home

The Rule Of Law

I find myself again at odds with TalkLeft friend (and my friend) Jane Hamsher, who wrongfully accuses Harry Reid of ignoring the rule of law in the Blago Farce. Jane cites to Walter Dellinger to buttress her argument that Reid is ignoring the rule of law. Yet she fails to quote Dellinger's actual statement on the legal question at hand:

I do not mean to suggest that the constitutional question is an easy one to answer correctly. It isn’t. Under the Constitution, the Senate is “the judge of elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." . . . There is a possible argument for rejection. Even assuming selection of Burris himself was free from any allegations of bribes sought or offered, it might nonetheless be viewed as the culmination of process that was illegitimate from start to finish. That is, suppose Blagojevich appointed Burris not because of any bribe, but as part of an effort to ‘cover up,” defend against, or deflect attention from a bribery scheme. Suppose, to put it differently, the Senate concludes that, but for the bribery scheme, and Blagojevich's personal need to cabin the fallout from that scheme, he would never have appointed Burris.

More . . .

Of course this is indeed the Reid (and every Democratic senator's) position and I believe it is held in good faith. Perhaps it is incorrect as a legal matter. But it is not blatant disregard for the rule of law. Here would be an example of a blatant disregard of the rule of law - seating Al Franken as the Senator from Minnesota without having a certification of election according to Minnesota law. Many in the blogs are urging that. And make no mistake, that would be a blatant disregard for the rule of law.

Speaking for me only

< If The Shoe Were On The Other Foot . . . | Suit Filed Over Lack of Death Penalty Representation in Georgia >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    BTD, not sure I follow. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    Perhaps it is incorrect as a legal matter. But it is not blatant disregard for the rule of law.

    How does the first sentence fit with the second one?

    How would using the senate to enact something which is incorrect legally not be a blatant disregard for the rule of law?

    I don't have a strong position on this issue, and I'm honestly curious about your reasoning.

    Perhaps they are wrong on the law (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:32:49 PM EST
    Being wrong on the law is not disregarding the law.

    What part of that do you not understand?

    Parent

    But couldn't one say ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    the same thing about any incorrect interpretation of the law?

    Such as Bush on wiretapping and torture?

    Isn't there some point at which "good faith" isn't enough?

    Parent

    Noooo (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:48:10 PM EST
    Bush knew he was breaking the law and hid his actions.

    My gawd, do I have to go over this all over again?

    Parent

    Ignoring that example ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:57:18 PM EST
    from a legal standpoint at one point is "good faith" not enough?

    Parent
    at "what point" I meant (none / 0) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:58:06 PM EST
    I do not know (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:59:49 PM EST
    what do you propose?

    Parent
    Bush made up laws (none / 0) (#7)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:49:04 PM EST
    the Democratic Caucus is pointing to the Constitution.

    Parent
    Perfectly put; thanks (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:04:45 PM EST
    as that clarification may help me figure out what the heck happens in the next couple of days. :-)

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#21)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:45:12 PM EST
    Sorry, that makes no sense to me either.   They aren't ignoring the law, they're just interpreting it incorrectly?  Semantics, imo.   If they think they have the right to do something, then they do?  Even if they are wrong?  

    I'm sorry, but I need a better explanation.  I'm not understanding what you are saying.  Thank you.

    Parent

    she also writes (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:31:13 PM EST
    Then fifty members of the Democratic Caucus signed a letter saying they would oppose any Blagojevich appointment from being seated -- without due consideration as to whether the Senate had the right to do so. Although there is considerable disagreement on that front, it is not at all certain that they can.

    The Senate clearly considered that they have the right to do so under Article I, Section 5.  How can you say there wasn't "due consideration" when the Senate is pointing to the Constitution saying, we can do this and we will.  If the SCOTUS shoots them down so be it.  But it seems to me it is their right to lose.

    We may think the optics are wrong, but they certainly know what they are doing.

    She seems utterly confused (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    on this issue.

    It does require some careful reading, but. . .

    Parent

    Seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:10:50 PM EST
    that "the rule of law" includes not just following the letter of the law, but also letting the courts sort out legal disputes and respecting their decisions.

    Either the Constitution permits the Senate to refuse this appointment or it doesn't.  There clearly are good-faith arguments for either result.  If the Constitution does, in fact, give them that power, then it's not a violation of the rule of law for them to exercise it.  And if the courts decide they don't have that power, then presumably they'll respect that decision and life will go on.  The chain of events works like this:

    1. Blagojevich is the duly elected governor unless and until he is removed from office;
    2. The duly elected governor has the power to fill Senate vacancies;
    3. But notwithstanding that, the Senate (arguably) has the power to reject an appointee if it determines the appointment is tainted.

    None of these three steps is contrary to the rule of law, although the third is obviously a debatable issue.  If all three points are valid, nothing about "the rule of law" forces us to stop after point 2 and say that's it, the rule of law says the appointment is valid, end there.

    not an argument to deny Burris (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by wystler on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:38:05 PM EST
    Suppose, to put it differently, the Senate concludes that, but for the bribery scheme, and Blagojevich's personal need to cabin the fallout from that scheme, he would never have appointed Burris.

    That's not sufficient argument to deny Burris the seat.

    Neither would it be credible for Blagojevich to claim that he was always going to nominate Burris.

    Sufficient for me (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:51:01 PM EST
    really?!? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by wystler on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:12:12 PM EST
    Above and beyond any and all other consideration?

    (Good thing for your nose that you're happy with your face)

    Parent

    You really think (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    that everything will be Hunky Dory if Burris is allowed to be seated? I think you've missed a good bit of the politics here.

    Parent
    Ummm (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:25:54 PM EST
    wtf are you talking about?

    Parent
    Why does this issue (none / 0) (#22)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:52:51 PM EST
    Make you so angry?  

    I admit that I do not completely understand your argument, but why our ignorance upset you so?  

    Parent

    Sufficient to you or to the Senate (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    Re: Dellinger (none / 0) (#11)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    he writes:

    Blagojevich's appointment is, of course, a shameful act by a disgraced Governor, a blight on the reputation of Burris for accepting, and a political embarrassment for Democrats. The proper question, however, is whether the Senate, acting in good faith, can reach a conscientious conclusion that this appointment, however unwise and unwelcome, is also unlawful under Illinois law or under the United States Constitution. If it isn't unlawful, he has to be seated.

    The Senate can decide to bar Burris even if his appointment is found to be lawful, correct?  Because Blago is following the law.  

    The law allows the Senate to bar Burris if they think his appointment was improper.  That's the impression I got from Akhil Reed Amar and Josh Chafetz anyway.

    And isn't improper significantly different from unlawful?

    Of course (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:15:12 PM EST
    But I think Dellinger was just careless with his words there.

    His acceptance of the basis of rejection forwarded by the Senate as acceptable demonstrates this.

    Parent