i agree with (only) the last paragraph of robot_parade's take:
this case doesn't present anything new to judicial process or authority. presidents have always exercised this constitutionally-granted right and have exercised it similarly many times before. the founders deliberately built this as a mechanism as a check against the judicial branch.
if law the law was subverted, we have never known it to be otherwise in our lifetimes. it may be cause for change, but not cause for immediate alarm.
@ratbastid - DOJ under the judicial branch? so, you'd rather place prosecutorial/investigative powers under the same branch as that who judge the cases being prosecuted? not sure i'd feel too safe in that system. what happens when a SCOTUS appointed prosecutor's case is appealed to the SCOTUS?
additionally, why place appointment of investigations under non-elected officials with lifetimes terms? seems better to have them chosen by someone accountable to the people every 4 years. the whole idea is riddled with poor consequences.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
Last edited by irateplatypus; 07-04-2007 at 01:33 PM..
|