The thing republicans fear most of all. The truth. So they persecute all who dare tell the truth.

One thing about these guys, they are consistent.

The opinion invoked the ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity which is based on the old English legal maxim that "The King Can Do No Wrong." It is an absolute defense to any legal action unless the "sovereign" consents to be sued.


This sure says it all. So many reasons for impeachment it's going to hard to figure out where to start!

Just one more law that gets in the way of the Bush Crime Family and their giveaway of our country to the global/corporate thugs who are the members of Daddy Bush's New World Order. Damn those pesky things called "laws"

This sure says it all. So many reasons for impeachment it's going to hard to figure out where to start!

Posted by Zap at 2006-09-04

I'll have no problem figuring out where to start to impeach Bush. My burning question is WHEN do we start? How long are we as Amerian citizens going to sit and do nothing while Bush dismantles our laws, our borders, our country piece by piece and law by law?

Blessed are the laff makers fer they purely rawk sez Spud!

Spud thanx OCU fer that Doonesbury moment.

"Princess Jenna, obviously"

Fucking SLAYED in Spudworld!

Gary T still got it going on!!

Be Well.

OCU

Thanks for that, wow Trudeau really nails it home. These guys are so out of touch with the concept of America and that piece of paper....

On Topic?

Much of BushCo's reign has involved avoiding personal responsibility by creating legal consequence free zones.

Spud thinks that only someone with lots to hide would place so much emphasis on legal immunity.

Spud thinks BushCo are War Criminals btw so that would kinda make sense.

Be Well.

PS: Who are the stupid, fearful wretches who continue to support these incarnations of evil?

Spudster, my friend, as a fellow barbecue afficianado, shouldn't you be out grilling on this fine Labor Day weekend?

Wow, I sure am glad that Bush was elected to return decency and honesty to the White House.
Yep, we've got open and honest government comming out of this administration in buckets, don't we?

I'm going to laugh in their face when BL2 and RIR show up to defend this gross act of despotism.

ALL HAIL KING GEORGE THE LESSER!!
Bow to your lord and savior. He's 'Keeping you Safe' and can do no wrong!

We have little democracy left when the President can just declare himself immune to inconvenient laws.
Do we need to do the Magna Carta all over again????


God, I miss the good ol' days where all we had to worry about was the President getting a hummer.

Today we have to worry about which page of the Constitution Bush is going to use for toilet paper.

NOWWWW Defend this You Bushites.

Larry

Yeah more BS from Chimpy's flunkie, Alberto Gonzales, offspring of illegal aliens. Two more years and this loser will be gone. Maybe sooner when the Dems take over this fall and start some investigations.

Mista Bill!,

"Spudster, my friend, as a fellow barbecue afficianado, shouldn't you be out grilling on this fine Labor Day weekend?"

Yesterday Spud spent the entire day BBQing and eating and drinking and cracking jokes and smoking incredibly good pot.

Today Spud restores his equilibrium by not doing those things.

Mostly!

Be Well.

I'm sorry, but groups like PEER need to think about timing if they are going to release reports. Unless, of course they don't care if anyone is going to pay attention.

They simply cannot expect to get the reaction and coverage they want on a holiday weekend.

"Ever see this flick?..."

A telling tale:

This movie was originally called "The Madness of King George III."

When it came out in video people were asking for I and II.

The producers dropped the III from the title.

Says a lot.

Hans

(Red crickets a' chirping)

Anyone else notice that the DR's right-wingers have begun mostly avoiding threads such as this in favor of "easy target" threads?

Something on Hillary, etc., draws them like flies.

Eva Destruction,

"Anyone else notice that the DR's right-wingers have begun mostly avoiding threads such as this in favor of "easy target" threads?"

Spud's noticed.

Good eye!

Be Well.

Impeach this fuck while we still have a country.

Joe,

So you are defending this action then, based on the technicalities? Aren't you at all disgusted by clearly dangerous language such as this:

The opinion invoked the ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity which is based on the old English legal maxim that "The King Can Do No Wrong." It is an absolute defense to any legal action unless the "sovereign" consents to be sued.


