« Foodborne Illness Report | Main | The Skylark of Mince-Pies »

June 17, 2015

Comments

You don't do it justice by saying "200 page, including dissent". You should go with the clearer "109 pages plus a 91-page dissent", which from a quick skimming actually appears to not be "But... 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!"; no, it's a far more subtle and nuanced "But... 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! Um, because Bivens wasn't really precedent, m'kay?"

Now I've got to go read the dissent, just to find out how the dissenting judge frames the argument that Bivens was wrongly decided. (Which I take to be the implication of "not really a precedent.")

OK, now I read (or at least skimmed) the dissent. It appears that her theory is that Bevins only applies to actions taken by "rouge agents". That is, it cannot be applied when unconstitutional actions were approved by senior officials.

I am not a lawyer, fo course, but I think I call bullsh*t. If that thesis were correct, then Bevins would be meaningless.

When the President does it that means it's not illegal!

Doesn't even have to be the President. She seems to figure it should include the heads of the FBI, Customs and Immigration, the CIA, etc.

FYI, what Bevins is about (NV, please correct me if I've missed something here) is basically that you can bring suit against the government if it does something contrary to the Constitution, even if there isn't a law which explicitly makes that specific action illegal.

this sh*t is gonna follow those guys to their graves.

couldn't happen to a nicer crew.

GLTA

The dissent could have been shorter by simply stating that "There is ample Supreme Court precedent for the Constitutional executive internment imprisonment of individuals, even U.S. citizens, in times of war or other crisis based solely on race, ethnicity, national origin, or similar characteristic. See, e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). Therefore, I dissent."

Doesn't even have to be the President. She seems to figure it should include the heads of the FBI, Customs and Immigration, the CIA, etc.

Sure, although it's clear that she's using them as stand-ins for the President. See pp19-20 of her dissent:

the challenged confinement policy was purportedly propounded and maintained not by rogue actors ... but by persons specifically charged by the President with primary responsibility for homeland defense after 9/11. In this regard, it is worth recalling that the confinement policy here at issue was not the only action taken by the nation in response to the security exigencies presented by the 9/11 attacks. Within a week, the United States went to war....executive officials who might well be understood to have been acting as 'the hand of the president' in formulating policies responding to a national emergency.

Yes, it's like fncking Game of Thrones.

So, it seems in her mind, there is no Bivens remedy if it is the official policy of the United States of America to violate your Constitutional rights.

Further, even if there is a Bivens remedy, she says Ashcroft et. al. are entitled to Qualified Immunity because how could they know detaining people based on race/ethnicity was some how unconstitutional? It's there that she really should have cited Korematsu, which, after all, has not been overruled and thus presumably still good precedent.

Although since the US has formally and officially apologized for the internment, citing Korematsu would be an admission that her position is based on supporting current political expediency and nothing more. Which would kind of defeat the purpose. Not to mention making her look like a total idiot.

@wj--

'taken by "rouge agents".'

Please don't correct this! It offers some levity to an exceedingly grim domain.

I doubt very much that I'd be able to stomach voting for yet another Bush, I found the first two bad enough, and the third has already shown disturbing signs of being a squish. He's even started raving about "compassionate conservatism".

But, still, isn't this just an attempt at guilt by association?

Not when he says he's taking counsel from W on Middle East policy.

"and the third has already shown disturbing signs of being a squish. He's even started raving about "compassionate conservatism"."

In Spanish, no less.

The better to shove your brand of murderous sociopathy down our throats once elected.

Don't worry, we're not buying it.

Didn't say you did.

See, that's what makes that sort of thing so stupid: He's pissing off his own party's base to suck up to people like you, and while it's successfully pissing off people like me, the sucking up aspect doesn't work.

Geeze, at least his father and brother had the sense to get the nomination before pulling this sort of thing. He must be the stupid brother.

The great oracle Wikipedia tells us:

The Korematsu decision has not been explicitly overturned, although in 2011 the Department of Justice filed official notice,[4] conceding that it was in error, thus erasing the case's value as precedent for interning citizens

IANAL and neither is my computer so take with however many grains of salt, etc.

isn't this just an attempt at guilt by association?

