Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts The Struggle to See What Is Right In Front of Your Nose
|
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Struggle to See What Is Right In Front of Your Nose
Scott Horton
"[T]he avoidance of reality is much the same everywhere, and has much the same consequences. The Russian people were taught for years that they were better off than everybody else, and propaganda posters showed Russian families sitting down to abundant meal while the proletariat of other countries starved in the gutter. Meanwhile the workers in the western countries were so much better off than those of the U.S.S.R. that non-contact between Soviet citizens and outsiders had to be a guiding principle of policy. Then, as a result of the war, millions of ordinary Russians penetrated far into Europe, and when they return home the original avoidance of reality will inevitably be paid for in frictions of various kinds. The Germans and the Japanese lost the war quite largely because their rulers were unable to see facts which were plain to any dispassionate eye.
Comments:
Even to an outsider to American standards of the administration of justice, the blase duplicity of the Gonzales’ Chief of Staff’s “Griffin” emails, and the patent cynicism of the firings that they project is not just frightening, but terribly frightening. And the implications they do lie, as you more than rightly say, at its heart in whether “the criminal justice system will be turned into a partisan political tool.”And the firings, as much as the abuse of the prosecutorial appointments system they dramatically spotlighted is a horrible scandal.
But also to an outsider, as certainly as exhilarating and as noble as vilifying these things – whether on their own or as part of the larger pernicion of American politico-“legocracy” – might be, isn’t the real remedy, to coin a phrase, right under your nose[s]? And isn’t it really structural, not political? The Bush administration was not – as I understand it – the first to treat the offices of US Attorney system as a kind of political swag bag. Clinton and Reno are said to have used the power of appointment, perhaps not quite so cynically, but certainly as sweepingly, as an instrument at least of political power – whether or not there might be evidence elsewhere of its use for political reward. Politics being what politics is, one suspects its use for political ends, perhaps not quite so spectacular as in this case, extends back to the time of the invention of the office. So surely, the answer must be, to de-politicize the office itself. So, at the same time this conduct is condemned as roundly and persistently and as loudly as anyone, the real answer has to be to transform these offices which are not only seen to be, but which also structurally are, independent, authoritative executors of justice. Other countries with an English legal base characteristically use a model fashioned on the UK’s, “Director of Public Prosecutions” model. Under that system, prosecutors operate independently of political direction, and appointment, except in the broadest sense. They are accountable to the Director and through the Director to the relevant constitutional authority – the legislature – and by day-in day-out measures, they repeatedly operate successfully. As these current shudders run through the US political-legocracy, by all means, scandalize and condemn. Try to raise the political cost of the abuses and make sure they can’t happen again. But you folks are the ones who invented the operating political ideals of checks and balances, the value of separation and oversight. Isn’t it time you put them in place in the federal prosecutorial system? And they really are, right under your nose.
The problem is that the power to prosecute is the quintessential executive function--enforcing the law by seeking criminal penalties against those who violate legal norms. And since the executive (whether it is the President and his appointed AG or an elected local DA) is a political actor, political considerations are inevitable.
So the apolitical system that you suggest is more aspirational than legal. It is more about how we have decided DOJ and the White House ought to act in wielding this power and how they historically have agreed to act. But it seems only for prudential reasons--everyone has recognized that this is the best/only way to balance democracy with these inherent powers. But the departure from that prudential norm in this, or any, administration is not unlawful (putting to one side whether Congress could by law restrain the President's ability to control U.S. Attorneys). It is unwise and, apparently, unpopular; but not unlawful. And the unpopularity of Bush/Gonales's actions reveals what may be the answer to the politicization of criminal enforcement--more politics, through reportage, public protest, and oversight from other segments of government and society. So the problem for the past 6 years is not that Bush has politicized DOJ--it is that Congress, the media, and too-much of the public has failed to pay attention.
Last time I checked the Constitution, the President was the sole executive and the rest of that branch worked for him to achieve his goals.
Elections have consequences and choice of policy is one of them. If one of the President's goals is to prosecute voter fraud, then the proper response by a US Attorney is "Yes sir" and then proceed to accomplish that goal. If a US Attorney blows off his or her President's goals, then he or she can expect to be fired in favor of one another attorney who will do as he was told - just like any other employee who does not do what his employer instructs. What is amazing about this 1984 "scandal" is that the Dems are getting away with calling the removal of US attorneys for not enforcing the law against Dem voter fraud as some sort of subversion of justice! Double un good.
Clinton and Reno are said to have used the power of appointment, perhaps not quite so cynically, but certainly as sweepingly, as an instrument at least of political power – whether or not there might be evidence elsewhere of its use for political reward.