Shouldn't our government be open and honest by default? Open and honest to a fault even?

But no, Bush has a loophole to squirm through, and he's going to have to be dragged into honesty kicking and screaming, until Congress changes the law.

Is this what you expect of your President Joe? Is this acceptable behavior for you? Will you continue to support this slippery slope to outright despotism?

And is there any clearer reason why we need Democrats in charge of the House in Nov?
Can we trust the GOP cronies to change the law?

Hans across America,

"Says a lot."

Agreed. Nothing good though.

Be Well.

I see the "cover our ass's at all costs" administration is at it again.

How anyone can defend this sick bastard anymore, is beyond me.

With each passing day, it becomes more evident that Bush feels he can get away with anything...no matter what he does, and will change laws to ensure it!

"So you are defending this action then, based on the technicalities?"

No, I'm saying that the headline and article gave you all a very partisan viewpoint of the topic, nothing new there.

"Aren't you at all disgusted by clearly dangerous language such as this:"

You then went on to quote the language of the article, not the language of the letter written by the asst. attorney general. So, to answer your question, yes, I am disgusted by the language in the article. I think it's inflammatory and leads many to incorrect conclusions.

"Is this what you expect of your President Joe? Is this acceptable behavior for you? Will you continue to support this slippery slope to outright despotism?"

I used to agree with a lot of what you said on this site, but you have fallen further and further toward buffalo bob stature by talking like that. I expect our president (even though this was the atty general, not the president) to offer a fair reading of all statutes enacted by Congress. In this case, after reading the letter and the pertinent statutes, I think it is a fair reading. It doesn't appear that you or anyone else has read any of that.

All quiet on the lefty front?

All quiet on the lefty front?

Posted by JOE at 2006-09-04 09:26 PM |

No, it's just too damn hot to argue today. It hit 104 degrees here in Burbank, CA. My keyboard almost melted.

Assistant Attorney Generals do not get to write law,

They can only give opinions of what they think congress said.

Congress needs to bust these arrogant bastards.

I used to agree with a lot of what you said on this site, but you have fallen further and further toward buffalo bob stature by talking like that.

For every action there is an equal and oposite reaction. If I have moved as far left as you claim, it was not by my own choice. Bush is pushing so far to the right, that some of us have no choice but to move left to balance the equation.

I'm curious though when you stopped agreeing with me? Was it when I ceased agreement with Bush when I realized the potential danger of his actions?

But I read the letter. How can you claim that the letter's language is conductive to an open and honest government?
For example:

In section II: It is axiomatic that the Government may not be sued without it's consent. Where Congress chooses to waive that immunity, it's intent "must be unequivically expressed in statutory text"

Call me Buffalo Bob if you wish, but this is dangerous language. It revokes the principle of a government of the people, by the people. And instead of reserving powers to the people, the Government is found to be in essence ABOVE THE LAW, in every single case imagineable, unless Congress has specifically waived immunity.

I can be sued and loose my house if an old lady slips on my sidewalk.
But the Government could poison the water of millions and not even get a slap on the wrist if it didn't alow it.
This is despotic behavior.


Further on we have this language:
The CWA whistleblower provision is not a quantifiable restriction on pollutants and there is substantial doubt whether it could even be viewed as a means for ensuring compliance with such requirements.
Further:
A whistleblower claim is not an order or remedy designed to abate water pollution; it is a freestanding claim designed to provide employment rights and remedies...


This language shows either a clear disconnect with reality on the part of the administration, or a clear intent to disreguard the full intent and purpose of whistleblower protections.

Look at the language there. They don't feel that being able to report pollution violations without risk of being fired would have any impact on compliance.

Are they insane???? I guess we don't need airport security then right? Everyone will just follow the security laws, no need to actually check up on anyone is there?

And the second part shows a blatant neo-con mentality. Basically they're saying that whistleblower protections are just a welfare program. That if someone REALLY cared about clean water, they'd report it, and not worry about loosing their job that they depend on to put food on the table. After all, they can just go get a job at Walmart....


