Skip to main content

View Diary: Bachmann's Office DENIES Scalia Spoke to Tea Party Caucus (236 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ask Justice Breyer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, VClib

    he (a member of the Judicial Branch) meet behind closed doors last week with the Judiciary Committee (members of the Legislative Branch).

    Justices have been speaking to Congressional groups for decades.  Such meetings are typically not open to the public and press, nor is a transcript provided.  

    If you want to criticize Scalia, fine, have at it, but the facts need to be kept straight.  

    •  Look I understand that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Danali

      The Supremes get approps like everyone else.  That is NOT what Bachman is doing and nothing of the kind and you and I both know this.

      Don't even....

      "I'm measuring everything the Democrats and President Obama do, not against what I WANT, but against the status quo." --RASalvatore 9/16/10

      by smoothnmellow on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:50:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which committe of the Judical Branch has 40 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Danali

      members of only one party?

      If the Supremes think they need to school the US House, then we need to look at the reason they think that is so.

      If You want the top 10 percent to control the US Government, that is Your choice, I prefer Jefferson's model to that of Hamilton's. (really perfer Franklins.)

      •  My point is that Justices (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, vzfk3s

        have made a practice of going to talk to members of Congress, in sessions that are not open to the public or the press, for decades.  The comment I responded to implied that it was not appropriate for Justices to talk to members of Congress.  That impression is wrong, I think.  Clearly, Justices talk to Congress all the time.  

        The real question is based on the fact that even though it was ostensibly open to all members of Congress, only members of one party (in all likelihood) attended.  I have not tracked down all the times that Justices have spoken to members of Congress so as to know if this is, or is not, the first time it's been to all members of one party.  That would require a list of who actually attended prior speeches, and that is probably not available.  

    •  It was not behind "closed doors." (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, cc, Danali
      •  define that, please. (0+ / 0-)

        If you define it as "no press were present at the speech, and the public was not invited," then it was.  

        •  Press nor public were allowed to attend. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden, cc

          Bachmann's office forbid the press to cover the speech and forbid any of the public from attending.  "Closed Doors" was her word & the words her office used with me.  Call her and ask her what that means when she says it.  Who knows, she might be like Palin and have no idea what the meaning of words mean when they are put together in a sentence?

          •  Then that's what Breyer did. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            He spoke to members of Congress, and neither the press nor public were allowed to attend.

            •  Bachmann's office Lied Over & Over to me - why? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden, cc

              you can think what you want and that's cool.

              You & I both know that Breyer gave a speech that was provided to the Press at a Judicial Committee Retreat.

              I am surprise, you, who claims to be a lawyer does not know the difference between a Caucus and a Committee.

              But hey, don't call Bachmann if you're cool with Scalia meeting with her Caucus in private while she & her crew develop what laws to write.

              It bothers me ... but what bothers me even more is that she paid her office with Tax money to lie over & over & over to me today.  That aint cool.

              •  I have no intention whatsoever of defending (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib

                anything Bachmann does.  

                I can completely understand that it bothers you.  

                I am not suggesting that there is no reason for you to be bothered.  

                I am suggesting that technically, there is no prohibition against Justices talking to members of Congress on topics related to the law.  The Code of Conduct does not distinguish between a "caucus" or a "committee."  If the Democratic caucus of Congress asked Breyer to talk to them about his views of the Constitution, invited all of Congress (even if they didn't want to attend), and didn't invite the press or the public, that might bother you as well, but as far as I can see, it's not a prohibited activity.

                The Code of Conduct does not distinguish between talking to a Congressional Caucus and talking to a Congressional Committee.  So, yes, I understand that you might be ok with talking to a committee but not a caucus, but the Code of Conduct does not make that distinction.

                Again, you have every right to your beliefs.  I simply wanted to understand that it was based on your beliefs, and not something else.  

                •  The Constitution supersedes Code of Conduct (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  neroden, cc

                  Read Article 1 & 3 of the US Constitution.  Justices do not have legislative power.  Legislative power is the power to write laws.

                  Yes, it is very important to determine if the Justice is meeting with a group = who do not write laws.  Or meeting with a Committee where their speech is given to the press and no laws are being written ... or a closed door caucus where laws are designed and no outline, no speech, no nothing is given to the press for the public.

                  It is strictly forbidden by the US Constitution for Justices to write our laws.

                  But, that is not even what this Diary is about.  This Diary is about the lengths Bachmann's office took to not only lie about "WHO" Scalia was talking to but lied three different lies about why it was closed doors.

                  They never answered who made the decision of why.

                  They admitted that Bachmann will have 2 per month and they, too, will be closed.  

                  Sorry, but I really am not big on Lobbyists meeting & writing our laws or any one else who is not elected by the People.  And I'm equally bothered when a member of Congress lies through their teeth - with one different lie after another over one single issue.

                  Just read my Diary & you will see -- I did not address the legality of Scalia -- I merely transcribed my conversation.

                  Finally, if this were the only thing Scalia did over the years - maybe I could let it go. But, as a lawyer you should know that when you add together ALL of the things Scalia has done, since 2000 to now, it smells as though Scalia was writing laws today.

                  Have you asked, Why the big secret meeting?  Why no copy of a script or seminar outline from Scalia?

    •  Um. That's the judiciary committee. (0+ / 0-)

      That's possibly the single part of Congress which has a legitimate reason to have a private meeting with a judge, y'know?

      Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

      by neroden on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 08:03:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site