This is a right wing talking point, but it's false. The facts are much worse for Bush. US Attorneys serve 4 year terms. In the past, Presidents -- D and R alike -- have routinely demanded resignations from all of them. That does not necessarily mean all were actually replaced. In some cases they were, in some they were not. It does mean that Presidents wanted the option. It's important to add that all new appointees had to be confirmed by the Senate, an important "check" on abuse. The reason for this practice is simple: different Presidents have different priorities of crimes they want prosecuted. There's nothing sinister in this. No Attorney can prosecute every crime. Each office has to devote its resources according to what seems most important. It's fair to let Presidents set that general priority. Bush's actions differ in three important respects. First, he somewhat surreptitiously had Arlen Specter add a provision to the Patriot Act renewal which allowed Bush to replace the Attorneys without Congressional approval. That removed the "check". Second, it's unusual for a President to replace the same Attorneys he himself appointed. It happens, of course. Sometimes they don't do a good job. Sometimes they have personal issues. Nobody has ever fired them in mass before, though. That gets us to the third difference, the reason for the firings. This is the real key. The evidence is very strong that at least some of the firings were for overtly partisan reasons. That is, they appear to have been fired for failure to prosecute Democrats (or, in one case, for prosecuting Republicans). This is intolerable. As I said above, it's perfectly ok for the President to establish categories of crimes he wants to prosecute. It is not at all ok to identify specific individuals purely on the basis of their party affiliation. The system can only operate if there is confidence that the target actually or potentially committed a crime, not that the person belongs to another party. Bush's acts undermine confidence in the rule of law. Again.
Bart, I generally shy away from attacks and angry arguments but your post left me utterly flabergasted (which is incredible because I read the nonsense you post on here frequently). Your misreading and mischaracterization of what went on here is really egregious.
While you are technically correct in stating that if a prosecutor totally blows off his bosses priorities he should be fired, this is not at all what went on here. In the cases of both McKay and Iglesias, both men were fired not because they blew off the President's goals. Rather, they were fired for exercising their prosecutorial discretion after, and I stress after, conducting what seem to be fairly rigorous investigations into alleged voter fraud. In fact, in McKay's case, he involved both the FBI and the Department of Justice's own expert on voting fraud who both agreed with his decision not to seek prosecution. With that in mind, how can you say they blew off anything? This doesn't even begin to address the Lam firing which is even more cynical and troubling because it came while she was in the midst of an investigation that implicated several high profile executive branch appointees (namely Porter Goss and Kyle Foggo). Going back to the McKay and Iglesias firings, does it not trouble you that elected officials pressured unethically and possibly illegally pressured them to either move faster or go forward with cases they did not believe merited prosecution nor did they believe they could win? I have to admit I am exhasperated.
Good to have an authoritarian and highly partisan personality speak up to illustrate the problem.
Enforcing the laws just against "the Dems" is really not what our constitution envisions. I remember something about freedom of speech, equal protection, and some similar democratic ideas... And furthermore, what has happened here appears to be interference in legal investigations and prosecutions. Hindrance of prosecution and obstruction of justice are crimes.
"Bart" DePalma:
Last time I checked the Constitution, the President was the sole executive and the rest of that branch worked for him to achieve his goals. OK. Then we cashier Dubya for subverting the DoJ for partisan political ends. Malfeasance, corruption, and obstruction of justice. Fine by me. Cheers,
"Bart" DePalma:
If one of the President's goals is to prosecute voter fraud, then the proper response by a US Attorney is "Yes sir" and then proceed to accomplish that goal. Do you suggest he manufacture the voter fraud too so he has something to "prosecute"? Care to respond to my rebuttals on the Gonzales thread? Cheers,
"Bart" DePalma:
If a US Attorney blows off his or her President's goals, then he or she can expect to be fired in favor of one another attorney who will do as he was told - just like any other employee who does not do what his employer instructs. Yeah. Ask Bork. Or Nixon. Cheers,
Last time I checked the Constitution, the President was the sole executive and the rest of that branch worked for him to achieve his goals.
This is historically correct, but problematic. What happened here is legal, but very troubling ethically, like Nixon using tax audits to harass political opponents. One of the major changes in government since the Constitution was written is the vast growth in executive power -- not only the executive power of the US federal government, but the executive power of all government, everywhere. This necessarily changes the balance of power as envisioned by the founders; it tilts it in favor of the executive in ways they could not have imagined. Many states have dealt with this by ending the unitary executive and having the governor, attorney general, and many other executive officers elected separately. I don't think anyone would propose this for the federal government. But the "unitary exective," even if it does not mean the President's ability to defy the other branches, but only his complete discretionary power over the vast executive that we now have, is disturbing.
The simple and lasting solution to the DOJ mess would be to make the Attorney General answerable to the Congress, not the President. Pace Bart, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent such a move. Executive officers and departments other than the President have been created by acts of Congress, and can be and have been changed by Congress. The President has the power to nominate and appoint executive officers, but the Constituion says nothing about how they are to be selected for him to nominate, or who can fire them. Admittedly this would be a revolutionary move, but perhaps the time has come for a revolution.
