Skip to main content

View Diary: Today in Congress/Viewing notes on Kucinich's hearing (170 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's not an investigatory hearing. (0+ / 0-)

    Why would you hold it to that standard?

    It's not even an impeachment hearing. I'd bet this hearing falls far short of the mark of literally millions of objectives that it also does not share.

    As for separation of powers jurisprudence, there's a significant body of law settled at the nexus where the three branches overlap. It's that overlap that actually constitutes the system of checks and balances we're all so fond of.

    Really, the idea that this is such an egregious waste of time and money that it deserves to be shut down on that basis is ridiculous. Nobody's getting paid overtime here. It's Friday. (And they wouldn't be paid overtime even if it was Saturday, by the way.)

    Miller's legislation needs a hearing, and it should get one. Now it has. And it's gotten some context, too.

    If you're going to start going back over other hearings in other committees and asking for your money back on hearings on legislation that didn't pass, well, I guess that'd be interesting. But not a particularly useful constraint on the legislative prerogative. Nor one particularly attuned to its traditional breadth.

    •  You are absolutely correct. (0+ / 0-)

      Conyers' hearing is not truly investigatory.  And it will not support impeachment.  And, looking at the witness list proposed, it is not even objectively 'fact finding'.  Nor will it result in any legislation.  So, I will turn the question back to you, what is the point?  Perhaps you can tell me.  (I personally think it generates false hopes of possible accountability, at taxpayer expense, with not identifiable outcome as even a goal.  And as for 'overtime', etc., I personally would prefer the time being spent on matters where there might be a difference being made, not tilting at windmills.)

      Late here, so I will likely exit.  But thank you, Kargo, for a lively exchange on this.  I mean that sincerely.  It does serve a purpose, this honest exchange of views, if not for you, for me... as it forces me to clarify my own views and bliefs, and to (perhaps) discard those which in the face of logic and argument are not tenable.

      Good exchange (from my POV, maybe not yours). I would personally like to seem more of this kind of give and take on dKos, to really see some delving into issues, rather than just opionion, but again, only my preference.  (I suspect there would be little following, as it seems people have opinions but are not willing to either think or consider different views.)


      Life is not a 'dress rehearsal'!

      by wgard on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:55:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think Miller's bills are likely to move. (0+ / 0-)

        The leadership has tapped him for work on the contempt issues in the past, and he likely will have the ear of Administrative and Constitutional Law subcommittee chair Linda Sanchez on this, as they've worked on this and other issues together in the recent past.

        But the underlying point of the hearing was described in the main story: Kucinich demanded a hearing or else he'd continue bringing impeachment resolutions on the floor and disrupting proceedings there. So they gave him a hearing.

        In that sense, the hearing would actually very neatly address your initial objection about time and money. It's surely more costly to spend floor time on these resolutions than hearing time.

        •  Perhaps you are correct on all counts. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          And I do admire and respect your mastery of the rules and workings that are employed by the elected politicians to control the agendas of the House and Senate, whether directly or obliquely.  Kudos for your diligence in that.

          We may have disagreement on various points, but I think it clear that we share a goal... the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution.  So long as people accept those as the foundation, then any dissention or argument as to how to attain/maintain those fundamental goals is only a means of defining/sharpening the means of achievement/support.

          I thank you for challenging me, my thoughts.  I wish more did so, in a respectful and civil manner, or course.  It is only through debate, honest debate, that the best can be attained... but all sides to it must commit to the basic premises, that is, objectivity, honesty, and an open mind.  (My mind... i.e., opinion... has been changed/modified many times, here, by the evidence and arguments presented by others.)

          Thanks for the exchange, Kargo!  (Though in this case, you did not win me over.  I still think Conyers' 'hearings' kabuki with no value.:)

          Personally, I appreciate your expertise, your writing, and your work.  (And I do not disagree with your views often, either:)

          Take care.  Keep up the good work.  Cheers:)  

          Life is not a 'dress rehearsal'!

          by wgard on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:19:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site