Russ Feingold

[shostakovich]

I'm amazed at the fuss over the proposal to censure the president for illegal wiretaps. I'm apalled at the commentaries by the "news pundits" analyzing, over-analyzing, reading between lines, interpreting politically, and missing the right point (IMO) to the issue.

I don't think there is any doubt that the NSA wiretaps are illegal. They are also popular, so say polls. Now, here's the issue, for me. There should be some way of reconciling the popular and the illegal. Either make it legal (watching out for the precedents it might set), or find a legal aternative. In this case, there is a legal alternative, F.I.S.A.

Bush hates to let the law (ethics, brains, decency) stand in his way. His henchman, Alberto Gonzales, will rubber stamp the "legality". I'd love to see what the Supremes would do with it, as the "general court of legal opinion" has concluded that the president acted illegally.

I think censure is an honest (so foreign to politics) approach. At least, get it investigated, so that we can say the act was "legal" (God forbid) or "illegal", and slap the president's wrist. It won't lead to impeachment. WHO would want Cheney as president? Not even Cheney, I bet.

I don't quite understand why other senators, of both parties, have not ageed with the proposal, so meekly stated by Finegold. Consider it the right thing to do without the trappings of "strategy".

But, maybe the senators know something I don't know. Is it possible?
Shos

<small>[ 04-12-2006, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[Shapley]

Shos,

The "Court of General Opinion" has not really weighed in on the situation. The issue has been falsely described as 'domestic spying', when in fact the spying deals with international calls. The courts have, in the past, refused to rule against the presidents powers to conduct surveillance for national security purposes, and FISA itself has refused to claim jurisdiction over it.

You may be surprised at how the Supreme Court would rule on this issue. It's also significant to note that only one President has been censured in the history of this nation, and that censure was repealed during a subsequent session of Congress.

But, this is a political discussion, and I've given up politics for Lent, so I'll leave it at that.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Hi Shos,

Do you realize just how difficult you're making this for me?!!

Do you?!!



PS. Finegold's right, Murtha's right.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:

PS. Finegold's right, Murtha's right.

Two men with a financial dispute came to a rabbi and asked him to decide between them.
He listened to the first man and said, "You're right."
He listened to the second man and said, "You're right."
His assistant came in and asked, "How can you say that they are both right?"
Answer: "You're also right!"

[shostakovich]

Protagoras strikes again!
----------------------------------------------------

The "general court of legal opinion" that I mentioned was what I heard about on TV and saw in the news regarding a body of lawyers and law school members. It was a majority opinion that the wiretapping was illegal. There may be other conflicting courts of legal opinion, but I haven't heard from them yet, and you know I love this one.

--------------------------------------------------------
Hi Shos,

Do you realize just how difficult you're making this for me?!!

Do you?!!



PS. Finegold's right, Murtha's right.

-----------------------------------------------------

Hi OT. I can not believe I'm inhibiting you. My apologies if that's the case. You're my inspiration.
Shos

[OperaTenor]

How can the likes of me possibly inspire the likes of you?

Not inhibiting in the least. I'm just trying to show some restraint in the arena of political bickeri..........uh, I mean, discussion here on the BBB. I think I get a bit shrill when it comes to the activities of our current figurehead.

Not that he doesn't provoke it......

....or that he doesn't deserve it.....

[shostakovich]

Since Finegold suggested censure not too many Democrats have jumped on the bandwagon. I have not heard one use the word "impeachment". Has anybody? Yet, I've heard some Republicans claim that the Democrats want to impeach, and how foolish this would be. It certainly would be foolish as long as Cheney is VP. Is this a Rovesian smear tactic?
Shos

[OperaTenor]

Re the lack of rallying around Feingold, it makes me wonder if the Dems are finally learning the fine art of dog wagging the neocons seem to excel at.

[shostakovich]

Hi OT. Your spelling of Feingold is correct. I goofed. There may be a case coming up of NSA spying which will bring about some reason to determine its legality. Without some such determination it will never come to a head. Kudos to Feingold. The Dems disappoint.
Shos

[OperaTenor]

The Dems do indeed disappoint. This censure should have been huge, and they just let it die, seemingly. The only logical conclusion I can draw from that(mainly because there is every good reason to censure GWB) is the Dems hands aren't clean either. Every once in awhile you get a Jack Murtha or a Russ Feingold, and the rest are mystifyingly reluctant to show any sack.