Gary Y. Larsen:
The simple and lasting solution to the DOJ mess would be to make the Attorney General answerable to the Congress, not the President. Pace Bart, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent such a move. Executive officers and departments other than the President have been created by acts of Congress, and can be and have been changed by Congress. The President has the power to nominate and appoint executive officers, but the Constituion says nothing about how they are to be selected for him to nominate, or who can fire them. Admittedly this would be a revolutionary move, but perhaps the time has come for a revolution. It may be worth considering, and it may be wise, but it's not strictly necessary. For the most part, when the executive is not corrupt and lawless, this has not been a problem. And most of our governmental institutions presuppose a modicum of integrity and responsibility in the participants (we have no "oversight committees" that vet legislative actions for unconstitutional [or even simply poorly written] law; we leave that to courts and those affected to challenge), and there's no obvious constitutional procedure to deal with either an executive or a legislature that wilfully ignores the courts; the same true for courts that do the same for legislative acts. We expect people in gummint to act like gentlepersons. The Constitution assumes good behaviour for the most part, and implicitly prescribes the mechanisms for dealing with the more extreme misbehaviour. We saw this in 1973, and perhaps the same solution is quite sufficient to deal with today's abuses. Cheers,
... following on:
I said: The Constitution assumes good behaviour for the most part, and implicitly prescribes the mechanisms for dealing with the more extreme misbehaviour. We saw this in 1973, and perhaps the same solution is quite sufficient to deal with today's abuses. In the specific current circumstances, it may be enough for Congress to fire a shot over the bow of the executive here, and issue a warning (a "sense of Congress" on what will happen if the executive doens't cease and desist), and then see what happens. If the executive doesn't mend it's ways, they can then go on to do what they have warned the executive they would do in case of non-compliance or defiance. Cheers,
zathras:
The administration has shown it has absolutely no faith in experts on any time. Don't ascribe to malfeasance what can be blamed on incompetence. No need to choose. "It's two mints ... two mints ... two mints in one!!!" Cheers,
I think there might be a slightly less malicious explanation for the administration's actions.
1) In the run up to the Iraq war intelligence analysis was being second-guessed by administration officials, such as Cheney, who would reinterpret raw data in a way that fit their worldview. They thought there were WMD's, and by golly the evidence was there. 2) In several reports on global warming, scientific reports were being second-guessed by administration officials, who would reinterpret raw data in a way that fit their worldview. They thought there were holes in the argument on global warming, and by golly the evidence was there. 3) In several investigations of alleged Democratic malfeasance, the prosecutorial discretion of US attorneys was being second-guessed by administration officials, who would reinterpret raw data in a way that fit their worldview. They thought there were illegal actions on the part of Democrats, and by golly the evidence was there. The administration has shown it has absolutely no faith in experts on any time. Don't ascribe to malfeasance what can be blamed on incompetence.
For those who are interested, the Congressional Research Service prepared a report on all US Attorneys who left office early between 1981 and 2006. Link. (pdf)
This report clearly shows that Bush's actions are unique; nobody else "did it too".
Mark Field said...
As I said above, it's perfectly ok for the President to establish categories of crimes he wants to prosecute. It is not at all ok to identify specific individuals purely on the basis of their party affiliation. Is the President acting for partisan reasons because voter fraud is a an activity which is dominated by Dems? This is similar to the old smear that prosecutors are racist because minorities disproportionately commit crimes. The alternative is too allow the criminal activity to continue unabated to avoid having your motives questioned. Of course, I suspect that is the goal of the Dems who are stoking this scandal.
Enlightened Layperson said...
BD: Last time I checked the Constitution, the President was the sole executive and the rest of that branch worked for him to achieve his goals. This is historically correct, but problematic. What happened here is legal, but very troubling ethically, like Nixon using tax audits to harass political opponents. Hardly. These US attorneys refused to act on widely reported illegal voting to determine whether there was a fraud. No one seems to be denying all the illegal voting. Rather, the excuses I have been hearing is that fraud is too difficult to prove. Nonsense. According to NPR this morning, Justice has managed to convict about 80 perps for voter fraud since 2002, including some from the infamous ACORN. Why not in the jurisdictions of these fired US Attorneys? One of the major changes in government since the Constitution was written is the vast growth in executive power -- not only the executive power of the US federal government, but the executive power of all government, everywhere. Oh c'mon now. Prosecuting crimes is a core executive power which is not shared to any extent with the other branches. Are you actually arguing that prosecuting voter fraud represents some sort of new expansion of executive power? Many states have dealt with this by ending the unitary executive and having the governor, attorney general, and many other executive officers elected separately. In that was the case with the Feds, then Gonzales would have the final word about firing his subordinates for not doing their jobs rather than the President. The same principle would apply, though. You do what the boss says unless its illegal or you can find a new job.