I don't see Jeb(!)'s name in the decision, so apparently not.

If you're talking about things other than guilt - like, should someone think twice about voting for the guy whose brother brought us this festering pile of dung, along with so many others - I'd say it's a question worth asking.

I'd have said you should think twice about voting for a guy who'd voluntarily associate with a terrorist like Ayers, but I got told that was outrageous. The least you can say in Jeb's favor is that you can't chose your father and brother.

Fact is, you don't have to pin the sins of the father and brother on Jeb, he's idiot enough on his own account.

I'd have said

You did say. At length. Repeatedly.

you don't have to pin the sins of the father and brother on Jeb

We'll all make up our own minds about the relevance, or not, of family associations.

If Jeb wants to make a statement eschewing, or at least distancing himself from, the policies and practices of his brother's presidency, I'm sure he'll find lots of opportunities to get that message out.

Personally, I have no expectation that, were we to have Bush III, a program of indiscriminate incarceration of Arab-ish or Muslim-ish people would ensue. So, Jeb need not fear unwarranted painting with a broad brush on my part.

In any case, my vote is not in play here, so what I think is immaterial.

Also in any case, Jeb's not really the topic of the thread. Or, wasn't.

FYI, what Bevins is about (NV, please correct me if I've missed something here) is basically that you can bring suit against the government if it does something contrary to the Constitution, even if there isn't a law which explicitly makes that specific action illegal.

IANAL, but the specific legal guidance I received as a paralegal IOT teach laypeople about the implications of Bevins in their role as federal employees is pretty much exactly what you said.

Excuse me, having read the first line of the post, for thinking he was.

de nada.

guilt by association isn't a fallacy if the association is based on the fact that Jeb!s foreign policy team includes exactly two people who were not on W's or HW's team.

at least his father and brother had the sense to get the nomination before pulling this sort of thing. He must be the stupid brother.

Or maybe the honest one? But perhaps you consider honesty to be the same as stupid in a politician?

P.S. Jake, I guess my subconscious is still focues on "red" agents of some kind. And after all these years.... ;-)

Who you've hired goes a bit beyond "association", I think.

I think I've pointed out before that the term "fallacy" gets overused: The logical fallacies have to to with what is logically proven, not with what it is reasonable to believe. Many of the logical fallacies are perfectly reasonable heuristics.

On that level I actually have no beef with guilt by association, so long as it remains an inference rather than being regarded as proof. I merely insist that it be sauce for the gander as well as the goose.

Anyway, I think Jeb has already destroyed his chances of being President. I'm betting Walker is going to be the nominee, and hoping Paul is his VP.

Gotta go with Brett on this one. Who you've hired to advise you goes beyond "association." Quite a bit beyond, IMHO

Or, wasn't.

Word.

Jeb is actually by far the more qualified of the two Bush offspring. Whether he's a "squish" is mostly irrelevant, because his purported squishiness is irrelevant to the legislative process, other than adding a signature on the rare occasion when a bill makes it his way.

But the fact that he'd be the third Bush in the Oval Office is enough to, IMO, make him a non-starter. Further debate on the topic is, to me, pointless.

"Whether he's a "squish" is mostly irrelevant, because his purported squishiness is irrelevant to the legislative process, other than adding a signature on the rare occasion when a bill makes it his way."

If the Schoolhouse Rock version of civics were in force, sure. In the current version of civics, where Presidents are no longer thought to have any obligation to enforce laws they happen to dislike? It's more like the legislative process is irrelevant to policy on the ground.

In short, Brett, you are saying that Bevins ought to be applicable to anyone in the Executive Branch, without exception. Since, after all, under the Constitution, the President has an obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Right?

"I'm betting Walker is going to be the nominee, and hoping Paul is his VP."

You are who you hire, as you said.