Read the letter Joe, my reading of it is clear and honest.
-The Government is accountable to no one unless they agree to it.
-Oversight is unnecessary to force compliance.
-Whistleblower protections are just welfare nonsense.

Keep supporting this Administration at your own peril.
I didn't choose this fight, but as a patriot it's my duty to defend this country against all enemies of freedom, foreign and domestic.

Norm,

"It is axiomatic that the Government may not be sued without it's consent. Where Congress chooses to waive that immunity, it's intent "must be unequivically expressed in statutory text"

Call me Buffalo Bob if you wish, but this is dangerous language."

This language has been around forever. Bush did not create the idea of sovereign immunity. Just because you've never heard of it before today does not mean that it's anything new.

"he Government could poison the water of millions and not even get a slap on the wrist"

Blame congress. They didn't include the government in the Clean Water Act as a party capable of being sued. I don't think it's right, but all I said was that it was a correct reading of the statute. I've noticed that you haven't addressed that (my real argument) but instead addressed hypotheticals.

"A whistleblower claim is not an order or remedy designed to abate water pollution; it is a freestanding claim designed to provide employment rights and remedies"
"Look at the language there. They don't feel that being able to report pollution violations without risk of being fired would have any impact on compliance."

I think you're wrong. They said whistleblower claims aren't designed to abate water pollution, but are designed to provide employment rights. They did not say that whistleblower claims would "not have any impact" on compliance, just that they were not designed to be used as a tool for agendas other than fair employment.

and there is substantial doubt whether it could even be viewed as a means for ensuring compliance with such requirements.

That phrase right there says that they DO belive whistleblowers have little impact.
And I think that's dead wrong.
Whistleblower statues are for protecting employment, but in the specific instance of an employee puting their job on the line for the greater good.
A person shouldn't have to choose between clean water and feeding their kids.

Blame congress.

I do, and I'm not voting for the GOP this Nov, they need a spanking.
But of course I'll be told that the terrorists win if I vote Dem, right?
So how do I blame congress if I can't vote them out without being an America hating terrorist lover?

They didn't include the government in the Clean Water Act as a party capable of being sued. I don't think it's right, but all I said was that it was a correct reading of the statute.

Okay, you want a brownie point that that IS how the statute is writen?
Fine, you're right.
But that statute is also dead wrong (and I blame Congress)
The polarity is wrong. Congress should have to act and go on record as voting to EXCLUDE the government from liability.
It should not be that they have to vote to allow suits in only specific instances.
They should have to vote to exclude the Clean Water Act, not include it. That way deadlocks and do-nothing congresses favors the people, not the government.

It is a clear avenue to abuse as written in the current statutes. How easy would it be to say "Well, the pollution occured on a Tuesday, in Idaho, during a full moon, and we didn't specify that as an instance of federal liability, so take your kids with Lukemia and scram!"


You're saying that Bush is in the clear because of technicalities, and I have to say you're right. He wiggled through a loophole scott clean.

But I am nothing but disapointed and outraged. I expect better from my government than this, I expect better from my President than this.
And I'm going to vote accordingly.

"A person shouldn't have to choose between clean water and feeding their kids."

I agree 100%. It's a shame congress didn't write the Clean Water Act the same way they wrote the Clean Air Act, as they appeared to be well aware of sovereign immunity when they wrote the latter.

"But of course I'll be told that the terrorists win if I vote Dem, right?"

I wouldn't tell you that. Don't blame me for the partisan bullshit that gets thrown around at election time. I don't vote for either major party, and if you're mad about something like this I don't think you should either. Switching to democrat means you'll just see a lefty weasel their way out of doing what's best for the people instead of a righty.

LOL, typical Republitard pule stating that King George Dubai gets to pick and choose what laws he follows.

Hint, Republitards: HE HAS TO FOLLOW THEM ALL.

You get a BRAVO for that one JSG.