I find astounding that the Justice department be considered an employee of the President. Do not all these civil servents pledge allegiance to the Constitution as does the President himself?
The addition to a bill permiting these clandestine appointments was introduced, almost in the dead of night, supposedly ignored by Arlen Spector and at the instigation of the WH, a mesure that allowed them to circumvent the approval procedure by the Senate of these appointees. It is this underhanded, and if not illegal procedure though certainly a questionable one, that seems to have been concoted for the purpose of disposing of “undesirables.” That would indicate premeditation, to say the least, to pave the way for back-door appointments. Why did they not just fire them and proceed to nominations and Senate confirmation of new apointees?
Electra said...
Why did they not just fire them and proceed to nominations and Senate confirmation of new apointees? To avoid the opposition party holding the new nominees hostage as they have done with several judges. Mr. Clinton used recess appointments when the party control of the branches was reversed in the 90s and the GOP was playing the obstruction game. I do not recall a peep out of the left at that time. In neither case did any of this political maneuvering represent even a mild threat to the Republic. Frankly, the fact that we get wrapped around piffles like this just shows how unserious much of our political discourse is these days.
Bart says:
in neither case did any of this political maneuvering represent even a mild threat to the Republic. Frankly, the fact that we get wrapped around piffles like this just shows how unserious much of our political discourse is these days. If Bart thinks that the politicization of justice isn't a threat to the rule of law, he's delusional. Not serious? Misuse of the law to prosecute people (or to pretend to) in order to win elections is corruption, plain and simple -- exactly as practiced by dictatorships all over the world.
"Misuse of the law to prosecute people (or to pretend to) in order to win elections is corruption, plain and simple "
It is indeed. Now, go out and prove that that's what happened, rather than assuming that it is.
Brett,
Talk about the struggle to see what's right in front of your nose -- and what, pray tell, if you haven't already been convinced by the email trail, would constitute "proof" that the firings were political? May I point out that it's not my job to prove -- or even investigate -- things like this? That's what Congress is supposed to do. Let's see how it turns out, shall we?
Indeed, let's see how it turns out. I've already said that I'm open to the possiblity that it's all a partisan witch hunt.
But, the thing that makes a witch hunt a witch hunt is that there aren't any witches. If they're getting convictions in these cases, I don't really give a damn that Democrats don't like guilty Democrats being prosecuted.
Where did I say the Democrats are definately guilty? The only people I see stating anything definate about guilt here are the ones who seem to be sure the Democrats were definately NOT guilty.
What I have said comes down to this: Some of the Attorneys got fired because they refused orders to investigate certain charges. Others didn't get fired. If the orders amounted to a partisan witch hunt, then the guys who didn't get fired must have agreed to go along with it. And were bringing, one assumes, weaker cases against Democrats than against Republicans. This should be reflected in the relative conviction/aquittal ratios for Democrats and Republicans. If it's significantly higher for Republicans than for Democrats, I would say that the case that this was partisan wrongdoing was proven to my satisfaction. If, OTOH, the conviction/aquittal ratios were comparable, then I would take it that there was no witch hunt on the part of the attorneys who didn't get fired, implying that the ones who did get fired weren't fired for refusing to take part in a witch hunt, but instead for refusing to do their job. See? No conclusion about guilt or innocence, just an insistance that we need to see what the evidence is. So, bring on the hearings!
Some of the Attorneys got fired because they refused orders to investigate certain charges.
This is another case of your assumption double standards. According to both Iglesias and McKay, the ones who you are saying were fired for not "investigating certain charges," there were fairly intensive investigations of the charges in question by the USA office and the FBI in consultation with and sometimes against the advice of the DOJ's own voting fraud expert. It is true, however, that both of these attorneys refused to prosecute "certain charges" because they, again along with the FBI and the DOJ's voting fraud expert, were skeptical that voting fraud took place and, even assuming that it did, they were convinced that they did not have the evidence to support prosecution. Thus, while not forming a "conclusion about guilt or innocence," you are assuming that the administration's contention that these attorney's were fired because the did not "investigate certain charges" in the face of fairly good evidence to the contrary.
That there was vote fraud taking place is scarcely questionable. You'd be hard put to find a federal or big city local election without at least some ballot fraud, if only somebody voting their senile mother's absentee ballot, or registering cartoon characters.
The argument, as near as I can tell, and not presuming up front that this WAS a witch hunt, is that the administration was changing Justice's priorities on vote fraud investigation. They wanted retail vote fraud to be prosecuted, and certain elements in Justice wanted the old standard, that they only went after large scale vote fraud conspiracies, to be kept. If this is the case, it was a valid basis for firing the Attorneys.