Paul:

http://theweek.com/articles/462418/rand-pauls-troubling-ties-racists

http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/11/rand-pauls-racial-blind-spot/

http://www.nationalmemo.com/ron-paul-to-keynote-anti-semitic-conference/

The turd doesn't fall far from the ass.

As for Walker, even his far-right associates in the Wisconsin legislature hate his lying, sociopathic guts.

The Prime Minister of England called him a bloody liar just the other day:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/walkers-britain-blunder/

Here's an "associate" of both at work, directly acting out their rhetoric and the rhetoric of self-proclaimed Republican/Libertarian politicians going back all the way to before the Civil War when some of them even called themselves Democrats.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nine+gunned+down+in+charleston&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

"In the current version of civics, where Presidents are no longer thought to have any obligation to enforce laws they happen to dislike?"

Tell us about it, nullification boy.

Civil rights statutes, environmental statutes, torture statutes, healthcare statutes ignored and will be under the cold-blooded killers you reckon accurately to be your ilk.

WJ, right.

The count doesn't like my choices in the fantasy President and vice-President league. How unexpected.

Regarding Rand Paul, this cracked me up.

That is hilarious. Won't stop me from enjoying Rush, and voting for Rand Paul, though.

Happily, Tench Coxe, Jefferson Davis, Andrew Jackson, and John Birch are no longer available on the fantasy league waiver wire.

That's not really fair to the real John Birch, as Jimmy Doolittle, who actually knew the man, pointed out when that society of sociopaths dragooned his name for their own anti-American purposes.

Andrew Jackson is, however, available on a $20 bill. Which is nice.

One day I'll have to look into just how that happened.

Oh, dear, another false flag operation:

http://www.ibtimes.com/south-carolina-confederate-flag-controversy-charleston-shooting-reignites-debate-some-1972963

I don't know how Obama does it. The gift of a .45 caliber weapon as a birthday gift to the American terrorist from the Shite House was a particularly nifty touch by Uncle Barack.

A just-in-time conspiracy for those playing at home.

Cool plates, too. Can you get ISIS plates in them parts, too.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/dylann-roof-charleston-suspect-facts

I've read about voting restrictions on blacks and liberals in some "locales", but this is ridiculous.

Directly from Republican Donald Trumps' surly mouth to the terrorist's last words to his victims.

Now that's connecting with the base.

'You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”'

Keep mainlining that racist crank into the base's aorta and we're bound to OD.

See, this nincompoop could have gone through channels by applying for and attending the police academy and shooting unarmed blacks for a paycheck and avoiding jail altogether.

Via the Count's link:

Dalton Tyler, who identified himself as the suspect's current roommate, told ABC News that Roof talked about segregation and had been planning the attack "for six months."

"He said he wanted to start a civil war," Tyler said. "He said he was going to do something like that and then kill himself.”

WTF, Dalton. Now you bring this up?

There are a lot of people who live in the US who harbor intense and bizarre resentments about a fairly wide range of social and political issues.

Many of them have guns, and quite openly fantasize / speculate / what have you about expressing their point of view by shooting people, blowing people up, or otherwise engaging in violence and mayhem.

We should take those people seriously. Just because they're cranks doesn't mean they aren't actually going to kill anybody.

Well slart, he was pretty popular. He won the popular vote for President three times, electoral college twice. One of the first man of the people candidates, wealth redistribution and all. The 20, I don't know.

I agree, Jackson was perhaps the first really populist President. Wealth redistribution and all.

And, a genocidal racist.

Which put him squarely in the mainstream for his place and time.

Personally, I'd be happy to see him off of the $20, but I'm sure he still has his fans.

He's still held up as a praiseworthy standard-bearer by certain sorts of States' Rights aficionados. Which is interesting when you look at some of his policies, or just consider how much he favored a strong-arm Executive.

"He said he wanted to start a civil war," Tyler said. "He said he was going to do something like that and then kill himself.”

USA PATRIOT, sec 802 for him and sec 803 for you, Tyler, you terrorist-harboring asshole.

One day I'll have to look into just how that happened.

Times change I guess.