It takes me back to my old premise that both parties have gone to the dogs - one is clever and thoroughly corrupt, the other inept and only somewhat corrupt.

[Shapley]

OT,

It could also be that enough members of Congress are aware the Congress does not have the authority to censure the President that the measure would not pass, whether warranted or not. Constitutionally, the legislative branch is not given the authority to censure other branches of government, only their own. They can impeach members of both the Judicial and Executive branches, but not to censure them.

It would be the height of hypocracy to exceed your authority in order to punish the President for exceeding his.

Many Republicans realized this when the measure to censure President Clinton was proposed.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

If that's the case, I didn't know that, thanks for the clarification.

Then one of them needs to grow a pair and introduce articles of impeachment.

[shostakovich]

Interesting if true. That makes OT, me, and Feingold on the wrong side of this one. I still think a call for investigating the legality of the NSA spying is a good idea. I can't go with impeachment as long as Cheney is #2 (Which can be taken as a double entendre with apologies to Shap and BigJon).
Shos

[Shapley]

Shos,

There is nothing wrong with an investigation, as it is fully within their powers to conduct one. If impeachment proceedings are warranted, then by all means let them begin, but I think you will find that they are not.

Nearly all Presidents have engaged in warrantless surveillance for national security purposes. The courts have upheld that authority in the past. FISA was implemented as a means to check that power, but Congress does not have the authority to strip the President of powers just because they don't approve of them. The courts have ruled that the powers of the President to conduct surveillance for national security purposes cannot be infringed, and FISA has refused to overrule those powers.

But I repeat myself. We'll have to wait and let this one play itself out.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

To add a purely practical consideration, is it worth the time spent by the members of Congress, unless an issue is so obvious that they're fairly sure of a consensus? It's not like they have nothing else to do.

[OperaTenor]

Here it is, folks. Senator Tom Harkin, who along with my favorite Californai Senator Boxer have signed onto Feingold's censure initiative, has started a petition for those of us who want to show our public support of censuring the Bush Crime Family. Sing up, and tell your friends!

Tom Harkin's Petition

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
who along with my favorite Californai Senator Boxer

Was this supposed to have snark quotes around it? Boxer is possibly the worst senator in office today.

[OperaTenor]

Nope, she is probably my favorite Senator. She's one of the few who consistently has the guts to speak her mind, and does a pretty good job of demonstrating she cares about what her constiuency(the actual people, not corporations) thinks.

I guess its' a good thing she's my Senator and not yours.

Aside from that, there you go again, making a sweeping, , subjective, vague generality with nothing to back it up.

Prove "worst".

[Shapley]

OT,

RE:She's one of the few who consistently has the guts to speak her mind

Lots of them speak their minds, most of them would be better served not to...

Corporations are part of her consituency, just as they are a part of every other Senators. Corporations are just people who have organized under the laws of this nation to lawfuly engage in commerce, and as such have the right to petition their government. They are no different than people who organize to protect the environement, protect gun owners' rights, protect property owners' rights, or demand that the governemnt buy their drugs.

V/R

Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Senator Boxer:

Well, Babs and Diane were very clear for a lot of years, communicating the amount of unwelcome that the Navy was in the fine, clean, eco-aware, anti-nuclear Bay area. Meanwhile, the criminally corrupt and incompetent Sandy Eggo politicians were tastelessly pandering to the wretched opportunistic DoD warmongers.

Then the Congress told the Navy they had to close one of the two aviation overhaul depots on the West Coast, two of the three shipyards, a carrier port, etc. The SF Bay area was, in brief, entirely relieved of the unwelcome burden of the Navy presence and payroll.

I have never seen any politician so utterly deprived of the power of speech. She turned white, then red, then white again, and her edited comments on the entire BRAC process were intemperate and uncomplimentary. She can barely bring herself to acknowledge that the Sandy Eggo presence is worthy of her attention. It's been ten years, now.

She's undoubtedly a better senator than many, but never forget that she's a career politician and she is her own first constituent first, last, and always.