Yawwn. Wake me up when you're relevant, justsomedipshit.

You too, mrs. kurtz.

This language has been around forever. Bush did not create the idea of sovereign immunity. Just because you've never heard of it before today does not mean that it's anything new.

Just proves more of the fact that you support this outcome.

This goes further than one thinks. If the government has immunity so does its employees, meaning if they over look a violation they are not liable unless the King decides to make it so.

Joe really likes these kind of laws, likes the idea of government can do no wrong. We see it in everything he posts.

"Just proves more of the fact that you support this outcome."

I don't support the outcome. I also don't support blaming the doctrine of sovereign immunity on the Bush administration. If you had a brain, you wouldn't either.

"Joe really likes these kind of laws, likes the idea of government can do no wrong."

Sure. That's why I vote for the party that would drastically reduce the size of our government. Your posts are so off it's just sad.

IMPEACH THAT ALIEN BASTID AND HIS WHOLE EVIL CREW.

Joe, answer the question!

Does it bother you that Bush is trying change laws to protect himself? I mean, if the mans done no wrong, then why try to intimidate anyone who might come forward?

Simple question, simple answer.

"Does it bother you that Bush is trying change laws to protect himself?"

He didn't change the law. The wording of the law has not been changed. This is an internal memo from the asst atty general regarding how to read the law.

So I can't really answer your question. No laws have been changed. Maybe if you asked a pertinent question, it could be answered.

He didn't change the law. The wording of the law has not been changed.

So did he change the intent of the law do to wording?

Technically "he" didn't do anything. His assistant attorney general offered a memo interpreting the law as being subject to sovereign immunity. This does not mean Bush changed any laws. It means he read them and acted accordingly.

This does not mean Bush changed any laws. It means he read them and acted accordingly.

Didn't answer the question Joe, was the intent interpreted correctly?

I am not looking for a yes or no answer, after reading the total subject matter, yours included, was the interpretation correct as to the intent of the law?

Technically "he" didn't do anything.

Technically he did, and is willfull and purposeful violation of intent of subject to questionable behavior?

"Didn't answer the question Joe, was the intent interpreted correctly?"

That was not your question. Maybe if you learned to speak like a human being, your "questions" would be answered more efficiently.

According to the references cited in the memo, I think it was interpreted correctly. Interpreting legislative intent is always a subjective endeavor. How can you prove whether it was interpreted correctly without asking every legislator who worked on the bill?

"Technically he did"

When? Where? The only reference is to a memo written by the asst atty general. Did Bush write it? Did Bush act on it? What did he do?

Just view Joe as exactly what he is: a lawyer wannabe looking to join the culture of corruption.

Joe defends the executive branch interpretting laws, even though that is reserved for the Judicial branch. Which touches on the entire reason I was against the Alito nomination: during his hearing, Alito said directly that the president does not have to follow laws he feels are constitutional. In the Constitution, the President is given no such ability, since that is reserved for the Judicial branch.

Republitards calling themselves "strict constructionists" is about as phony a term as "fiscal conservative". The conservatives are all about using labels to lie (Patriot Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Skies Initiative, etc etc etc.)

The conservatives have their agenda, they have never made any secret about it. The fact that their Republitard supporters choose to ignore it is proof of their own stupidity and ignorance.

The conservative leaders want to weaken America to the point where it will be effortless for them to destroy it (or, as Norquist put it, to drown it in a bathtub).

well... wouldn't this be a good time for GWB to say something against the law? Might give his party a litle bimp in polls.

Hmmm... I wonder if the controllers aren't right now hatching a plan to get GWB to say a few negative words about the law, but make no real commitment to changing it?

A smart left-winger would do the same thing, of course...

"Law and Order!" must bend to L'etat c'est moi!

"Joe defends the executive branch interpretting laws, even though that is reserved for the Judicial branch."

In enforcing a law, do you not need to know what it means and who it applies to? Take a look at the US Code one of these days and tell me they're all concrete and no interpretation is required.