"And, a genocidal racist.

Which put him squarely in the mainstream for his place and time."

Well, being in favor of killing helpless little babies puts you squarely in the mainstream today, so it's not like we're really in a position to criticize the past.

dnftt

Pfft.

We live in a moral golden age. The people of the past disagreed with us, the people of the future will probably disagree with us, and we, alone, are enlightened enough to agree with ourselves. How blessed we are!

I guarantee you are almost certainly complicit in one or more things the future will regard as monsterous crimes.

Abortion, of course, widely regarded even today as a monsterous crime, preserved only because the judiciary won't permit public opinon to rule, because the ruling class don't agree with the public.

Funeral practices. Unless biotechnology stalls, in 50 or a 100 years it will be up to reviving the cryonically suspended. And the fact that we had cryonics, and let millions rot anyway, will be viewed as a crime to make the Holocaust pale.

Takes an amazing lack of introspection and awareness, to attack the morals of the past, and not realize that the morals of the present will be equally reviled by the future.

The burning issues of today are likely to be non-issues of the future. How many people still get exercised about Free Silver?

I look forward to advances in biotech that allows every person to be in complete conscious control of their fertility, without requiring any external intervention.

Just like Net Neutrality is an issue for today, and not on anyone's radar fifty years ago, the issues for fifty years from now aren't really predictable. Rights for corpsicles? Could be. AI rights? Whether asteroid ownership attaches to chunks of rocks or "orbital boundaries"?

BTW, with the current state of medical tech, the pre-ACA (and current GOP) health care plan 'let[s] millions rot anyway', let alone how poor people in Africa are treated. If you're not willing to spend the money to keep people from dying from preventable causes, you don't get to climb up on the Mountain Of Moral Superiority because we didn't freeze their heads after they died, which costs much more.

the fact that we had cryonics, and let millions rot anyway, will be viewed as a crime

dude, think of the worms.

"The burning issues of today are likely to be non-issues of the future. How many people still get exercised about Free Silver?"

How many people still get exercised about slavery? But don't propose invading the places it's still practiced, and putting an end to it, of course...

Some of our burning issues will be non-issues, some of them will be conclusively settled with the current proponents of the losing side reviled as monsters. And the terrible thing is, we can only speculate which are which.

But this I'm sure of: The future will not have as positive an opinion of us as we do. Not nearly.

are you saying that Jackson wasn't a genocidal racist?

or are you saying that it's not legitimate for us to recognize that now, because we undoubtedly have our own flaws?

if your point is that every historical period has its own set of blinders, I don't think anybody here is going to argue with you. That's about as controversial as saying that the sky is blue.

lucky will be the generation that gets to smugly congratulate itself for being free of the blinkered evil of "conservatism".

That's more or less my point. Sure, criticize him all you like, but recognize our own age likely won't fare any better in the sight of future eyes.

I would say this, in some partial defense of him: We are all products of our own age, and to be a genocide in an age when genocide was widely regarded as acceptable, to be a slave owner in an age when slavery was accepted, does not demonstrate the same degree of depravity as to do the same in ages when they are viewed as reprehensible.

Don't mistake the failure to rise above your time as being equal to the failure to rise to it.

Don't mistake the failure to rise above your time as being equal to the failure to rise to it.

That might be a worthwhile distinction if we weren't talking about someone whose face is on our currency. That's a high level of praise. And the guy was not without controversy, even in his time.

But we wouldn't want you to miss the opportunity to defend, if only tepidly, the mistreatment of brown people.

It's not as if there was any age were there wasn't also a lot of people that declared it to be the worst in human history - at the time. On average they tended to be old people on the conservative side (the same people that since times immemorial complain that the youth of today means the ruin of all that is good and sacred).
Tune in on the airwaves and you'll find a chorus of doomsayers whose main difference is whether they say that NOW is the worst time/age and it also WILL HAVE BEEN the worst (peak bad) and those that say that NOW is the worst it has ever been but there will be no end to it getting even worse (endless downward spiral). There is always only one golden age, people differ whether it was in the past or will be in the future. European historians btw tend to locate historical peak happiness in the final days of emperor Marcus Aurelius, i.e. quite some time ago.

