A couple of weeks ago, I drew the attention of the dKos community to a story of drastic overreach by House Judiciary Chair James Sensenbrenner, where he sent a somewhat threatening letter to a Federal Appeals Court judicial panel because he didn't like a ruling they made. Link to the original diary is
here.
Today, the Chicago Tribune follows up on the story, noting that the backlash from Sensenbrenner's overreach has already begun, with more in store. A high-ranking Republican Judiciary Committee staffer has been dismissed.
Follow me below for more
The
article appeared in the middle of the first section of the July 26th Chicago Tribune.
Congress aide becomes casualty of controversy
Panel's attorney exits after lawmaker's bid to alter drug sentence
With Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) facing criticism and ethics questions for pressuring a federal appellate court to increase a defendant's sentence, a congressional aide closely tied to the controversy has been dismissed.
Nice headline and lead paragraph. Note the 'facing criticism and ethics questions' and remember that the House Ethics Committee is, at least in theory, back in operation.
Jay Apperson, chief counsel of a House Judiciary subcommittee, was the staffer who brought the case to Sensenbrenner's attention, and he has publicly defended Sensenbrenner's unusual intervention.
Apperson quietly and suddenly left the subcommittee last week. [...] But a Capitol Hill official familiar with the matter said Apperson's departure "had everything to do" with his role in the controversy, in which Sensenbrenner directly contacted the chief judge of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago to demand an increased sentence for Lissett Rivera, a drug courier.
The article doesn't say where this twit is going, but I imagine he's off to some well-paid position at a DC law firm specializing in lobbying. But still, it's good to see that there are
some consequences for the minions, and as we see below, his boss isn't free and clear either:
Sensenbrenner could face a complaint before the House ethics committee, because House rules prohibit communicating privately with judges on legal matters. In addition, general rules of litigation prohibit contacting judges on a case without notifying all parties, which Sensenbrenner did not do.
The American Judicature Society, a non-partisan group that works for judicial independence, criticized Sensenbrenner after the letter became public for "attempting to bully federal judges."
"attempting to bully federal judges" is the take-home message from this controversy. In the comments to the original diary, it was pointed out that this could also be an attempt to bully federal
prosecutors, especially one Patrick Fitzgerald, who by an odd coincidence was the prosecuting attorney for this case.
Most of the rest of the article is a summary of the original controversy, but we end with a note that this apparently was not the first offense for Mr. Apperson:
This is not the first time Apperson has found himself at odds with federal judges.
After James Rosenbaum, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, testified against a bill to raise the minimum sentences for first-time drug offenders, he faced a series of actions by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.
That subcommittee--of which Apperson was chief counsel--threatened to subpoena Rosenbaum's notes, accusing him of perjury and misleading lawmakers. The threats died down, but Rosenbaum was forced to hire an attorney.
This fits the overall pattern of the modern GOP: Oppose us in any way, and we will use all methods, licit and illicit, to take you down.
-dms