Well, well, perky little Katie Couric has her knickers in a knot. The third-place anchor (maybe she’s even behind Judge Joe in her time slot for all I know) blogged for CBS last week about her off-the-record meeting with the president, who was spinning all the network anchors and the Sunday morning talk show hosts prior to his speech on Iraq.
As I was looking at my colleagues around the room—Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopoulos, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Bob Schieffer, Wolf Blitzer, and Brit Hume—I couldn’t help but notice, despite how far we’ve come, that I was still the only woman there. Well, there was some female support staff near the door. But of the people at the table, the “principals” in the meeting, I was the only one wearing a skirt. Everyone was gracious, though the jocular atmosphere was palpable.
.jpg)
Um, Katie? This kind of event has gone on for a long long time. You were not invited because of who you are or because of your beliefs or because of your skirt. You were asked to come there, sit in awe of the majesty of the White House, and have the world’s self-appointed hall monitor tell you how to frame his speech. Even though it was off the record, you told the whole nation you were there, as if you are anything special.You were there because you have a national audience, no matter how much it is shrinking. To attribute sexism to a cynical act of influence-peddling that only serves to co-opt what are supposed to be America’s toughest journalists is to set women back even further. You are nothing, Katie, except an overpaid and overweaning whiner who is a tad out of touch with reality.
--------------------------------
Scooter Trial a Hoot
The Scooter Libby trial in Washington’s federal courthouse is going to be a hoot, judging from the difficulty in finding a jury that doesn’t have an opinion – much less a high one – of Dick Cheney or the gaggle of journalists expected to be called as witnesses. This story from the Washington Post offers a glimpse into the "culture" of the capital of the free world.
Prosecutorial Puppets
Another depredation of the Constitution has come to light by the hand of America’s own Saddam Hussein, aided by his sneaky congressional puppets last year. And shame on the Democrats for not noticing until this week.
In each federal judicial district, the chief prosecutor is a political appointee subject to confirmation by the Senate. Nothing wrong with that. But once in office they are supposed to act like prosecutors, not Rovian henchmen.
In a secret provision inserted into last years re-authorization of the Nuremberg-like Patriot Act, Congress passed and America’s Saddam signed into law the right to appoint temporary U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein explains:
How did all of this happen? This is an interesting story. Apparently, when Congress reauthorized the PATRIOT Act last year, a provision was included that modified the statute that determines how long interim appointments are made. The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization changed the law to allow interim appointments to serve indefinitely rather than for a limited 120 days. Prior to the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization and the 1986 law, when a vacancy arose, the court nominated an interim U.S. Attorney until the Senate confirmed a Presidential nominee. TheIn theory, nothing is wrong with appointing temporary replacements for U.S. attorneys who resign. But Bushitler is using the law to out-and-out fire U.S. attorneys, 11 out of 93, so far, so he can appoint his judicial thugs in their place – without Senate approval. Previously, federal prosecutors were removed very rarely at all and only for gross misconduct, not for their performance.
PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in 2006 removed the 120-day limit on that appointment, so now the Attorney General can nominate someone who goes in without any confirmation hearing by this Senate and serve as U.S. Attorney for the remainder of the President's term in office. This is a way, simply stated, of avoiding a Senate confirmation of a U.S. Attorney.
Now, Bushitler has fired 11 of the 93 U.S. attorneys without a reason so he can appoint new “interim” prosecutorial nutbags and scoundrels to replace the U.S. attorneys looking into Republican corruption.
"depredation"
ReplyDelete1)- A predatory attack; a raid.
2)- Damage or loss; ravage:
So: "Another depredation of the Constitution has come to light..." means, the Constitution has suffered a predetory attack, or has sustained damage or loss.
Please explain specifically which article and section of the Constitution as been attacked or sustained damage.
Words mean things. Including those written in the Constitution. I'm quite curious to know which section was attacked.
"..the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone,....or in the Heads of Departments"
Constitution attacked? Seems more to me that it was followed to the letter. A unique occurance in this age.
Someday you should learn what's actually written there.
Please explain specifically which article and section of the Constitution as been attacked or sustained damage.
ReplyDelete"He (sic) shall ... nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law ... "
The key here is Senate confirmation. The sneaky legislative rider thought up by the same guys who thought it was all right to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, suspend habeas corpus and to ignore acts of Congress it disagrees with was enacted precisely to avoid the need for Senate confirmation of prosecutorial hacks.
Having the right to do something does not make it right to do, and if presidents have always had this power to clean out 11.5% of the prosecutors who are looking into misconduct by their party, why was Bushitler the first one to try it?
Someday you should learn what's actually written there.
* Congress has the sole power to declare war
* Habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in time of rebellion or invasion
* President and vice president cannot be from the same state (avoided by Cheney switching official residency 24 hours before his selection)
* No searches (wiretaps) without a warrant
* Right to a speedy and public trial.
Why do you change the subject?
ReplyDeleteWe're talking about the particular instance.
You wrote: "Congress passed and America’s Saddam signed into law the right to appoint temporary U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval." You called this a "depredation" of the Constitution.
I quoted the precise section of the Constitution which authorizes *this specific act.*
So now you want to talk about Habeas Corpus? Are you filled with ADD?
Get back to the specific act in question.
You write: "The key here is Senate confirmation."
Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2.
"..the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone,....or in the Heads of Departments"
Does the word "alone" have any meaning to you? Senate Confirmation IS NOT REQUIRED!
So then, the bulk of the weight of your discussion boils down to:
"Having the right to do something does not make it right to do,..."
So let's see, following the Constitution *to the letter* to YOU is depredation. All because YOU don't think it's right.
And then you change the subject. ROFL
What a tool.
Read the Constitution. Words mean things. The word depredation has a definition, and you have *badly* erred in its meaning due to your lack of knowledge on this particular subject of which you write.
I guess we can dispense with the judicial system altogether because the Framers got everything exactly right and their words need no interpretation.
ReplyDeleteAs I indicated originally, the goose-steppers in DeLay's Army of God (the Republican Congress) voted in favor of this and other depradations of constitutional government, so it is quite legal.
Just like the Decrees of 1933. Which were legal and constitutional.
I have utterly no idea who you are, but you can call all the names you like. But I would ask, as did Billy Boy in Welty's "The Petrified Man," "if you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"