So, who would you put on the currency in his place? He's a dead President, that seems to be the qualification, that or dead Secretary of the Treasury.

I see taking him off the currency as being in the same "erasing history" category as airbrushing cigarettes out of old photos. Look, he was President, cope with it.

"The future will not have as positive an opinion of us as we do."

As who do? I think we suck.

"Don't mistake the failure to rise above your time as being equal to the failure to rise to it."

The love you freeze is equal to the love you take.

I suspect if Tench Coxe's flesh-free skull, which I hold here in my hand, could yammer today as it did in his time, he would look upon the military weaponry available to the average guy in the street and his tongueless jaws would clack out the word "depraved" and he'd ask for his commas back.

We don't know what the mortals of the past would think of us either.

Maybe they'd change their minds about certain topics, but unfortunately their temporal absolutes are now cryogenically frozen on the blinkered body of conservatism, which lies rotting athwart history hissing its death-rattle: "Stop!"

I'm having Ted Williams thawed head grafted on to my neck this Fall the day after my baseball season ends. I figure the procedure will improve my batting eye. The doctors say I should be good to go by opening day next Spring, though I may notice a pronounced decline in temperament, which will present itself as a refusal to come out of the dugout and doff my cap to the rabble after I hit a walk-off dinger.

Anyway, my former head will be available on EBAY.

As is.

That might be a worthwhile distinction if we weren't talking about someone whose face is on our currency.

As a minor personality quirk, I never liked faces on currency. I think it harkens back to a monarchy, which the the founding fathers tried so hard to prevent in this country. I'd prefer eagles, flags, statue of liberty, etc, rather than individuals.

Then again, I'd also like more common acceptance of dollar coins in vending machines, but we can't have everything, now can we.

I'd be ok with pictures of iconic landmarks. But dead Presidents seem to be a tradition, might as well stick with it for the next few years, until paper money goes the way of buggy whips.

I mean, is this just about some desperation to get a black woman's face on the currency before we stop using currency? Is that all this is about?

our currency should have pictures of money on it.

The Euro bills have non-specific architecture on them because even after years of discussion there was no hint of a consent about faces or other items relating to a specific member state. No complaints about the coins though. Those are individual for all member states but valid in all of them (and nice collectibles).
As for the bills: Italy wanted 1€ bills and Germany 1000€ bills (and 5€ coins), neither got them. Also still no genuine 99c ,98c and 95c coins despite a daily massive demand for them.

All American currency should have the picture of a racist murderer on it. If we want the currency to be honest, that is.

Banks are pushing for the total abandonment of cash. How else could they impose negative interest rates on us commoners. The official reason is btw that the absence of cash would prevent lots of fraud. That would explain why all my bills mysteriously disappeared for a few hours last election day. They all went voting fraudulently.

I'd like to see portraits of well-known hackers on my credit cards.

Either that or a photo of Donald Trump's toupee on the front so I can contemplate whether it is surging forward or backward on his skull, or both simultaneously like a frozen surfing wave in Hawaii.

I've heard Rand Paul and others of the Republican candidates plan to order the Treasury to place pictures of their dicks on the currency so we know who our Daddies are.

By normal, everyday standards, you'd be hard put to find a dead President who wasn't a murderer. Or a live one, for that matter.

Given my druthers, we'd have put pictures of wildlife, or famous inventors, or anything but politicians, on the bills.

But I see no pressing need to abandon the tradition of dead Presidents. Like I said, this appears to be motivated by nothing more than desperation to get a black woman on the currency before we stop using paper currency. Without the tedious matter of getting one elected President and dying, first.

Why not iconic firearms with 'in lead we trust' as the new motto? And bombers on the backside with 'God forgives, we don't'?

"He's a dead President, that seems to be the qualification, that or dead Secretary of the Treasury."

I'll bet you $100 that you're wrong.

