Posted on 12/07/2001 9:29:58 PM PST by The Wizard
As I watch Pearl Harbor tonight, I think about the great shame these people do to those who fought and died for our freedoms:
Freedoms that these people abuse for self interest.
But then there's James and his FreeRepublic.com on the other side of the scale, and that's a mighty heavy weight indeed
If she has a strong case, then perhaps she should persue it.
BTW, unless I missed something, the place one persues "a strong case" is a venue known as "the courts".
What we have here is someone attempting to impose "street justice". It's not generally considered "civil" to engage in what might be politely termed "mutiny" in an attempt to short-circuit the legal process.
To put it into the vernacular, what this bitch is doing is no different from aiming a gun at a man in the street and telling onlookers that "It's OK, this sumbitch owes me money."
No, I doubt that she has a very strong case. In fact I don't think she has much of a case at all. Guerrilla tactics like this are not the stuff of "stong cases". They're the stuff of "might makes right" -- and if that's what the inner workings of the federal government has come to, then God have mercy on what's left of our country.
She has no facts on her side, only a very weak interpretation of law.
She does have facts on her side. She has the plain meaning of the statute. It doesn't ussually get better than that.
You are confusing facts with law. In any honest court (I'll admit they are few and far between), a finding of fact would be that the appointment was made so as to expire last month--this is a documented and undisputed fact. The judge would have to issue a finding of law--i.e., an interpretation of the statute.
And, her silence over the years on the length of the appointment in question leads me to conclude that she tacitly agreed with the Clinton Administration's interpretation. She picked poor ground on which to empty her magazine.
Her silence would not affect the law.
Of course her silence would not affect the law. It could, however, affect the facts. There was tacit agreement, at a minimum, of the appointment being made so as to expire last month.
The funny thing about legal ammunition is that it only works in the legal venue, i.e., the courts.
The "self help" doctrine has fallen (as far as this IANAL is aware) into the realm of "frowned upon" even in such areas where it's been accepted in the past (or so my lawyers have told me when I mentioned some ways to deal with "problems" that have arisen "on my own".)
Trying to affect a coup d'etat in a federal agency? Good grief. Arrest her, and set the bail to the moon, Alice. Gotta make an example for others.
It's almost as if with the nation at war, the home-grown terrorist-types feel cocky enough to abscond with the goods under cloak of chaos.
Realpolitik and agitprop being what they are (sadly), let's hope they're all 1) black, and 2) female.
I somewhat agree. The 1957 commission was only to last 2 years. I remember reading legislation between 57 and today but cannot find it again. Maybe I was hallucinating. I'll keep looking.
No, it doesn't stand for what you think (I assume Nat'l envir. policy act). I'm from N. E. PA.
I totally agree with you on the need for judicial reform but we are sometimes pleasantly surprised. Remember election 2000 and how a lot of us thought certain judges, like Nikki Clark, would rule against W just because of party affiliation? It turned out the only partisan judges were the FL Supremes.
W has the best legal minds working for him. VRWC_minion has valid points but I do believe Bush will prevail in court. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.
Further, the Bush admin is handling this just right. Don't back down, send the appointee to the meeting, but don't turn it into a circus and take Mary Berry's bait by forcing Wilson out with Fed Marshalls. Let a court decide and then it is a legal decision not a partisan attack by the Bush administration. It takes the wind out of the sails of the Dem argument when they try to paint Bush/Republicans as anti civil rights.
"If this happens, I'll bet the Republicans lose MORE Senate seats and might even lose the House. This woman and the Democrats, and the liberal press and networks - are - right now - FROTHING AT THE MOUTH in anticipation!!"
You're right. That's why they should arrest her at home, when she's leaving for "work".
Let's hope President Bush - is on right on mark on this - there can BE NO mistakes in this Merry Frances Berry matter!
No kidding?
One word: estoppel.
If during the time that she has been on that commission ONE PERSON was appointed to fulfill somebody else's term, and she didn't raise holy hell, she, by her own actions, certified the policy.
Besides all that, according to your interpretation, if that policy was followed, the only thing people would have to do is to resign a day before a president leaves office and he could reappoint them and they could serve forever.
I do not believe that is the INTENT of the POLICY. And neither will the court.
And for any state supreme court to behave like Floriduh's did is absolutely appalling--evidence of the need for reform.
YOU: Apparently Clinton did just that. If that was beyond his authority, then the original appointment was made illegally, and that would leave us back where we started - with the position vacant, and available to be filled by an appointee of GW's choosing.
Very well done!
Help me out here; where does it say that once a person is designated as the chairman they stay that until their term expires?
It looks like to me Bush could pick somebody else.
Thank you Mr Rogers.
The president gets to appoint HALF the members, when a vacancy comes up; those are presidential appointees.
And if you don't think it's possible to resign and be reappointed in ONE DAY, take a look at the Board of Directors for the Kennedy Center.
Bill Clinton accepted the resignation of Beth Dorshowitz' (sp) husband in the morning and reappointed him in the afternoon to get around the term limits......because those appointments, like these, are NOT subject to affirmation. He didn't even TELL anybody about it.
They are way off base, both should be terminated, one because the term she was filling in for has expired, and the other for malfeasance of office.
But he DIDN'T. HE specified an ending date. It's not OUR fault he didn't get it right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.