« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Supreme Court Refuses Appeal of Jefferson Decision
Roll Call reports (sub. req.) that the court has rebuffed the Justice Department's request for an appeal of last summer's decision.
That decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals in Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) case found that Constitutional protections meant that the feds could only search a Congressional office if the lawmaker was consulted. The lawmaker would also have the right to review materials. So instead of the feds raiding an office and taking material relevant to the investigation, the court suggested that FBI agents could lock down the office, and then allow the lawmaker to set aside Constitutionally protected documents. A judge would decide whether the records could be taken.
Because of the apparent strength of the feds' case against Jefferson, the decision is not likely to strike much of a blow there. But prosecutors and watchdogs were dismayed with a ruling that was a definite blow to public corruption prosecutions in general. As CREW's Melanie Sloan put it, "If I were Ted Stevens, and I had some evidence of wrongdoing, I'd be putting it in my Congressional office, because the court basically just issued a blanket cover against searches.... It's such a help to any corrupt members of Congress, since it offers so much more protection than was previously offered."
The Justice Department had argued in its request for an appeal that the decision "'threatens to complicate numerous ongoing and future investigations' and hinder the ability to use electronic surveillance" as a means of investigating lawmakers.
Rep. Rick Renzi's (R-AZ) lawyers have already signaled that the decision will play a role in their defense. And you can be sure that it will play a role in every prosecution of a lawmaker from here on out. Does the decision mean that prosecutors can't use wiretaps against lawmakers? Does it mean that the feds can't speak to legislative aides?
Josh
Zachary
not surprising....if they had taken it, they'd have had to rule on it and either protect their corrupt buddies or expose themselves to the possibility of raid and prosecution, for their own sins.
just gotta wait for 'em to die off and replace 'em with judges who respect the Law before Party
March 31, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwaaah! We wants our Imperial Executive back! Stooopid whiny COngressmen thinks they don't hafta do what we tells 'em? That's traitorous! Don' they know there's a War on???
Oh, nooo! we would never use those warrantses and sumpeenas for Politicks! Don' hafta! We's gots Natural Security letters!
Lessee... we's gots CIA, and we's gots FBI and NSA. We's even gots HIV, OCD, and KGB... yes, plenty of Natural Security letters.
Ooohh... nasty judges takes away our powers! We won't lets them! We'll wiretap 'em and find out where they rent their filthy horny videos ... an' where they come by all that pacifist pot they're smokin' ... an' what Sundays they miss goin' to church ... an' ... an' everything!
Yes, we won't need any warrantses to tap those nasty judges. We have friends at ATT! (Ooohh... more beautiful Natural Security letters!) Hmmm... gotta remember to pay the bill, tho....
Nooo... politicks gots nothin' to do with who we prosecute. Just proves we can be trusted to do raidin' an' in-breakin' to traitorous Congresswhinys offices on a by-partisanship basis. Jus' so long as they bein' Democrat or other liberal left-leanin' terrorsymps.
Sob! We sad. Fredo, go gets us our crown. We wants to polish it!
March 31, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is absolutely disgusting. Good luck weeding out corrupt officials.
March 31, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This may be unpopular but I'm glad SCOTUS upheld this part of the Constitution if for no other reason than it shows that the Constitution still means something and cannot simply be tossed aside by the DOJ or FBI. I think this was a good and important ruling. I'm probably one of the few that had thought this would be the right and final outcome from the beginning. Either we believe in the entire Constitution and protect it, or it will be picked apart piece by piece slowly but surely.
March 31, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it's not a bad play on the part of the Supreme Court. I mean, if they took this case (a fairly egregious example of the Executive barging in on the space (literally) of the Legislative branch), they might have to lay down precedent that would even further impede police effectiveness. But if they wait until there's a better case, they may be able to make a more nuanced determination of the interplay between the two branches.
As it stands now, the Court of Appeals decision isn't binding outside Washington. (I suppose, of course, that Washington is where it matters the most, though.)
March 31, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this ruling is a mixed blessing, but on the whole, I think it came down the right way. If the Congress and the Executive are co-equal branches of government, then it is extremely difficult to countenance the idea that one branch can send armed police to rifle through the offices of the other branch at its sole discretion. At the end of the day, we have to count on Congress to police itself. A slim hope, to be sure, since Jefferson's corruption seems obvious and the Dems. should have thrown him off the train a couple of years ago -- and didn't. But I agree with the minority, that this was probably the least bad outcome.
March 31, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute. This decision also protects innocent people who are being framed. We as citizens currently do not have rights if we are declared an enemy with not too much evidence.
Let's step back and look at the whole picture.
Point is, they need a damn solid case before they
storm an office.
March 31, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Upholding the Constitution? Who'da thunk it?
Cherry picking the Constitution is what has us in the current predicament which we are in.
March 31, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
figgypuddin
And the case is weak because the cash in the freezer was too cold?
March 31, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The upside of this decision, of course, is that the political apparatchiks Gonzalez&Co installed at DoJ have to shelve their lists of senators and representatives whose offices they would like to trash. Which is a really sad upside.
March 31, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is what the Gonzalez DOJ got us.
At least for now it seems like the court offers a glimmer of hope what appears to be repudiation of the tactics that got us the Alambama Gov.Siegelman "conviction" and how Eliot Spitzer was trapped.
This administration has gone amok. We need our country back, this is a baby step in that direction.
March 31, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The decision for the Supreme Court to "not hear" a case does not in itself dictate that the court has made a negative ruling. It could also mean several other things... too little time, too many cases... lack of interest by the justices, little Constitutional bearing, etc..
Just the fact that the court refuses to hear any case doesn't mean that a certain decision would come about by just hearing the case...
March 31, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
We rail against the government's spying on citizen's without a warrant, but we want the government to have the power to invade a Congressman's office anytime and for whatever reason it chooses. Aren't we dumb!
It should be plain on its face that under the Separation of Powers Doctrine the executive branch cannot do what the FBI did.
Oh, our motives are pure--to wrest out corruption. But give this power to a president whose motives are more political than pure and Congress will be destroyed as an independent branch. We already have a president of unpure motives.
The Court made the right decision this time.
March 31, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is such a false choice. Either:
1. Allow a powerful Executive branch of government to frame at will members of an impotent Legislative branch.
or
2. Allow a corrupt Legislative branch of government to hide all evidence of its own corruption.
April 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink