Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Return of the ERA (8:34 pm)

Federal and state lawmakers have launched a new drive to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, reviving a feminist goal that faltered a quarter-century ago when the measure did not gain the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures.

The amendment, which came three states short of enactment in 1982, has been introduced in five state legislatures since January. Yesterday, House and Senate Democrats reintroduced the measure under a new name — the Women’s Equality Amendment — and vowed to bring it to a vote in both chambers by the end of the session.
(…)
The ERA, originally introduced in Congress in 1923, gained popularity in the mid-1960s. In March 1972, it cleared the first of two hurdles: passing both chambers of Congress by the required two-thirds vote.

Thirty state legislatures ratified it the next year. Congress extended by three years its seven-year deadline for ratification, but the decade passed without approval by the required 38 states. ERA backers have since introduced the resolution in every Congress, but only now do they believe they have a realistic chance of success.

posted by Brian Zick | 2 comments

Rumsfeld Off the Hook (12:23 pm)

Matt Apuzzo for AP reports:

Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cannot be tried on allegations of torture in overseas military prisons, a federal judge said Tuesday in a case he described as “lamentable.”

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan threw out a lawsuit brought on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Rumsfeld cannot be held personally responsible for actions taken in connection with his government job.

The lawsuit contends the prisoners were beaten, suspended upside down from the ceiling by chains, urinated on, shocked, sexually humiliated, burned, locked inside boxes and subjected to mock executions.

posted by Brian Zick | 3 comments

Quote of the Day (10:49 am)

“I understand the inconsistency of my own statement.”

In trying to explain and clarify remarks made by Attorney General Gonzales, Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino during yesterday’s press briefing acknowledged the contradiction inherent to her referral to a CNN transcript while the White House steadfastly refuses to allow a transcript to be made when members of Congress question Carl Rove and Harriet Miers. The moment was captured and broadcast on Keith Olbermann’s show.

Crooks and Liars has the video.

posted by Brian Zick | start the discussion

What Goes Around Comes Around (7:18 am)

Tom Raum for AP observes a familiar pattern in Alberto Gonzales’ current struggle, his case simply being the latest of a high-profile government official getting caught up in what likely will be a career-ending scandal. In the course of referring to the departed officials from past presidential administrations, Raum recalls a noteworthy detail:

The first President Bush sacked chief of staff, John H. Sununu after congressional complaints of arrogance and misuse of a government plane. The elder Bush had his oldest son _ the current president _ give Sununu the nudge when the former New Hampshire governor didn’t seem to be getting the message.

Then, a bit further on in the article, Raum notes:

More lawmakers are calling for Gonzales’ resignation, including Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., the son of the chief of staff dismissed by Bush’s father.

posted by Brian Zick | start the discussion

Did DoJ Poison Pill the New Hampshire Phone-Jam-A-Rama Case? (6:31 am)

Via HuffPo, Peter Overby for NPR reports:

Questions about political pressure in the Justice Department are spilling over into the New Hampshire phone-jamming case.

Five years ago, New Hampshire Republicans jammed the phones of Democratic offices on Election Day, disrupting the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote efforts and blocking phone calls from voters seeking rides to the polls. More than two years later, the New England coordinator for the Republican National Committee — who green-lighted the scheme — was charged with a felony and convicted.

But last week, a federal appeals court overturned the conviction.

Democrats allege that Justice Department officials in Washington interfered in the case, and they want Congress to investigate.

posted by Brian Zick | 1 comment

Monday, March 26, 2007

DoJ’s Goodling May Not Be Able to Validly Invoke the Fifth Amendment (8:52 pm)

Josh Marshall has posted correspondence from a couple TPM readers who explain what the Fifth Amendment actually guarantees, and they argue that Monica Goodling has no basis in law to refuse to testify. The Fifth Amendment guards narrowly against self-incrimination, it does not broadly allow the refusal to testify. Only if Goodling has actually perpetrated a criminal offense, and is questioned specifically about it, can she invoke the Fifth. Otherwise, no foundation exists for her to refuse to answer questions in congressional hearings.

posted by Brian Zick | start the discussion

No Executive Privilege for Non Executive Partisan Political Operations (10:49 am)

Josh Marshall suggests that Bush’s prospective claims of Executive Privilege, to prevent public testimony under oath from Karl Rove, may have been nullified by Rove’s use of the RNC email system to evade governmental records archiving regulations.

posted by Brian Zick | start the discussion

Bush DoJ Official Finds Part of the Constitution Worth Keeping - the Fifth Amendment (10:12 am)

After the Bush administration having claimed that the Vice Presidency is a fourth branch of government, after having disposed of habeas corpus, after having trashed several Amendments, and after having claimed that Congress does not really have all the powers explicitly granted to it, now all of a sudden one senior Bush administration official has found a part of the Constitution she really really likes and wants to preserve.

Laurie Kellman for AP reports:

Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd.