The US Supreme Court appears to disagree.
Or do you only agree that they have the final authority to interpret the Constitution SOMETIMES… let me guess… those sometimes are coincidentally when you agree with what they say?
Let’s see, we’re in the Pit…
I could, but I won’t. Because I don’t totally disrespect you enough to do so. But I’m tempted. You’re the worst kind of process-worshipper, I swear. Whatever authority says is right, is right, apparently. You see and acknowledge that the current administration and congressional majority are running roughshod over the rest of us in the name of their encompassing vision of Things The Way They Think They Should Be but sit back and watch it happen because they’re doing things within the letter of the law (or Congressional rules). There’s such a thing as the spirit of the law, Bricker, and these folks are twisting that so far out of recognition that I’m not sure we’re ever going to get it put back in its proper shape.
The only recourse those of us not completely wrapped up in the Bushista bubblewrap (or blind worship of the letter of the law) have is to wait it out and hope enough people start actually THINKING instead of doing what they’re told and vote the scumsucking bottomfeeders out.
Let’s say I accept that this is true.
I also claim that the spirit of the law is that states should be the ones to regulate abortion; the federal constitution has no aspect that prevents a state from forbidding abortion entirely.
Am I right? How can we tell?
I watched the hearing really hoping I could side with Democrats on this one, but I can’t. Sensenbrenner was definitely rude and curt, but that was mostly because it was pretty obvious from the get-go that the witnesses et al were going to use the request for a hearing on “Patriot Act Reauthorization” as a trojan horse for a hearing about Guantanamo. Even Nadler said in the end that “well that’s because we’ve never gotten the chance…” The testimony certainly wouldn’t meet relevance requirements in a US Court (perhaps that doesn’t matter though). Sensenbrenner DEFINITELY should have given the Democrats a chance to respond to his last statement, no doubt. But a poster stating that he tried to “silence a Patriot Act debate” is either dishonest, ignorant, or both. Sensenbrenner wanted to keep the debate about the Patriot Act about the Patriot Act!
Zoe You’ll also notice that the Republican wasn’t allowed to hear the answers to his questions either. Did you watch the hearings?
OH and: Why didn’t the minority just ask for a hearing on Guantanamo if that’s what they wanted to talk about?
That’s reading an awful lot into their refusal to consider his case before the lower courts do.
You might try answering the question - where do you get this notion that *some * people are entitled only to *some * protections? Which people, and which protections, then? Is that derived from what you wish the equal protection clause said, perhaps?
jayjay, you’re giving him too much credit. Bricker is not a process fetishist in general; only when that’s the only way to support a partisan Republican viewpoint, and, when the occasion arises, the social-conservative viewpoint. He is in fact entirely result-driven. He has stated directly that he recognizes no principle higher than money and power.
KidC, what makes you think they didn’t?
Nonsense. The thread is about the unethical nature of his actions. Whether they were legal is just about as relevant as whether his socks matched his slacks.
If a fashion junkie came into the thread and scolded us for not admitting that he sure was dressed dapperly at the hearings, that would be every bit as relevant as a legal junkie coming into the thread and scolding folks for not admitting that his actions were legal at the hearing.
Not every thread is about your pet issue, and folks’ refusal to acknowledge your pet issue in every thread isn’t a sign of intellectual dishonesty on their part.
Daniel
So “keep the debate about the Patriot Act about the Patriot Act” is the same thing as “take my pail and shovel and go home because I feel like it?” Hmm… interesting.
And it seems to me that when a committee chairman violates procedure by declaring a hearing closed, leaving and having the microphones turned off, he’s trying to silence the debate. I suppose you could say that because he didn’t actually shove ball gags into everyone’s mouths, he didn’t try, but I’d say his actions constitute trying.
I don’t, but if they did and were declined, then attempting to sneak one in under the guise of a discussion about the Patriot Act reauthorization (I’m not saying this is necessarily the case) is pretty lame. If that’s the case, I’d be pissed too. I still think Sensenbrenner should have let a Democrat have a last word though.
To those who think the testament was relevant: Why wasn’t the evidence linked to a specific sunsetting provision? It was in one or two cases, but not the majority.
No, nor did I say that.
Where did I state that directly, liar?
I’m reading nothing into their refusal to consider his case, and everything into their decision in Hamdi.
