i'm ready, Danon. And August 1st is a total eclipse of the sun, although we will only have a partial.
Bubble-blowing beluga that passed me by. Some kiss, huh?
August 1, 2008
White House Aides Can Be Subpoenaed
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON ?- President Bush's top advisers cannot ignore subpoenas issued by Congress, a federal judge ruled on Thursday in a case that involves the firings of several United States attorneys but has much wider constitutional implications for all three branches of government.
"The executive's current claim of absolute immunity from compelled Congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law," Judge John D. Bates ruled in United States District Court here.
Unless overturned on appeal, a former White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers, and the current White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, would be required to cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee, which has been investigating the controversial dismissal of the federal prosecutors in 2006.
While the ruling is the first in which a court has agreed to enforce a Congressional subpoena against the White House, Judge Bates called his 93-page decision "very limited" and emphasized that he could see the possibility of the dispute being resolved through political negotiations. The White House is almost certain to appeal the ruling.
It was the latest setback for the Bush administration, which maintains that current and former White House aides are immune from congressional subpoena. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to recommend that Karl Rove, a former top political adviser to President Bush, be cited for contempt for ignoring a subpoena and not appearing at a hearing on political interference by the White House at the Justice Department.
Although Judge Bates did not specifically say so, his ruling, if sustained on appeal, might apply as well to Mr. Rove and his refusal to testify.
The House has already voted to hold Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten in contempt for refusing to testify or to provide documents about the dismissals of the United States attorneys, which critics of the administration have suggested were driven by an improper mix of politics and decisions about who should, or should not, be prosecuted.
Judge Bates, who was appointed to the bench by President Bush in 2001, said Ms. Miers cannot simply ignore a subpoena to appear but must state her refusal in person. Moreover, he ruled, both she and Mr. Bolten must provide all non-privileged documents related to the dismissals.
Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten, citing legal advice from the White House, have refused for months to comply with Congressional subpoenas. The White House has repeatedly invoked executive privilege, the doctrine that allows the advice that a president gets from his close advisers to remain confidential.
In essence, Judges Bates held that whatever immunity from Congressional subpoenas that executive branch officials might enjoy, it is not "absolute." And in any event, he said, it is up to the courts, not the executive branch, to determine the scope of its immunity in particular cases.
"We are reviewing the decision," Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said. Before the decision was handed down, several lawyers said it would almost surely be appealed, no matter which way it turned, because of its importance.
Democrats in Congress issued statements in which they were quick to claim victory in the struggle with the administration over the dismissals of the federal prosecutors and other occurences in the Justice Department, and that they looked forward to hearing from the appropriate White House officials.
"I have long pointed out that this administration's claims of executive privilege and immunity, which White House officials have used to justify refusing to even show up when served with congressional subpoenas, are wrong," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Leahy's House counterpart in the House had a similar reaction.
"Today's landmark ruling is a ringing reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of checks and balances and the basic American idea that no person is above the law," said Representative John D. Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Teeny, there is a God!
sue, the judge's suggestion of "political negotiations" will probably protect the ruling from being overturned at appeals.
Dan, celebration at the ready!
sue,
http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674
You and your 300 friends have supported 2,908,252.1 square feet!
Marine Wetlands habitat supported: 214,483.7 square feet.
You have supported: (0.0)
Your 300 friends have supported: (214,483.7)
American Prairie habitat supported: 67,546.3 square feet.
You have supported: (16,879.4)
Your 300 friends have supported: (50,666.9)
Rainforest habitat supported: 2,626,222.2 square feet.
You have supported: (188,053.2)
Your 300 friends have supported: (2,438,169.0)
~~~
putting on my party gear !
from january 31, 2007
The WildClickers have supported 2,690,319.0 square feet!
Worth repeating:
"August 1, 2008
White House Aides Can Be Subpoenaed
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON ?- President Bush's top advisers cannot ignore subpoenas issued by Congress, a federal judge ruled on Thursday in a case that involves the firings of several United States attorneys but has much wider constitutional implications for all three branches of government.