Ok, here's part of the story:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003615329_mckay13m.html The key part being, IMO, "One of the biggest controversies of the 2004 race was the casting of hundreds of ballots by convicted felons. McKay asked Sullivan to create a task force of federal, state and county prosecutors to look into how and why the felons voted in violation of state laws. Ultimately, Sullivan told McKay "there was no disagreement on the task force" that a federal case could not be brought on the felon voters. Most of the felons who voted in the 2004 election, according to McKay, received ballots in the mail from the state of Washington. Therefore, he said, it would have been extremely difficult to prove in court that they knew it was unlawful for them to vote, but did it anyway." So, yeah, there was ballot fraud, and enough of it to swing the election, but a judgement call was made to not prosecute. And when he said he wasn't going to prosecute "innocent" people, by "innocent" he meant guilty people who he didn't think he could prove knew what they were doing was a crime. But who might very well have known. Sounds to me less like a witch hunt all the time.
Brett:
Anyone can selectively quote an article and leave out important facts as you just did. Perhaps you missed a very important part of this article: McKay insists that top prosecutors in his office and agents from the FBI conducted a "very active" review of allegations of fraud during the election but filed no charges and did not convene a federal grand jury because "we never found any evidence of criminal conduct." McKay detailed the work of his office in a recent interview. He spoke out because he believed Republican supporters of Dino Rossi, still bitter over his narrow loss to Democrat Christine Gregoire, continue to falsely portray him and his office as indifferent to allegations of electoral fraud. McKay also wanted to make it clear that he pressed ahead with a preliminary investigation, despite the hesitation of Craig Donsanto, the longtime chief of the Election Crimes branch of the Department of Justice, who ultimately concurred with McKay that no federal crimes had been committed in the election. With this included I don't see how you or any fair-minded observer could take issue with the lack of prosecution. In addition, when you say "guilty people," you are way off-base. People are clearly innocent until proven guilty. On top of that, there was a thorough investigation conducted that cast doubt on the idea that these people were guilty. Thus, in the face of evidence that they may not have been guilty, evidence that severely limited the possibility of a successful prosecution of a crime, and with the agreement of the FBI and the DOJ's expert on election fraud, McKay decided to use his prosecutorial discretion to not pursue the case. Where is the problem here? Just to make it clear. You seem to be saying that there is nothing politically motivated in the administration putting pressure on and eventually firing a US Attorney because he refused to prosecute a case that was in the interest of a bitter (and rightly so) Republican candidate against the best advice of the FBI, the administration's own Election Crimes head, and contrary to evidence that cast doubt upon the guilt of the alleged perpetrators. How is this not politcally motivated?
What is the nature of "guilt"? That hundreds of people engaged in criminal conduct is unquestionable. That they had criminal intent is, as the prosecutor says, unknowable.
OTOH, there are plenty of people in prison at this moment for conduct they arguably might not have known was illegal. That whole "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." bit, after all. To hop on my personal hobby horse for a moment, gun ownership is a civil liberty frequently denied to convicted felons, too. (Hell, convicted misdemeanors.) And I assure you that, if they get caught owning them, the US Attorney does not start agonizing about mental states. He prosecutes. Why should illegally exercising one civil liberty result in a shrug, and illegally exercising another result in hard time?
And I never said it wasn't politically motivated. I just think it wasn't out of bounds, as long as the prosecutions result in enough convictions to demonstrate that they're not being brought frivolously.
While I normally agree with the idea that "ignorance of the law is no defense," I think that, in this case, there is more to it than just ignorance. The fact is, "Most of the felons who voted in the 2004 election…received ballots in the mail from the state of Washington." This changes the situation in the sense that the felons might have voted on the assumption that if the State of Washington sent them ballots, they were entitled to vote. Thus, the actions of the state itself made it more likely that the felons would commit voting fraud and more likely that they would do so without intent to commit such a crime.
