Skip to main content

View Diary: Holder/DoJ Cover-up on Torture Memos Investigation: Who is David Margolis? (358 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  True. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    However, under our system it is the SCOTUS which decides whether behavior or law is consistent with the Constitution.  AND for such a determination to be made, there has to be a case in which the issues are pertinent and argued by two sides.  The way the Bush/Cheney avoided determinations of law, most of the time, was by simply not bringing cases forward to be decided.

    Have you noticed how the SCOTUS caseload suddenly got lighter?

    Pottawattamie v. McGhee is instructive.  The oral arguments in the SCOTUS, as well as the justices questions, made it clear that the case, which was being appealed by a County, was going to be lost.  So, instead of risking a precedent-setting ruling to challenge the "absolute immunity" notion, the County settled the case by paying the aggrieved parties two million of the people's money.

    I do not fault the DoJ for making the argument.

    How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

    by hannah on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 09:53:56 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  proof in the logic (0+ / 0-)

      Obama's DOJ was concerned that if prosecutors were discouraged from going the extra mile on attaining prosecutions, even if it meant breaking laws in so doing (withholding information from the defense as an example)they would not be as aggressive if held accountable. I am not familiar with the case above, and but i can see that logic. I was referring to the case that affected the Siegelman verdict.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site