Ok, you can name three exceptions: Ben Franklin, (Who had too much sense to want to be President.) Martha Washington, and Pocohantas.

But I see no pressing need to abandon the tradition of dead Presidents

in the history of US currency, we've had far more non-Presidents on our paper currency than otherwise.

and for coins, we didn't have Presidents at all until the 1930s.

Which bills are Martha Washington and Pocahontas on?

Granted, more recent tradition than I was aware. I still see no pressing need, but there's no pressing need to not do it, either. That being the case, Tubman away!

Maybe we can raise some funds with vanity bills?

Martha was on a $1 silver certificate in the late 1800's, and Pocahontas was on the $20 about the same time.

Americans are insanely conservative when it comes to the look of their money, but I can't help liking Indian Head pennies and Buffalo Nickels, so I'm just as bad.

Cartoon characters on banknotes is also a possibility, I think the French were doing that with 'The Little Prince'; perhaps Belgium with 'Tintin'.

Put Nixon on the $3, Dubya on the $0, and Reagan on the $1,000,000,000,000.

I still see no pressing need, but there's no pressing need to not do it, either.

I don't really give a crap about trying to get him off the bills, but, even if we did, erasing history wouldn't remotely be the point. It's just a fact worth pointing out that we're discussing a man whose face is on our money and that he did really fncking terrible sh1t to a whole lot of people who didn't deserve it.

If anything, putting him on there erases history, because it turns him into some kind of icon in the minds of many who never bother to question whether or not he was worthy of such iconography. He's just some awesome guy we put on our money - among the awesomest, in fact, since we don't put Polk or Arthur or Fillmore on our money.

i'm 100% in favor of going back to the coins of 1930:

'Mercury' dime, 'Buffalo' nickel, standing Liberty quarter, walking Liberty half-dollar(!). cent stays the same.

need new notes, tho.

Is that all this is about?

I don't know, slarti brought it up. I blame him.

I think we should do the Andy Warhol thing. Every US citizen gets their picture on 15 $20 bills. Or, if you have a favorite historical personage you'd like to see there, you can have their face on your personal allocation of 15 $20's in place of your own.

That way, everybody can be happy. Hitler, Genghis Khan, Mother Teresa, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, or Alfred E Neumann. Your 15 bills, your choice.

A chacun son gout.

Plus, it will be a full employment situation for engravers.

It would be pretty interesting if we actually could erase history. Not our memory of it, but the actual events.

No Trail Of Tears, no 400 years of slavery. And on and on. Imagine how that might be.

Then again, we'd probably just FUBAR it in some other way. So, maybe it's for the best.

Frankly, I don't care whose face is on the $20, as long as the grocery store will take it when I buy my groceries.

I used to do this thing where I would write little inspirational slogans on paper money. Stuff like "It's only money", or "You can't take it with you", or "Easy come, easy go". Just to try to get people to chill out a bit about the whole money thing.

I'm sorry to say that my efforts have failed.

"need new notes, tho."

Nah, larger coins, and drop the smaller coins. Keep in mind that a penny in 1900 was worth about as much as a quarter is today, there's been that much inflation.

How many people still get exercised about slavery?

Actually, quite a few. Granted, it happens a lot less often that a couple of centuries ago. But there are still places where it is effectively practiced. And people object to it, loudly, when it comes to their attention.

That was my point: The hot issues of the day don't always go away, like bimetalism did.

I'm learning not to believe it, when I get that "No root for comment" message.

Hey, I got a "No root for comment" message earlier -- which seemed even more worrisome. Even though, when I did a refresh, the comment had gotten picked up just fine.

Yes, don't repost when you get one, unless you want a duplicate comment. It's an erroneous error message. ;)

Given the polarization of the US, there is only one logical solution: Every bill and coin has to have a conservative and a liberal side with polar opposite characters.
E.g. George Wallace and/or Bull Connor on one side and Rosa Parks on the other or MLK and J.E.Hoover, John Brown vs. John Wilkes Booth, Reagan vs. Chomsky (once dead). And of couse one day Clarence Thomas vs. Anita Hill (why not a whole series of SCOTUS justices? polarization guaranteed) ;-)
All of course with lots of allegorical images and symbols around them.
This could lead to a new custom: Tacitly show your political colours when shopping by always putting your side of the currency up while paying..