"Bart", oh lovable "Bart" DePalma, assuming his conclusions to beat the band:
Is the President acting for partisan reasons because voter fraud is a an activity which is dominated by Dems? Is it true, "Bart", that you used a yellow rag to strangle and kill that little girl prior to raping her because red rags remind you too much of blood? <*SHEESH!!!*> "Yes" or "no", "Bart", we really need to know so we can carry this conversation over the cliff as fast as possible.... Note to "Bart", BTW: The "Voter fraud! I see voter fraud!!!!" line doesn't work for most of the attorneys. And I'd note a distinct lack of interest by the DoJ in the (further) shenanigans down in Florida. Cheers,
"Bart" DePalma assumes more 'facts not in evidence':
The alternative is too allow the criminal activity to continue unabated to avoid having your motives questioned. Of course, you don't need to worry about people questioning your motives (and perhaps digging through your e-mails and paper trails) if bygawd you were n the up-and-up. Right? So let the investigations begin! Bring some popcorn, "Bart"; should be fun to watch now that the adults are back in charge. Haven't been this excited since college.... Cheers,
"Bart" DePalma says:
Hardly. These US attorneys refused to act on widely reported illegal voting to determine whether there was a fraud.... This is false. And just to echo JaO from a while back, I'd point out that not even the maladministration is making such a specious argument in public. "Bart" picks the crapolo off the RW foamer sites, deposits it here, and expects us to walk up and say it doesn't stink.... Cheers,
Let me post a thought experiment:
A prosecutor has two cases before him. One is a serial killer, the other a prosecution for pick-pocketing. He has only sufficient resources to prosecute one. He chooses to prosecute the pick-pocket primarily because the pick-pocket is a political opponent of the pick-pocket, and the serial killer is an ally. Is that prosecutorial misconduct?
"Bart" DePalma:
[Electra]: Why did they not just fire them and proceed to nominations and Senate confirmation of new apointees? To avoid the opposition party holding the new nominees hostage as they have done with several judges. No. We're starting to find out why, thanks to the miracles of email archives and Congressional subpoenas. But FWIW, what's coming out is that they were thinking of doing so because they could, thanks to a provision of the PATRIOT act that allows appointment without Senate confirmation. Once again "Bart" shows less sense than Gawd gave a gnat. Mr. Clinton used recess appointments when the party control of the branches was reversed in the 90s and the GOP was playing the obstruction game. "Clinton's penis! CLINTON'S PENIS!!!! <*wauuuuuggghhhh*> Didn't you see it?...." WTF does Clinton's peni-- ... ummm, sorry, recess appointments (which, FWIW, Dubya has also done, but which is not the point of contention here) ... have to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka? Cheers,
the fabulous galdstoner:
Thus, while not forming a "conclusion about guilt or innocence," you are assuming that the administration's contention that these attorney's were fired because the did not "investigate certain charges" in the face of fairly good evidence to the contrary. Two corrections: "Bart" isn't "assuming" the attorneys were fired for this reason. He's contending that (as part of his defence of the maladministration's actions). The maladministraiton is not "contending" that. In fact, they came up with other reasons to excuse the dismissal (even if that was indeed their real reason). Mens rea.... Cheers,
brett:
[Seattle Times] "Most of the felons who voted in the 2004 election, according to McKay, received ballots in the mail from the state of Washington. Therefore, he said, it would have been extremely difficult to prove in court that they knew it was unlawful for them to vote, but did it anyway." So, yeah, there was ballot fraud, and enough of it to swing the election, but a judgement call was made to not prosecute. And when he said he wasn't going to prosecute "innocent" people, by "innocent" he meant guilty people who he didn't think he could prove knew what they were doing was a crime. But who might very well have known. It wasn't a crime unless they knew it. If he can't prove the elements of the crime, he shouldn't prosecute. Nor should he assume that anyone, absent evidence to the contrary, had done anything illegal. Cheers,
brett:
What is the nature of "guilt"? That hundreds of people engaged in criminal conduct is unquestionable. That they had criminal intent is, as the prosecutor says, unknowable. For some crimes, scienter is an element. If there is no scienter, there is no crime. Why you insist on callng it "criminal conduct" when the activity in question is not prohibited is beyond me. Cheers,
brett:
To hop on my personal hobby horse for a moment, gun ownership is a civil liberty frequently denied to convicted felons, too. (Hell, convicted misdemeanors.) And I assure you that, if they get caught owning them, the US Attorney does not start agonizing about mental states. He prosecutes. You might be wrong about that. WRT gun ownership cases, some courts have in fact required scienter in some circumstances. Cheers,
Bart misses a few points:
Nowhere does he produce any evidence to support his assertions that Democrats perform more election fraud than Republicans. As I pointed out in some digby posts, the ratio of corruption investigations/prosecutions against Democrats vs. Republicans under the current crop of DAs, came out to 80% Dem / 18% Rep / 2% Independent. He would need to provide numbers under Clinton (and Reagan/Bush I) that showed similar partisan bias in order to prove that "everyone does it". Bart likes to argue from various premises, but I would like to see him argue from proof.
More on "Bart"'s "vote fraud" hallucinations (or, more accurately, RNC Mighty Wurlitzer "spin points"). And this stuff have Rove's fingerprints all over it.... Surprised?
Cheers,
This is getting remarkably tiresome. The "study" has already been shot full of holes, it's numbers the result of a partial examination of media accounts, and thus not particularly reliable. There may in fact be no discrepency to explain, it may be smaller, it may be larger. And the descrepancy, whatever it's size, may in fact be explainable.