The Bush motto with respect to law:

Obey the laws with which you agree

Ignore the rest

AKA: Divine right of kings

What a marvelous and revealing debate this is.

Joe makes clear the facts of the law.

-Congress failed to include the Clean Water Act under a particular provision. This law goes back to 1972.

-The Bush Administration acts within the confines of a law which it had no hand in creating.

-If people want to change this, they can go through the Legislative channels.

Meanwhile, a handful of Leftist cranks drag out all the same old crap: "Bush crime Family" impeachment, monarchy, etc.

JustSomeLoser has a new word "pule" which he probably doesn't even know the meaning of, but uses it with abandon.

The Leftist basis? a highly-biased use of the phrase "Divine Right of Kings" taken wholly out of context, of course. Total ignorance of British Common Law.

Don't let the truth get in the way of your rant! Maybe someday you will get a glimpse of the Reality World. You'r always welcome to visit, just wipe your feet first.

Vernon,

Tell us then, do you support the retaliation against employess who blow the whistle regarding wrongdoing in our govt agencies?

I'm willing to bet you are.

Typical repugnant.

Please Take A Big Nasty Dump In Bush Administration Apologist Water !!!

Then Play Cover My Ass.

No Protection For Those Who Want To Protect American Health An Welfare ?

What A Damn Crying Shame !

-Sarge

LOL, Vermin, how many threads are you going to pule about your lack of vocabulary in?

I suggest you crack open a dictionary, since you obviously don't know what the word means or whether I've been using it properly. Must suck to be you, laboring under that 4th grade reading comprehension.

I declare the leftists winners, because after reading thru this thread I can't fathom how this isn't a bad thing?

Am I to believe the Bush Administration is running around correcting legislative clerical errors?

Sure they're not changing laws, but based on past history it seems pretty easy to see they are building they're case to claim the laws don't apply to them, for whatever reason we can possibly think of. See "signing statements".

I mean why even screw with this in the first place? They surely are not trying to enhance whistle blower protections....

Shocking!

Why is there a discussion on what an gov't attorney had to say to a gov't official.

If someone wants to sue the gov't, they can take it to court and let the court decide whether sovereign immunity applies. It isn't up to the gov't counsel for the gov't to decide. It was information for the gov't from their own attorneys.

If you read the internal opinion, the lawyer is saying we can be sued for this and this under this and this, but not this and this under this and this.

That's like the sign outside a parking lot that says "We are not liable for damage". Well, guess what. Not according to my lawyer. That nice sign isn't protection from litigation. If the sign is correct, I'll lose in court. A lot of these signs are put up to discourage someone thinking about doing it, even if they have a right and valid claim.

Ignore the opinion. That's all this is. Show me a court case to get all upset over.

I have never seen such a large lefty piss-party get broked up after the facts emerge and their biased headline/article is proven to be bullshit. This thread was great.

broken, nazis.

Is it any surprise that these criminals would like to be able to say:

You can't take me to court (The Hague).

No protection for those who squeal on us.

Other countries can't try American soldiers for crimes and misdemeanors committed on their own soil.

etc.

YEAH! Societies are judged on how they treat the least of the said society.

Looks like Bush has once again enabled America to lead the world ---- too the bottom of the heap.

Law --- who needs it when we have Bush to make all the rules, (on whims).!

I have never seen such a large lefty piss-party get broked up after the facts emerge and their biased headline/article is proven to be bullshit. This thread was great.

Posted by JOE at 2006-09-05 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

broken, nazis.

Posted by JOE at 2006-09-05 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

The article was bullshit? Really?

.......and a Nazi reference as well. Great post. "it done got broked up"

"The article was bullshit? Really?"

Yes, it was. The article not only fails to mention the statutory analyses performed by the asst atty general in which he determined that the whistleblower law did apply to the government, but additionally, the government didn't "declare itself immune" from anything. This was an internal memo written by a lawyer, not a declaration made by the administration.

And the nazi reference was to spelling nazis. Get a clue.

"get broked up".

Good grammar Gay Lawyer Joe.