So, George Wallace, the Democrat, on one side, and Rosa Parks, Democrat, on the other side? It would nicely illustrate the Democratic party's schizoid nature.

troll

Where's that eye rolling icon when I need it? This place needs animated emoticons. "Troll", that's what you call anybody who says things you don't want to hear.

I'm suggesting enough honesty to admit that George Wallace was a Democrat, Bull Connor was a Democrat, J. Edgar Hoover, appointed by a Democrat. For that matter, Andrew Jackson?

Democrat.

I guess you really do want to erase history.

"Troll", that's what you call anybody who says things you don't want to hear.

No, it's what you call someone who introduces arbitrary and unrelated issues into a thread in an apparent attempt to stir up the sh*t.

And/or, what you call someone who repeatedly imputes bad faith and/or ill will to others where that is not justified by their comments.

George Wallace / Rosa Parks. Fairly clearly, two sides of an important social and political position. Hence, polarized.

Their party of registration is not to the point.

I'm sure you can grasp that.

If you can't say what you have to say without accusing other people of some kind of bad faith, then kindly refrain from posting.

Thanks.

I'm suggesting enough honesty to admit that George Wallace was a Democrat, Bull Connor was a Democrat,

"honesty", seriously? you pull out that tired old disingenuous argument in the same fucking sentence that you accuse others of being dishonest?

Honesty would require to admit that Democrats and Republicans completely changed places at one point in time.
Following your example we would have to talk of Dubya's Trotskyite presidency (given the original political home of several of his closest advisors) and Mussolini's Marxist regime (given what Mussolini was before WW1*).
Oh, I forgot, that's exactly what a certain brand of conservatives does: Dubya was a liberal leftist mole and fascism is a liberal-commie system (and no one has ever seen a true Scotsman since all actual Scots fail the test). And then there is that stinking decade long card-carrying activist** Democrat Ronald Reagan who couldn't be elected dog-catcher in a conservative district.

*not to forget the candidate for orthodox priesthood, Josif Vissarionovich Jughashvili, who for some time played a certain role in the Russian theocracy, erroneously known as USSR
**which got him into trouble several times

Would anyone like to continue a discussion about the OP?

I'm curious to know if there is any precedent for high level folks in the executive being brought up on criminal charges for actions taken while in office.

Not so much stuff like corruption etc., but for actions relevant to their office - matters of official policy or practice - that were considered to be criminal, either at the time or subsequently.

"George Wallace / Rosa Parks. Fairly clearly, two sides of an important social and political position. Hence, polarized."

Both Democrats, hence a schizoid party. The polarization he was citing was within the Democratic party. That's got to be ignored?

I mean, you could have said, "Yes, the Democratic party had a long, deplorable past. But it got better!" I could argue with that, but it would be an argument.

But, no, apparently it's not even ok to acknowledge that Jim Crow is Democratic history. It's got to be implied that the Democrats are the good guys of history, when they were pretty clearly the bad guys for a good deal of it.

precedent for high level folks in the executive being brought up on criminal charges for actions taken while in office.

there's the Plame stuff. though the suit was dismissed.

Don't I at least get a bonus point for calling Jackson a genocidal racist?

Hartmut's point was about the polarization of conservative vs liberal elements in US society. (R)'s and (D)'s were not really being discussed.

Look, if you want to hang out, you need to make some attempt to (a) not jack threads at will, and (b) not make weird mind-reading blanket statements about everybody else on the blog.

I mean, we're pretty loosey-goosey, but you have to keep it mostly between the lines, most of the time. That's the etiquette, and those are the posting rules.

If you can't do that, maybe you should find another place to hang out.