We. Don't. Know. But you think you do, which I find somewhat annoying. Myself, I'm waiting for the hearings. And, Arne, all you've established is that the Attorney's decision not to prosecute could have been a defensible policy. But so could the administration's policy. Which of them is entitled to establish policy?
Brett,
Stop spinning. It's embarrassing to all of us to read. First you said the fired USA's didn't investigate the alleged fraud. That was false--they did investigate, they just decided, after investigation, that the facts didn't warrant prosecution. Then you argued that even if the alleged criminals in WA didn't know they were committing fraud, they could still be prosecuted, because "ignorance of the law is no excuse." In so arguing, you showed that this old saw may also be applied to blog commenters, as you clearly are ignorant of the basic, 1L CrimLaw fact that scienter--as Arne noted--is a required element of fraud. Finally, you argue that this was all just a simple "policy" disagreement. Again, you're wrong. The issue here is not a good-faith "policy" dispute--it's a disagreement about the sufficiency of facts in particular cases to support prosecutions. These are exactly the types of decisions in which the AG and Pres should generally NOT be involved, as they, unlike the USA who worked with the FBI to investigate, do not have a command of the particular facts at issue. So please stop. Your poses as "honest broker" are transparently dishonest, your attempted rationalizations are irrational, and your "understanding" of the law and legal decision-making is laughable.
Brett,
Please provide a link or a hint to where "the study" is debunked by someone authoritative. As to who decides policy, the answer is: everybody in management decides the policy of their branch of the organization subject to the policy flowing down from above. If it's your thesis that the policy was and ought to have been to bring prosecutions in aid of electing Republicans, please excuse me if I suggest that that's a very bad precedent.
I don't worship at the altar of offical qualifications. If I, no social scientist, notice that the study claims to reach conclusions comparing the Bush administration to previous administrations without having collected data concerning previous administrations, I don't need a degree in social science to call a foul on them. If a blogger somewhere spends an hour with google, and turns up investigations of Republicans not in their supposedly complete database, he doesn't need a degree to call a foul on them.
This is the same kind of "authoritative" garbage that let Bellesiles go on peddling his historical revisionism, and even win a prestigious prize, for months and months after laymen had demonstrated he was a fraud, because the "authorities" were turning a blind eye to the problems. The study has been exposed as faulty. And it has been so exposed whether or not anyone authoritative gets around to noticing. You know, from the start I have repeatedly related what sort of evidence I would take as proof that this was political. Maybe the hearings will produce it.
Brett,
If you have actual evidence of a fault, you should really present it so we can assess it. Such as: "they missed such-and-such a case." The study, by Shields and Cragan, does give its data, and we are free to assess it. I give a direct link to anyone so inclined: http://www.epluribusmedia.org/ columns/2007/ 20070212_political_ profiling.html (you'll have to put the lines back together.) While I'm not ready to assert authoritatively that this settles it, I'll believe chi-square over blunt assertions any day of the week. Even if they've missed a couple of cases, it won't affect the results significantly. We don't have to be social scientists to look at chi-square values and check them.
Been there, read it.
Let me reiterate: They collected data on the Bush administration. And only the Bush administration. And by "collected data", I mean made an incomplete survey of media accounts of investigations during the Bush administration. And on the basis of this incomplete, and not particularly representative data set concerning ONE administration, made claims about how this administration compared to previous administrations. Which they made no effort to collect data on. You think you need chi-square to object to that? All the math in the world can't turn a data set that worthless into a reliable conclusion. Let me point out their own statement: "The authors of this paper call for new federal laws that would create a national registry of the federal investigations of both candidates and elected officials by the U.S. Attorneys' and other Justice Department Offices. That Political Profiling Registry would indicate when a candidate or elected official was under investigation and report the candidates' or elected officials' party affiliation. Subsequently, that Registry would indicate if the investigation ended in no action taken or if there was an indictment or some special finding. Then, too, that Registry would report if the indictment was accepted by the Courts, whether the Justice Department plea bargained with witnesses against the elected official, or plea bargained with the elected official, entered into a speedy trial (say within 4-6 weeks of any indictment, especially if the indictment occurred within an election cycle, and if there was an acquittal, or a conviction)." Look at that lit of information they want. They want it for a good reason: It's the information they needed, and DIDN'T collect, to arrive at their conclusions.
Brett:
You say: "made an incomplete survey of media accounts of investigations during the Bush administration." Even they agree it cannot be complete. You have to use the data you have, not the data you'd like to have. You say this data is not particularly representative. And I ask (now, for the third and last time) what evidence do you have that this data is not representative? Their claim relative to previous administrations is that "it appears" that the Bush administration is the first administration that has such a bias in its prosecutions. And you strenuously object to this mild statement? Do your own study, show that past administrations have done this. You say that their dataset is "worthless" but you provide not one shred of countervailing evidence, not even an example. I don't know what you mean when you say "You think you need chi-square to object to that?" chi-square is a statistical test. If you assume certain things about the underlying statistics, it gives you a probability for certain sample statistics. If you want to cast doubt on the chi-square test, you can do so only by demonstrating that the underlying statistical assumptions are false or that the sample was chosen using a method that produced bias. In the particular case at hand, given the lopsidedness of the data, and even allowing for the limitations of their methodology, it is unreasonable to give much credence to either of those possibilities. We are left with the inescapable conclusion that either the Bush administration overwhelmingly brought prosecutions against Democrats or, and even more damning, they leaked information about prosecutions far more often when the targets were Democrats.
"And you strenuously object to this mild statement?"
Look, Charles, this "mild statement" is both politically loaded, and conspicuously unsupported by the data they chose to collect. (Nothing kept them from looking at news reports from the Clinton administration.) And they could not possibly have failed to understand that their data didn't support their conclusion. This is enough to establish that we're not looking at disinterested scholarship, we're looking at a political hit piece. Now, it might be an accurate political hit piece, but without a heck of a lot more information, there's no reason to be confident of that. Was their partial selection of news reports unbiased? Was the partial selection of which investigations to report on by the media unbiased? We don't know. The most this report can be, is reason to find out some answers. It can't be the basis for any conclusions.
Brett,
I feel compelled to point out that you appear to be using two standards of evidence here, a very strict one for the authors of the study, and a far less strict one for your own conclusions about the study. They used available news reports. They didn't choose what to include, or at least nobody has produced any evidence that they did any choosing. Yet you conclude that the study is wrong. I'm not disputing your assertion that it is a political hit piece. That it was politically motivated is highly probable. But the evidence is the evidence, chi-square is chi-square, and I've noticed that, even after I asked you three times, you never provided anything to counter that evidence. Well, this thread is about dead. Enjoy.
"Yet you conclude that the study is wrong."
Point to where I assert that conclusion, please. I think I've been quite clear that it might be right. My point is simply that nobody should have any confidence that it is. You agree that it's a political hit piece. So we're not talking about people approaching the subject in a disinterested fashion. They're willing to state conclusions their data conspicuously do not support. So we're talking about people who either don't know, or don't care about the most basic principles of conducting statistical studies. We don't know how they chose which media reports to include in their database. Was it random, or biased in some way? We have no reason to believe, supposing that they achieved a representative sample of media accounts, that media accounts are a representative sample of investigations/prosecutions. And a statistical discrepency between investigations of Democrats and Repubicans does not establish political bias, unless one assumes a priori that absent bias, the investigations would be in rough proportion. I repeat, you don't need math to impeach this study. It doesn't reach the level of credibilty where you'd need to use math to impeach it. It could, none the less, be accurate. By coincidence...
Obat generik buat sipilis
Obat sipilis dengan bayam duri Obat sipilis yang bagus Obat china sipilis Cara obat sipilis di apotik Cara obat sipilis pada pria Cari obat sipilis Contoh obat sipilis http://agusus1.blogspot.com/ http://agusyafii.blogspot.com/ http://amateursexxxx.blogspot.co.id/ Obat sipilis Obat kutil kelamin obat wasirhttp://oplosanobatkutilkelamin.blogspot.com/ http://www.smaboy.com/u/obatkutil http://tinyblogs.net/u/obatkutil/ http://tinyblogs.net/u/obatkutil/ http://obatkutil.blogszino.com/ http://obatkutil.over-blog.com/ http://obatkutilkelamin-tradisional.jimdo.com/ http://www.lautanindonesia.com/blog/obatkutilkelamindanjenggerayam/ http://obatkutilmanjur.weebly.com/ http://obatkutilampuh.livejournal.com/ http://obatkutilkelamintradisional123.blogdetik.com/ http://obatkutil12345.edublogs.org/ http://pengobatankutil.blog.planetbiru.com/ http://obatkutil.freeblog.biz/ http://batkutil.blog.com/
Obat sifilis apotik
Post a Comment
Obat sipilis beli di apotik Obat sipilis buat wanita Obat sipilis buatan sendiri Obat sipilis bagi wanita Obat buat sipilis Obat biotik sifilis Obat antibiotik buat sipilis Obat tradisional buat sipilis Obat herbal buat sipilis Obat dokter buat sipilis Obat generik buat sipilis Obat sipilis dengan bayam duri Obat sipilis yang bagus Obat buat sifilis Obat sipilis.com Obat sipilis ciprofloxacin Obat china sipilis obat kutil kelamin dan leher obat alami menghilangkan kutil kelamin obat tradisional untuk menghilangkan kutil kelamin kumpulan obat kutil kelamin obat tradisional kutil kelamin obat penyakit kutil kelamin obat tradisional untuk kutil kelamin
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |