Tec Take #3
 

Given the blatant disregard for court mandated punishment in the Libby case, does any form of justice issued by the courts now carry the same weight it did...yesterday? Does the removal of legal descision put into question the very fabric of future investigation?

The subservience of the Justice Department to the partisan politics of the Executive is a much bigger deal. The effects there are insidious, and often cannot be detected directly. This also allows the Executive to have a free hand, since most investigations are conducted by Justice.

At least with pardons and commuting, the President must do everything out in the open. That means that there is the potential for accountability. If only we had a parliamentary system, or a method of holding a recall vote.

Yes of course... This move just illustrates the truth that Bush, Cheney, and others of that ilk see themselves really and truly as being in a different world, living by a different set of rules than the rest of us. Unfortunately the system allows that notion to be backed by reality, but that is nothing new.

The President has Constitutional authority to commute Libby's sentence. The series of events have not been a blatant disregard for the law.

Libby is still a felon, still has to pay $250,000, and is on probation for two years. Are you ignoring that?

I'd be interested in discussing the benefits and drawbacks of a constitutional amendment to put the DOJ under the authority of the SCOTUS or a new Judicial Branch office. As a citizen, I have zero faith that a DOJ investigation of ANY Executive Branch behavior could be unbiased, fair, and impartial.

(I know this is a wee bit off-topic, but it's sort of related, so I thought I'd float it.)

Is there a way for those millions donated for Libby's defense to be used to pay the $250,000? I'm just wondering.

Also, maybe the word should be...disrespect. The commutation shows a disrespect for the law, not disregard. Does that sound better?

EDIT: ratbastid, I've been thinking the same thing... I posted today in one of our numerous active threads about how skeptical I am of the DoJ investigating the Executive faithfully.

EDIT/EDIT: It was THIS thread!

Check out this post at the Washington Monthly's website for a good rundown of some of the aftereffects Bush's decision may have on the judicial system.

1. Average obstruction of justice sentences aren't 0 months or 33 months, but 70 months.

2. Bush recommended probation for Libby. But you can't get probation without serving time first, and "Judge Walton doesn't know how to reconcile Bush law with real law."

3. Defense attorneys are salivating at the thought of getting a new weapon in their arsenal: a "Libby motion."

That last quote is from the New York Times.

Are you a rich, well-connected white dude? If so, then you've always gotten special treatment in this country, you should be used to it by now. Not quite a 'free pass', in most cases, but at the very least deferential treatment.

If you're a middle class white person, you'll probably get a fair deal in our court system, assuming drugs aren't involved, and probably a few other things.

If you're unwise enough to be black, a woman, or poor, then you're screwed. Though to be fair, I think the situation for those groups is improving, slowly.

In this particular case, no, I don't think it represents a fundamental change in our justice system. Presidents have always had the power to pardon (and commute sentences of) criminals. They've often misused that power for political or personal reasons (even Bill Clinton pardoned a guy who donated to his political campaign). It might even be a good idea to limit this power by allowing a 2/3 vote in the house and senate to negate the presidential power to pardon. This is a particularly egregious case, so maybe some changes will happen.

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.

It makes sense to have legal and court actions all inside the same file drawer. Frankly, I trust the SCOTUS more than I trust the President, right now. Not a LOT more, but more.

It would need to be a distinct entity from the Court itself. But it would make sense to have it not be beholden to the Executive.

On the contrary, I'd rather not have electoral needs and desires shaping what legal outcomes become precedent. What happens before the SCOTUS shapes the American legal and social world every bit as much as laws Congress passes or vetoes (or :rolleyes: signing statements) enacted by the President. I'm damn glad there's one branch of the federal government that doesn't have to go into high pandering mode once every four years. That was, IMO, an extremely wise design on the part of our founders.

This would result in a Judicial branch which could go after people, accuse them of something, and then sentence them. Think Judge Dredd. Not a good plan. The Legislative branch can conduct investigations of the Executive with their own independent investigative bodies. That is the check, and an investigatively (new word?) blind Judicial is the balance.