Court Won't Rule on Search Case { William Jefferson }

AP via SFGate ^ | 3/31/8 | MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

[NFHale]

“..This make me wonder why any of us should obey the law! Why bother, when our lawmakers are so corrupt & above the law..?

Because when WE don’t “obey the law”, the ninja-bodyarmor boys with Little German Machine Guns show up at our door and kill everything that moves in the home, including the family kitten.

Kinda puts things in perspective, doesn’t it?

[xzins]

Cowardly Scotus ruling.

The Constitution clearly says that the protection of a congressman is in regard to legitimate duties. It specifically says that a congressman is liable for illegal behavior.

So, using an extreme example, if Jefferson had chopped up his wife and hid her pieces in his refrigerator, then the law has no recourse?

That is ridiculous, and it highlights Scotus’ cowardice.

[nikos1121]

“The President quashes investigations against the executive branch.”

Really? I guess you’re referring to the dems wanting to discredit the Bush Admin for his firing of democratic prosecutors. Which is his right.

I think there were less than a dozen or so? When Clinton fired almost ALL of the republican appointed prosecutors and no one batted and eye.

Bush was way too easy and conciliatory with these people.

[gondramB]

Yea but the principle will carry over. If the President can decide whether the administration will be investigated for wrong doing and whether they will comply with subpeonas do you suppose that won’t be abused?

Together with the Jefferson case we are setting up an immune government. There are not supposed to be immune to investigation.

[misterrob]

And I am okay with that...

as long as Congress stops interfering with the Executive Branch.

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The bottom line is that, if the government cannot search a member's office in the manner authorized by the search warrant here ... the government cannot do so in any meaningful manner and congressional offices may become a 'sanctuary for crime,'" the Justice Department said.

Too late.

[VRWCmember]

At issue is a constitutional provision known as the speech or debate clause, which protects elected officials from being questioned by the president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their legislative work.

The question for the court was whether the protection also applies to searches.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said it does.

Here is what the "speech and debate clause" actually states:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
-- Article I, Section 5 (emphasis added)

To suggest, as the court apparently has, that this extends to an exemption from searches of their offices pursuant to duly obtained and executed search warrants is simply ludicrous on its entire face. The intent of the speeches and debates clause was to prevent the use of arrests to interfere with members of Congress in their ability to attend sessions of congress. A search of a congress member's office, pursuant to a warrant in a criminal case (and if bribery isn't a felony it certainly should be) would clearly not be subject to the "privilege from arrest" clause as the privilege is not extended in the cases of Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace".

[AmericaUnite]

So, someone in congress can rob a bank, and hide the money in his office, and it’s off-limits? Is that how this works?

I heard this and thought they don't ever want their offices searched.

[misterrob]

Why do they need to rob a bank? They can steal from us tax payers with impunity

[SmithL]

What’s your take on this?

[dbacks]

[$10 says he walks.]

Another corrupt, black, lib who can get away with ANY crime. Pah!

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

["The bottom line is that, if the government cannot search a member's office in the manner authorized by the search warrant here ... the government cannot do so in any meaningful manner and congressional offices may become a 'sanctuary for crime,'" the Justice Department said."]

Isn't that convenient.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Sure, give them advance notice. About 3 seconds worth.

[mwilli20]

At issue is a constitutional provision known as the speech or debate clause, which protects elected officials from being questioned by the president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their legislative work.

What the HE** does this have to do with the case at hand?

Answering my own question: About as much as "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..." has to do with banning prayer in schools...

What a bunch of garbage!

[Bommer]

At issue is a constitutional provision known as the speech or debate clause, which protects elected officials from being questioned by the president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their legislative work.

So being a corrupt crook IS part of the job! Got it! Time to start running for office....and shopping for a new freezer!

[Political Junkie Too]

$10 says he walks.

Double or nothing that Jefferson then claims he's been exonerated of all charges.

-PJ

[Candor7]

Hey, if the FBI can't execute search warrants on a Congressional Office, then YOU KNOW that the CIA and NSA will take care of any international fraud, treason and sedition , bribing kickback intrigue , perpetrated by sitting members of Congress.

Then Pricks like Jefferson will simply dissappear while on a trip abroad, expire due to food poisoning , or have a terminal plane crash.

But then thats the way the Dem congress wants it.So be it.

[AFPhys]

I would love your expert opinion on this.

Has the USSC decided not to take this case primarily because it is not yet ripe, or for some other reason?