And for the record, yes, we all know that the (D)'s were the party of Jim Crow. We all know that. Nobody's trying to avoid that, it just wasn't the topic being discussed.

Yes, Brett, those racists were Democrats. Now try googling the southern strategy. I'll save you the trouble--

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Southern_strategy

precedent for high level folks in the executive being brought up on criminal charges for actions taken while in office.

There's absolute immunity for at least some Federal officials. But that only applies to "official actions" (except in the case of judges). And it's hard to see how an unconstitutional action could be construed as an official action, under any meaningful meaning of the term.

There was Sandy Berger, he did get in a little trouble after stealing from the National Archives. But I suppose the actual crime took place after he was no longer part of the administration.

Mostly there's a remarkably strong norm about not prosecuting former administrations. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, they all benefited from it, and I expect Obama will, too. Nobody wants to break the norm, lest they not benefit from it, too.

"Mostly there's a remarkably strong norm about not prosecuting former administrations."

I agree, except that it's not really remarkable--there is an obvious overpowering interest in not setting a precedent that could come back to bite you. The same is true regarding war crimes for Western officials.

The Most Radical $10 Bill Candidate: Ayn Rand: The libertarian philosopher worshipped the dollar sign as the supreme symbol of free enterprise and market value

:)

That only works if immediately afterwards they withdraw the ten from circulation.

That only works if immediately afterwards they withdraw the ten from circulation.

Brett, I would really pay attention to the points Russell made at 1:28 and 2:09.

Would anyone like to continue a discussion about the OP?

I would, if I had something intelligent to say. I agree with the decision. Other then it being long overdue (typical, wheels of justice grind slowly), I don't find much to say.

We typically don't throw high level officials in jail for acting in their official capacity, and despite that meaning that they get away with murder (sometimes literally), I don't think I want to see a sudden increase in charges and convictions. I think the precedent (of future administrations frequently pursuing criminal charges against previous administrations) would fundamentally undermine democracy.

Because there are a lot of laws that can be interpreted different way and prosecution, even without conviction, can be a heavy punishment.

For example, I still believe a number of the NSA's programs are unconstitutional and violated citizen's rights. While I would be all for a future court finding them unconstitutional, I think it would be grossly inappropriate for a future administration to bring charges against current officials, even if the program is ultimately declared unconstitutional. I think that would likewise be outside of a Bivens remedy.

Some things, to me, are beyond the pale (and I feel are consistent with a Bivens remedy). The torture program, for one. It was torture, and torture was unambiguously against the law. Anybody who sanctioned or participated in that program should be criminally charged, imo. Failing that, I think there is reasonable cause of action for a civil suit (Bivens).

I think, while less drastic, causeless detention, solitary confinement, and beatings alleged in this case also meet the bar of extraordinary deprivation of rights.

I agree with thompson...you can apply the "vote 'em out, then bygones!" standard for run of the mill criminality, but the problem is that it gets extended to truly horrific acts.

Just like prosecuting murderous cops, the system they are embedded in is biased against accountability for those with state-sanctioned power. It may require prosecution in an international tribunal to deal with torture and war crimes.

But slarti, that only works if you sign on to accepting the jurisdiction of an international tribunal. Which the US generally does not. So either you have to figure out a way to change that, or you are stuck figuring out how to address the problem domestically. (Or, of course, denying that the problem exists at all....

My concern is that high level officials don't just get immunity for acts in their official capacity. They get a pass for crimes that anybody could commit. Sexual harassment, rape, perjury, money laundering, obstruction of justice... (No, that's not just about the Clintons, though thinking so would be understandable.)

Sandy Berger, for instance, got a relative love tap of a punishment for stealing classified documents from the National archives. I did that? I'd be doing hard time. He got a fine, and his security clearance was suspended for a few years.

Suspended! Not stripped away for good. No time in prison. Probation and community service, and a fine he doubtless got compensated for under the table.

And that was just somebody who worked for an administration, and one out of office. I know a Senator can commit manslaughter. I honestly think a President could murder somebody, and skate on it. Unless maybe he did it on live TV.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad