have further admitted that testimony ranging much farther afield that this is pretty much business as usual.
But no, like clock work you have to chime in to mention that what he did was technically within the rules. Quite a coincidence that this technicality just happens to be in the ruling majorities interest.
While I can’t pretend to read your mind or heart, I do find it specifically ironic that you are bitching about other posters not being intellectually honest, because from where I sit you appear to be guilty of the same crime. I am not sure that I know of any other way to see you than as a hypocritical apologist for the ruling majority.
I notice the quotes from Robert’s Rules of Order up there, but I would ask this:
Where in the Rules of the House does Rep. Sensenbrenner have the ability to unilaterally gavel a meeting concluded? Where in the Rules of the House does he have the ability to impair the audio recording of a public meeting of the House Committee on the Judiciary?
If you’d like to argue that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Lee doesn’t know the Rules of the House based on this press release issued by her office, we can discuss that too, I’m sure.
Yep, says so right there, rule 22: “If the Chairman is in possession of a legally obrtained and licensed firearm, he is authorized to gun down any obstructionist, obstreperous, or needlessly tiresome member and/or witness, at his sole discretion…”
Yes, you’re right – completely by accident, of course, but yes. If Officer Sens did such a terrible thing, but was within his legal rights to do so, then an intellectually honest person attacking Officer Sens for his actions must mention that his actions were at least technically legal.
I grant you that this does not address the audio recording portion of your question. I am not aware of any authority one way or another on that point. But given the chairman’s broad powers in general, I’d argue that the power to stop recording of a closed session is implied, and ask YOU where the Rules say he can’t do it.
But he is certainly privileged (from my last post) to rule witnesses and testimony out of order, and to adjourn, and (from this post) to fail to recognize a member. The question of adjounrment is not absolute, of course, and the decision of the chair may be appealed and overridden by a majority of the members. Given that there were clearly a majority of members in agreement with his decision - we may infer this because they left with him, rather than staying and voting to overturn his decision - there was no appeal possible.
How so? I’m the only one in this thread acknowledging the truth of at least some of the opposing side’s arguments… indeed, argreeing with the truth of the basic complaint of the opposing side. I am the only one here that was willing to concede where the opposition had made a point… how does that put me in the camp of intellectual dishonesty?
Your side, on the other hand, had twenty chances for someone to say, “As irksome and boorish as the conduct was, we should acknowledge that it was within the bounds of the rules… which does not excuse Sensenbrenner, of course.”
That never happened. There was no attempt at intellectual honesty – just the usual bash-fest for everything GOP.
Bricker, I am sure that some of it is my fault, but when I read your posts explaining that these actions are technically within the letter of the law I read that as a defense of those actions. If that is not the case, I am not sure what purpose your posts serve.
I think that what it boils down to is that I see the Law as simply a springboard to the Good. My take is that you see the Law as an end unto itself, rather than simply a stage that we pass thorough as we develop morally.
My problem with you basically stems from the fact that in post after post of yours, I see you explaining why the actions of “your side” are technically lawful, only to mention much later as an aside that they may not be a great idea and that you may not agree with them. In other words, I find the lens through which you view the world, or at least seem to based on your posts, to be rather strange.
1)Bricker, let’s not start assigning sides to everything. This isn’t dodge ball.
2)Few of the first twenty posts that you are harping on about had much to do with the op. I won’t speak for the intent of the other dopers but my two were jokes. The first posited that Karl Rove would be unattractive without his shirt on which I think few here will debate. The second was, if anything, vilifying the technique of using words like “patriot, freedom, liberty, etc.” to sell laws to the american public in the same way that Mountain Dew uses the word “extreme.”
3)Get the fuck over yourself. You know damn well that most of the first few posts in pit threads regarding the administration are usually chuckleheaded remarks. When did this become something worth twisting your britches about? “Intellectual honesty.” :rolleyes: If you want to take this as seriously as possible, more power to you. I personally don’t think that this little lapse in senatorial decorum is worth frothing over.
Oh, please, little bricker only operates in two modes: Gloating and Oppressed By The Numberless Liberal Hordes.
This is just yet another case where he has found some small thread to cling to. That thread allows him to ignore everything and just keep shouting “TECHNICALLY CORRECT! TECHNICALLY CORRECT!” It’s what he does. And it’s all he does.
Still, without his…spirited defense I’m sure all the fucking commies in here would tear apart both America and the GOP.
Well, it would almost appear that you got us, Bricker, and that Sensenbrenner was technically acting within the rules of the House. This assertion appears to be your entire SPECIFIC defense of his action.
You’ve cited House Rules 20, 21, 24 and 28 as evidence that the Chair has the right to unilaterally adjourn a hearing. You’ve pointed in particular to the supreme right of recognition invested in the Chairman as support for this assertion. And yet, without any citation of the explicit rule governing adjournment of a hearing, your assertion is an unsupported extrapolation; it is in fact an interpretation disputed by actual members of the Judiciary Committee (see press release from Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, cited earlier by brianjedi).
Intellectual honesty might have compelled a less obviously forthright correspondent to acknowledge the controversial nature of the question, and to characterize his assertion as interpretive rather than absolute.
Which leads us to the larger question of good faith, which seems near and dear to you and many of your conservative brethren. (Even the intellectually honest ones.)
Which authorities are those? Ms. Wasserman Schultz. a freshman member of the Judiciary Committee who is not even a lawyer? Is she the more knowledgeale authority?
What? She’s not a lawyer? Merely a Representative to the House and a member of the Judiciary Committee? How can she possibly be expected to know *anything * about the rules of the House in which she serves?
But note, if you will, the cited report, wherein we find these bolded words:
**
THE MINORITY DID NOT GET TO CALL A SINGLE WITNESS. **
For some reason, they seem to find this telling, as if their points of view were not adequately represented by the people telling them to shut up.
It’s important to note that the hearing Friday was called to allow the minority witnesses to testify. The prior hearing was the one where minority witnesses were not allowed to testify.
Also, my apologies to Rep. Wasserman Schultz, who I referred to late last night as Rep. Wasserman Lee. It was 2 a.m., I was tired.