"The executive's current claim of absolute immunity from compelled Congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law," Judge John D. Bates ruled in United States District Court here.
Unless overturned on appeal, a former White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers, and the current White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, would be required to cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee, which has been investigating the controversial dismissal of the federal prosecutors in 2006.
While the ruling is the first in which a court has agreed to enforce a Congressional subpoena against the White House, Judge Bates called his 93-page decision "very limited" and emphasized that he could see the possibility of the dispute being resolved through political negotiations. The White House is almost certain to appeal the ruling. "
AND THAT INCLUDES ROVE![/color=red]
Can't get it right.
AND THAT INCLUDES ROVE!!
There ya go. He has just been cited for contempt by Congress so both decisions will surely crete something interesting, unless everything is tabled during the appeals process. King George will have his comeuppance.
Good day sumac, Stradee, ebeth, danon5, teenyboone. and good day to everyone else.
Teenyboone. Neat link to the solar television plant in Kaneyama.
Happy birthday aktbird57.
Bringing a fresh calamari salad to the party. Green, red, and yellow bell peppers, are from garden. Works out well for me. The majority of people can't get passed the appearence of the squid, therefore, it's pushed back onto me to take back home.
Going to click now. Everyone have a wonderful day.
sumac wrote:Worth repeating:
"August 1, 2008
White House Aides Can Be Subpoenaed
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON ?- President Bush's top advisers cannot ignore subpoenas issued by Congress, a federal judge ruled on Thursday in a case that involves the firings of several United States attorneys but has much wider constitutional implications for all three branches of government.
"The executive's current claim of absolute immunity from compelled Congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law," Judge John D. Bates ruled in United States District Court here.
Unless overturned on appeal, a former White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers, and the current White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, would be required to cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee, which has been investigating the controversial dismissal of the federal prosecutors in 2006.
While the ruling is the first in which a court has agreed to enforce a Congressional subpoena against the White House, Judge Bates called his 93-page decision "very limited" and emphasized that he could see the possibility of the dispute being resolved through political negotiations. The White House is almost certain to appeal the ruling. "
AND THAT INCLUDES ROVE![/color=red]
I was just reading this this morning. Good news.
sumac wrote:August 1, 2008
White House Aides Can Be Subpoenaed
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON ?- President Bush's top advisers cannot ignore subpoenas issued by Congress, a federal judge ruled on Thursday in a case that involves the firings of several United States attorneys but has much wider constitutional implications for all three branches of government.
"The executive's current claim of absolute immunity from compelled Congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law," Judge John D. Bates ruled in United States District Court here.
Unless overturned on appeal, a former White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers, and the current White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, would be required to cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee, which has been investigating the controversial dismissal of the federal prosecutors in 2006.
While the ruling is the first in which a court has agreed to enforce a Congressional subpoena against the White House, Judge Bates called his 93-page decision "very limited" and emphasized that he could see the possibility of the dispute being resolved through political negotiations. The White House is almost certain to appeal the ruling.
It was the latest setback for the Bush administration, which maintains that current and former White House aides are immune from congressional subpoena. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to recommend that Karl Rove, a former top political adviser to President Bush, be cited for contempt for ignoring a subpoena and not appearing at a hearing on political interference by the White House at the Justice Department.
Although Judge Bates did not specifically say so, his ruling, if sustained on appeal, might apply as well to Mr. Rove and his refusal to testify.
The House has already voted to hold Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten in contempt for refusing to testify or to provide documents about the dismissals of the United States attorneys, which critics of the administration have suggested were driven by an improper mix of politics and decisions about who should, or should not, be prosecuted.
Judge Bates, who was appointed to the bench by President Bush in 2001, said Ms. Miers cannot simply ignore a subpoena to appear but must state her refusal in person. Moreover, he ruled, both she and Mr. Bolten must provide all non-privileged documents related to the dismissals.
Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten, citing legal advice from the White House, have refused for months to comply with Congressional subpoenas. The White House has repeatedly invoked executive privilege, the doctrine that allows the advice that a president gets from his close advisers to remain confidential.
In essence, Judges Bates held that whatever immunity from Congressional subpoenas that executive branch officials might enjoy, it is not "absolute." And in any event, he said, it is up to the courts, not the executive branch, to determine the scope of its immunity in particular cases.
"We are reviewing the decision," Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said. Before the decision was handed down, several lawyers said it would almost surely be appealed, no matter which way it turned, because of its importance.
Democrats in Congress issued statements in which they were quick to claim victory in the struggle with the administration over the dismissals of the federal prosecutors and other occurences in the Justice Department, and that they looked forward to hearing from the appropriate White House officials.
"I have long pointed out that this administration's claims of executive privilege and immunity, which White House officials have used to justify refusing to even show up when served with congressional subpoenas, are wrong," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Leahy's House counterpart in the House had a similar reaction.
"Today's landmark ruling is a ringing reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of checks and balances and the basic American idea that no person is above the law," said Representative John D. Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
But will they stick? Theses smug little people are about to see justice, slapped on them!
alex240101 wrote:Good day sumac, Stradee, ebeth, danon5, teenyboone. and good day to everyone else.
Teenyboone. Neat link to the solar television plant in Kaneyama.
Happy birthday aktbird57.
Bringing a fresh calamari salad to the party. Green, red, and yellow bell peppers, are from garden. Works out well for me. The majority of people can't get passed the appearence of the squid, therefore, it's pushed back onto me to take back home.
Going to click now. Everyone have a wonderful day.
Good day to you, Alex! Sounds like a yummy dish! :wink:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU,
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TOOOO YOU.
HAPPY BIIIRRTHDAY, DEAR ANDREW,
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU --------
Joyeux Anniversairre
Cumpleanos filices
Glucklicher Geburtstag
Compleanno felice
Gelukkige Verjaardag
Feliz Aniversario
CAHem Poxaehnr
Glad Fodselsdag
(and one in Chinese I can't write)
Ole, ole, enfree....come out, come out, wherever you are!
Dear Susan,
In April we released the America's Most Endangered Rivers™: 2008 Edition and asked you to protect these (and all) rivers from global warming. Thank you very much for asking your Senators to support the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act -- you were one of the more than 1,000 people who did.
Your action has raised awareness about the need to protect rivers and combat global warming among your Senators, even though the legislation never came to the floor for a vote. With your continued support we can keep getting the word out about global warming and pave the way to a victory next year.
However, there is still work to be done now -- action is needed on 8 out of the 10 rivers listed in the America's Most Endangered Rivers™: 2008 Edition so please take action today to save these outstanding rivers.
1. Catawba-Wateree River (NC and SC)
2. Rogue River (OR) -- restricted to OR residents only
3. Cache la Poudre River (CO)
4. St. Lawrence River (NY and Canada) * see P.S. below
5. Minnesota River (MN and SD)
6. St. Johns River (FL)
7. Gila River (AZ and NM) * see P.S. below
8. Allagash Wilderness Waterway (ME)
9. Pearl River (LA and MS)
10. Niobrara River (NE and WY)
Thank you for your steadfast support. We cannot do this alone!
Sincerely,
Rebecca R. Wodder
Rebecca R. Wodder
President
P.S. St. Lawrence River: Action is no longer needed because Reps. McHugh (R-NY) and Slaughter (D-NY) have introduced a House resolution indicating that plan B+ (the plan we're calling for) is the preferred position of the U.S. Government. Gila River: Action is not needed at this time.
Work called yesterday, sort of an emergency, so Stradee deli dallied most of the day!
Sorry i'm late to the party! Brought Boston Cream Pie, Dill Red Potatoe Salad, Kalua, and complimenting Alex's garden fresh salad ~ from the bakery, Pesto Garlic bread.
Ditto Dans Birthday Greeting, Andrew!
