10/23/2005

Daily Kos: Democrats follow the law even against their own goals and we have proof!!

Democrats follow the law even against their own goals and we have proof!!
by lawnorder [Unsubscribe] [Edit Diary]
Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:33:57 PM CDT

In Summary

In the past 10 years Democrats proved they respect the constitution, the letter of law and the courts, no matter how much was or is at stake, including the US Presidency.

In the same 10 years Republicans proved they DO NOT respect the letter of the law, the US Constitution, the Supreme Court, the lower courts and not even their own oaths

Democrats respect for the law
As a matter of fact, we can prove that Democrats are and were very respectful to the letter of the law, even when it put their own party and interests in jeopardy. Just look at the evidence:

* Agreed to establish a special prosecutor to investigate wrongdoings by a Democrat President
* Agreed to an unprecedented Supreme Court decision on election results which gave the US Presidency to a GOP Candidate
* Returned Elian Gonzales to Cuba even against public opinion

Details and side by side comparisson after the fold

* lawnorder's diary :: ::
*

GOP's decriminalization of Crime
In this days were perjury, treason and influence peddling are considered par for the course for GOP infected Washington DC, it is refreshing to remember that only 4 years ago things were not that way.

The alleged crimes of the Clinton Administration were many
In the era of GOP opposition and trial by media the norm was guilty until proved innocent, i.e. any nutcase that said he had been wronged by the Clintons was proof of malfeasance by the President, his wife and his staff. Not surprisingly The laundry list of crimes was long and varied, sometimes based on something as thin as an allegation by one person, claiming a crime that happened 12-20 years in the past and that was never an issue before

Yet every single allegation was investigated
To the amusement of GOPpigs and a feisty aggressive media, and in clear detriment to the whole country, the Democrat senators, even when in majority agreed to investigate every allegation. A GOP heavy Supreme Court ruled that the President WAS NOT above the law and should be forced to respond to alleged past crimes, while in office.

Democratic Senators censored their own President, for personal, private acts

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And Senator Dodd, one last quick question. Even though you oppose censure, would you support your fellow Democrats in at least getting it considered?

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD: Yes. I wouldn't deny my colleagues the opportunity to bring it up. And I don't think it's unconstitutional -- as Paul and John have pointed out -- this would be done in the legislative session. And certainly, we have the right to pass sense of the Senate resolutions on whatever we want. But I think we ought to take note of the fact that every other preceding congress, over 105 of them, have accepted one occasion, which they have rescinded, have avoided the temptation of censuring from the congress on single House resolutions of the presidency. (1)

Democrats respected the separation of powers
Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd speaking about Clinton's censure:

We don't censure the Supreme Court, the White House can't censure the congress. That separation of powers is very important.(1)

Republicans do NOT respect the separation of powers
House Majority Leader Tom Delay on the Judiciary:

NY Times: DeLay Says Federal Judiciary Has 'Run Amok,'

WASHINGTON, April 7, 2005 - Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, escalated his talk of a battle between the legislative and judicial branches of government on Thursday, saying federal courts had "run amok," in large part because of the failure of Congress to confront them.

"Judicial independence does not equal judicial supremacy," Mr. DeLay said in a videotaped speech delivered to a conservative conference in Washington entitled "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith." (2)

Elian Gonzale: Democrats respected the letter of the law in a deeply unpopular decision

DORIS MEISSNER, Commissioner, INS: Both United States and international law recognize the unique relationship between parent and child, and family reunification has long been a cornerstone of both American immigration law and INS practice.

SPENCER MICHELS: INS Commissioner Doris Meissner was asked if Castro's government had influenced Elian's father in pushing for the boy's return.

DORIS MEISSNER: Clearly coercion has been a concern. However, as I said, we interviewed the father twice. We are convinced that the father is expressing his true wishes regarding his son. His father provided us with exceptional detail. Those reports came and the recommendations of the father's true wishes came to me from our interviewing staff officers. I have reviewed all the material myself. I am convinced that the father expressed to us his true wishes for his son. We are talking about the most important relationship that exists in our human experience, and we are also asking that people respect the laws that are involved. We will work with all parties to try to achieve that kind of respectful resolution. (2)

Republicans violate the letter of the law with no regard to negative consequences
Several military experts caution that the Abu Ghraib torture increased the risk of torture and murder to American troops who are captured, to no avail. The Bush Administration refuses to keep abiding by Geneva conventions (3)

A controversial Supreme Court Decision made GW Bush the next US President

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a controversial U.S. Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000. The decision directly affected the result of the 2000 presidential election because it stopped the statewide recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to certify George W. Bush the winner for the State of Florida. With Florida's 25 electoral votes, Bush had enough electoral votes to win the Presidency.

In three separate opinions, seven justices found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in Florida was to be stopped due to lacking a consistent standard, while two disagreed. A 5-4 majority further declared, a per curiam opinion, that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors (3)

But the Democrat candidate accepted it

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.

I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.

Al Gore statement - December 13, 2000

And so did the Democratic Senators

The issue was settled [as a matter of law] when the U.S. Congress accepted Florida's electoral delegation, only after a challenge to the Florida electors was presented in the congressional chambers on January 6, 2001 by members of the Congressional Black Caucus who could not secure the signature of one Senator to bring the challenge to a debate. (5)

Republicans on the other hand... Blame the courts, not their own corrupt Administration officials and Congressmen
In the words of Texas Senator Kay Hutchinson, in 2005 (one of the many Republicans asking that GOP members be put above the law). On Meet the Press, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson says:

I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars(5)


What a difference 3 letters make (GOP)...
Well, what a surprise, Senator Hutchinson was in favor of impeaching a sitting President for a technicality:

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Hutchison where do you come down on the prospect of a censure resolution?

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: I'm torn as many people are because I am very worried that we are sending a signal in this country by not getting a two-thirds vote for conviction that somehow the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are less because the president has done these things and has not been convicted. I don't want that to be the message. And I think it is the foundation of our criminal justice system. So many people are looking for a way to show that this isn't correct behavior and with all due respect to my colleagues, we didn't cause the stain on the presidency. The president caused the stain on the presidency. He misbehaved, he drug this out month after money after month when he could have come to closure on it either by admitting that he lied and asking for forgiveness, or by resigning in an honorable resignation. He did neither of those. So I think we are now toward the end. I'm glad we are. But nobody is really happy with the final result of an acquittal. .(1)

Daily Kos: Democrats follow the law even against their own goals and we have proof!!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home