You said, and I quote (again):
Sensenbrenner’s actions were:
- “Recognize” himself
- Attack the witnesses
- Refuse to recognize points of order from at least 3 committee members
- Gavel the hearing closed in violation of House rules
- Leave the committee chamber
- Have the microphones turned off, and use his staff to try and force the C-Span cameras out of the room
That looks like a pretty clear-cut case of taking his pail and shovel and going home because he felt like it to me. He wasn’t “trying to keep the debate about the Patriot Act about the Patriot Act” as much as he was throwing a hissy-fit because he had to sit through a hearing he never wanted to have in the first place.
An ordinary reader, reading the OP, would certainly conclude that the actions taken were in violation of the law. That is, in fact, my point. It would take exactly one sentence to say: “While technically legal, Rep. S’s flagrant disregard for the spirit of democratic, open hearings was evident.”
If the OP had contained such a line, my only post in this thread would have been in agreement.
If the OP did not contain such a line, but any of the next 20 posters had offered such a sentiment, I’d have said nothing.
Bricker already referred to ex parte Quirin. Decided concurrently was ex parte Haupt. Haupt was a German enemy combatant, not eligible for Geneva Convention protection because he was not a uniformed soldier. He landed on our shores to be a saboteur.
He claimed exemption from this status, as his parents had become naturalized American citizens during his minority, which made him a citizen as well. The government argued that since his wartime allegiance had been with an enemy of the United States, his citizenship was entirely incidental to this offense. The Court agreed with this view.
This being settled way back in 1942, it has squat to do with the Patriot Act.
Let’s not forget who this bucket of pus is. Back when the House was working on a bill about the notification of parents re abortion…
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), sought to exempt “cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the bill.” So, if an underage woman takes a bus to another state to have an abortion, the bus driver, who probably wouldn’t have any knowledge of the abortion, couldn’t be charged with a federal crime. Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) not only helped kill the amendment, he decided to rephrase it for the official record:
“Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport.”
(Cut and paste verbiage lifted directly from a blog, Carpetbagger Report. I have every confidence that this is an accurate representation of the facts of the matter, but full disclosure demands…)
Do you realize that your first paragraph contradicts itself? If “an ordinary reader… would certainly conclude that the actions taken were in violation of the law,” then how in the hell were Rep. Sensenbrenner’s actions “technically legal?”
Ignoring that, how can you still argue that his actions were technically legal when I’ve demonstrated multiple times that HE CAN’T GAVEL A HEARING CLOSED WITHOUT A MOTION OR CALL FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. What he did != what he can do.
Do I need to draw you a picture? Should I have flip charts and flash cards made? Would it help if I sent a telegram? Smoke signals? A billboard across the street from your house?
No, it’s derived from what the Supreme Court has said about enemy combatants and what measure of protection they are entitled to.
You know - the same Supreme Court that you hold up as a shining beacon of insight and wisdom when they decide issues like Roe and Lawrence… remember them?
You are an idiot, as well as a liar. You’re a lying idiot. Or, perhaps, an idiotic liar. I’m really not sure. Which do you feel is your defining characteristic? The idiocy, or the lying? I want to get it right for the future.
The thread title is misleading. It gives the impression that Sensenbrenner was trying to stop legitimate debate on the Patriot Act. If the thread title was “Pussy Sensenbrenner takes pail and goes home” I wouldn’t have had a problem with it.
Re Sensebrenner: The guy was apparently manipulated by the dems into having a hearing about Guantanamo by disguising it as a Patriot Act reauthorization hearing. Apparently the dems felt they didn’t have enough time at previous hearings where such testimony was on subject. I don’t know this for sure but based on comments from both sides it appears close. Sensenbrenner repeatedly asked to keep the material on subject and his request was repeatedly violated. He nevertheless listened to 1:45 of testimony that was never linked to arguments regarding the reauthorization of the sunsetting provisions. I’ve already said he was rude and should have given the Democrats a chance to speak. I don’t know the details on the house rules, but if there is a violation, the debate should be reopened.
There is one sentence in a long OP that deals with whether his actions were in violation of House Rules. It is certainly arguable that this sentence is correct; the OP is not being dishonest to argue that it was in such violation. One post–ONE POST–after the OP built on the rules violation point.
Maybe that was the most important sentencein the OP to you–and if you’d come into the thread to respectfully disagree with it, that would’ve been perfectly proper. But to accuse everyone of intellectual dishonesty for not prioritizing that debatable point above all others is ridiculous.
Daniel