Supreme Court Won't Review FBI's Congress Office Raid: Jefferson raid unconstitutional

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: NYT/Reuters

By REUTERS
Published: March 31, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday that it won't overrule a decision that FBI agents violated the rights of a Democratic congressman during a search of his office, a decision the Bush administration says will hamper future public corruption investigations.

The justices declined to review a U.S. appeals court ruling that the FBI was wrong to confiscate legislative files from the office of Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana, who faces bribery charges involving $90,000 found in his freezer. It marked the first time that federal law enforcement agents had ever searched the office of a member of Congress and prompted a clash between Congress and the administration over its constitutionality.

The appeals court ordered the FBI to give Jefferson back all privileged legislative files and copies of files taken from his office during the 18-hour raid in May of 2006. The appeals court said FBI agents should not have viewed documents in the office without first giving Jefferson the opportunity to say the material involved legislative business....

***

In appealing to the Supreme Court, administration lawyers said the appeals court's ruling would effectively prevent any searches of congressional offices and threatened to impede searches of lawmakers' homes, vehicles or briefcases.

Jefferson's lawyers said the appeals court correctly concluded the Constitution bars compelled disclosure of legislative material to the executive branch during a search. Allowing review of such material would impair legislative activities, they said. The Supreme Court sided with Jefferson and rejected the administration's appeal without any comment.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-crime-congress.html

[truebrit71]

1. Wow...who would have thunk it?

The SCOTUS upholding the separation of powers...is it getting a little chilly in Hell today?

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Feeling a breeze! nt

[Baby Snooks]

4. The majority

The majority of the court is Roman Catholic which many have questioned and many have objected to but in the end it may prove that their faith prevails over any possible personal agenda and they will do what they were put on the benches to do simply out of the conviction of conscience and that is ensure the balance of powers under the Constitution and act to preserve the principles of the Constitution when those principles are threatened by the legislative or the executive branch.

This of course applied to so many other acts by this administration, and by this Congress, is at least a little glimmer of hope, a little ray of light at the end of a very long tunnel we must travel to get back to where we should be in this country.

[Wilber_Stool]

13. Baby

"The majority of the court is Roman Catholic which many have questioned and many have objected to but in the end it may prove that their faith prevails over any possible personal agenda and they will do what they were put on the benches to do simply out of the conviction of conscience and that is ensure the balance of powers under the Constitution and act to preserve the principles of the Constitution when those principles are threatened by the legislative or the executive branch."

This is one of the longest punctuated sentences I have ever seen. I think it is grammatically correct as well. I think I'll put this in my files and the next time I see a grammar Nazi I'll check.
Oh, by the way, I hope you're right.

[merwin]

15. I think that many would consider it a run-on sentence.

While grammatically correct, a sentence this long is awkward :)

[bean fidhleir]

16. It's not grammatically correct.

(The majority of the court is Roman Catholic) which ((many have questioned) and (many have objected to)) but (in the end it may prove that their faith prevails over any possible personal agenda) and (they will do (what they were put on the benches to do) simply out of the conviction of conscience) and that is (((ensure the balance of powers under the Constitution) and (act to preserve the principles of the Constitution) when those principles are threatened by the legislative or the executive branch.)"

Grammatical problems:

What have many questioned? That the majority is RC? That's how it reads, but it don't make no sense

What is the "but" contrasting? There is no assertion, apart from the assertion of RCness, to which the "but" could be opening a contrasting statement. But the statement following the "but" doesn't counter the assertion of RCness; both parts make additional statements orthogonal to the original.

What are all the "ands" doing? They're inappropriately serving as surrogate whiches and thats.

This would be grammatically correct, though awkward as hell:

The majority of the court is Roman Catholic, THE APPROPRIATENESS OF which many have questioned and many have OR objected to, but WHICH in the end it may prove BEARABLE IF that their faith prevails over any possible personal agenda and they will do what they were put on the benches to do, simply out of the conviction of conscience) and that WHICH is TO ensure the balance of powers under the Constitution, and act to preserve the principles of the Constitution when those principles are threatened by ONE OF THE OTHER BRANCHESthe legislative or the executive branch."


Courtesy of the local grammar pedant

[bemildred]

17. Damn, now you have done went and cleared it up. nt

[kestrel91316]

3. Congress now has its own official version of "executive privilege".

Need I say how utterly DELIGHTED I am???

Yay, hooray! Score one for US, for once!!

[Igel]

5. Yes.

So Delay shouldn't have turned over his e-mails. Perhaps he can argue that they're still protected and he turned them over under the assumption that they could be seized. That would also be "scoring one for us", since that's the most important thing. Partisanship as principle, victory as virtue.

It's a bad precedent: A pragmatic one that says better separation of powers in order to preserve the appearance of propriety even if it means that impropriety is now protected. All you have to do is keep your corruption in the office and keep witnesses from squealing: Then it's protected.

I thought the original court's crafting of a protection mechanism was fair and reasonable.

(As I said when the issue came around, kill your competition and keep them and the murder weapon in a fridge in the office. You're safe as long as nobody rats on you, because the body and the murder weapon are constitutionally protected.)

Then again I thought Kelo was a bad decision, even though it was also "a victory for us"--Kelo was a suit against a dem-majority city government, and the dems won: so in fact, it *was* a victory for dems. Not one widely claimed, of course. Yeah us.

[Peace Patriot]

7. The Constitution says nothing about "executive privilege" for the President, but

it says a whole lot about protecting members of Congress from the President.

You might want to read the document, and the history of why those provisions are in there.

[John Kerry VonErich]

19. Be careful what you wish for.

This a double edged sword.

[dogfacedboy]

22. I agree. I believe that this sets up roadblocks to

the investigation of those who currently control and direct the SCOTUS.

[BanzaiBonnie]

6. This is confusing

I'm not sure whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. I was hoping that if Jefferson has done something illegal it would have been on the way to trial by now.

[Peace Patriot]

8. Lord, you people! READ the Constitution, and then read the [i]history[/i] as to

why members of Congress must have--and do have--special protections against interference from the Executive on any excuse!

If you don't understand what "equal branch of government" means, then you must want a monarchy, where the king can pull the opposition off the street, or out of parliament, "on charges"--for instance, during crucial votes, or just to harass and intimidate them.

PLEASE understand this. I beg you! It is the essence of our democracy.

The remedy for corrupt Congress critters is THE PEOPLE--our votes. The President has NO SAY over who goes and comes in Congress. NONE! And the President CANNOT use the police powers of the executive branch to impede a Congress member in any way, for any reason. IF the corruption is bad enough, Congress itself--and ONLY Congress--can remove a member, who THEN becomes subject to arrest, conviction and imprisonment. And they then call for appointment (by an elected official from that state--usually the governor) or a new election to the rest of that term. If the people vote a felon into office, nobody but Congress--the most representative branch of government--can do anything about it until that term of office is over. And protection of the Congress member of course extends to protection of his/her papers and most certainly his/her office in this EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

Yes, this CONSTITUTIONAL protection of Congress members can be abused. But the principle of protection of Congress FROM the President is so strong, and so important, that it overrides any other consideration.

You want the cops to go after Congress members? Go live in Pakistan!

[DeepModem Mom]

9. I love your passion for our Constitution, PP -- thanks for the post! nt

[psychmommy]

10. what about the harassment mckinney recv'd from the

guards. where were her protections. that was surely intimidation to keep her mouth closed?

[Peace Patriot]

18. Yes, I totally agree. And I said so at the time. In fact, McKinney had an obligation

to RESIST any effort to impede her entrance into Congress. Probably her shoving, or whatever she did to the guard who put an arm on her, was a reflex defensive action, but she was entirely within her rights--AND her obligations--to resist it. She should have been 100% backed up by the Democratic--not to mention the Republican (they, too, have obligations to their oaths of office)--Congressional leaders. But they don't like McKinney cuz she don't like their goddamned war. Well, when the cops come after THEM--maybe they'll regret their failure to defend their rights and protections under the Constitution.*

The Supreme Court recently let stand a lower court ruling that the FBI cannot go rifling through Congress members' offices and files, as they did to Congressman Jefferson--no matter what they have accused them of.** They have to return those illegally obtained stolen documents to him. There is no such thing as "probable cause" when it comes to Congress members. The Executive branch (FBI, DoJ, DoD, NSA, etc.) has NO RIGHTS within the walls of Congress. None!

And that is why the Supreme Court ruled that way. We're not that far gone yet, down the road to an emperorship--or (not to be dismissed) this fascist Supreme Court may be worried about a future Democratic president rifling through a few Republican files in Congress. It goes both ways. (--IF a Democrat is permitted to enter the White House this time around.)

-----

*(It was Capitol Hill police, pre-2006--that is, with Bushites in control of Congress--and I'm really not sure who that police force answers to. But it doesn't matter. NO PERSON--no matter what badge they may be wearing--can impede a member of Congress from entering Congress. Period. Until that member of Congress is removed from office by the voters, or impeached, convicted and removed from office BY CONGRESS itself, NO ONE can impede their Congressional business, or their entry into Congress, or their travel to Congress. No one! They are members of an EQUAL branch of the federal government, with special Constitutional protections.)


**(There is a hilarious DoJ statement in the news article I just googled, re Rep. Jefferson:

"If allowed to stand, the ruling also would essentially prevent investigators from searching lawmakers' offices because it requires the FBI to give the lawmakers advance notice, the (Bushite Justice) department said in its argument to the Supreme Court.

"'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."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004317334_apscotusraidoncongress.html?syndication=rss

And, with that, the DoJ lawyers' noses began to grow very long--and everybody in the courtroom including the judge started laughing at them.)

[psychmommy]

20. i just love it , when they get put in their place.

maybe the supremes realized that they could be next and had to shoot that stuff down. thanks for the post it's been real interesting.

[DCKit]

11. Well said. n/t

[marshall]

21. I agree--if his electorate don't like what he is accused of doing, don't vote for him

Otherwise it's nobody's business how much money he chooses to store in his freezer or where he gets it from.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

12. So, the neocons' executive as SUPREME position has taken yet another hit!

That's good! VERY GOOD! Maybe, we'll regain some sense of democracy in this country.

[lark]

14. Dem has to win next election

if we are to see any change of course. McCain is more of the same.