Comments on: Rove Ignores Subpoena, Refuses To Testify

Former Bush Adviser A No-Show At Hearing On Alleged Political Pressure At Justice Dept.

Add a Comment See all 762 Comments
by rafterman1 July 11, 2008 11:01 AM EDT
===Really. No wonder their approval rating is in the single digits. I was taught about the separation of powers even in public school===
posted by cfin5

No, Congress''s single digit approval is due mostly to Republican efforts to obstruct the business at hand. e.g., Repub attempts to filibuster a new Medicare bill.

But ever hear of sone that is part of separation of powers - checks and balances? Apparently not, as you seem to only selectively remember how our government works.
Reply to this comment
by patriot12436 July 11, 2008 10:51 AM EDT
emelder
I respect all religions, but it seems to me a lot of soldiers die fighting for christain values. It may take a war to end the needless wars, i can only hope if this happens it will succeed in ending all the needless bloodshed.
Reply to this comment
by honestabe8 July 11, 2008 10:45 AM EDT
Patriot: It does seem like a reasonable outcome.
Reply to this comment
by patriot12436 July 11, 2008 10:45 AM EDT
Who is Drew Shelt ? Nver heard of him but willing to consider any other candidate at this point.
Reply to this comment
by patriot12436 July 11, 2008 10:39 AM EDT
If Rove serves time it will be in a plosh country club reserved for a few political types, where he will be allowed to continue doing business as usual and write a book which will make him a fortune, then retire into a private sector job arranged by those he protected where he will make even more millions.
Reply to this comment
by patriot12436 July 11, 2008 10:35 AM EDT
I can just imagine the average citizen receiving a sopoena and saying , no thank you i don''t think i will testify.
Reply to this comment
by patriot12436 July 11, 2008 10:32 AM EDT
martha44
It wasn''t personal, he was just practicing for when he became a politician.
Reply to this comment
by patriot12436 July 11, 2008 10:29 AM EDT
jumboy
That is because the 9yh appelletate supreme court is known for its radical stance. Everything happens there that one can imagie.
Reply to this comment
by juwboy July 11, 2008 9:30 AM EDT
hadenough43:

Instead of relying solely on my memory, I`ve researched the case of California Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk. Although some of the minor details I presented are factually in error, the broad picture is substantially correct.

In 1979, Mosk was subpoenaed to appear before the California Commission on Judicial Performance which was investigating alleged misconduct by members of the state Supreme Court.

Mosk refused to appear and petitioned in a county superior court for the subpoena to be quashed. The request was denied so he took the petition to the California Court of Appeal, which granted his request.

The Commission on Judicial Performance then appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court of which Mosk was, of course, a member (!).

All of the other Associate Justices voluntarily disqualified themselves from hearing the appeal, so the decision was made by the Chief Justice, Rose Bird, who upheld the original superior court decision to quash the subpoena.

More legal wrangling ensued, but it was finally decided that Rose Bird was in order in making her decision and had the authority to do so.

In 1986, when the Justices came up for retention or recall, Bird was kicked out but Mosk was re-appointed (the recall elections take place at 12-year intervals, not 6, as I originally stated).



Reply to this comment
by cfin5 July 11, 2008 9:26 AM EDT
Considering it''''s none of Congress''''s business I''''d tell them to go pound sand to.

They want to micromanage the Executive branch.

Posted by Latrocinor at 05:58 AM : Jul 11, 2008-----Really. No wonder their approval rating is in the single digits. I was taught about the separation of powers even in public school and why,.....wonder how they would like being hauled onto the Oval Office carpet for not voting the way the President wanted them too. They''d have a hissed up conniption in front of all available cameras and hot mic''s. By Carl Rove submitting to their beckon, he would be accomplice to violating this set separation. Just because someone wears a badge doesn''t mean they always follow the law.
Reply to this comment
by ahrats July 11, 2008 9:20 AM EDT
Rove should be sent to Git-mo till he testifies and share a cell with his terriorist friends. As the presidents advisor he was lousy. He is one of the reasons this country is in the mess its in. HE wanted war with Iraq, loose government regulation on housing and banks, and gave away the name of a CIA operative just for starters. Remember he''s a oil guy and is probally making lot of bucks on the high oil prices.
Reply to this comment
by latrocinor-2009 July 11, 2008 8:58 AM EDT
Considering it''s none of Congress''s business I''d tell them to go pound sand to.

They want to micromanage the Executive branch.
Reply to this comment
by July 11, 2008 8:50 AM EDT
Posted by juwboy
--------------------
Funny thing about these things...
I can''t find any documentation regarding a California Judge ignoring a subpoena, but I can find documentation of Rose Bird being the victim of a pro-business, conservative hit job.
Reply to this comment
by juwboy July 11, 2008 8:28 AM EDT
An even more egregious refusal of this type happened about 30 years ago when Stanley Mosk, a California Supreme Court Justice, a person whose function is to uphold the law, refused to answer to a subpoena served on him.

California Supreme Court Justices are not appointed for life, but are subject to recall or re-appointment by the voters at regular intervals (6 years, IIRC).

When Mosk`s time was up, the moron voters re-appointed him, although several other Justices, such as Rose Bird, were kicked out.

So much for Joe Citizen`s belief in law and order!
Reply to this comment
by July 11, 2008 7:58 AM EDT
Posted by brianbwb
---------------------------
It ain''t no parlor game, it''s very serious business.

I remember somebody (can''t remember who) once stating: "politics is a blood sport".

Be nice if folks would remember that when they vote.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 July 11, 2008 7:50 AM EDT
"As for the dems having their own roles examined - I ain''''t that sure that any of ''''em who voted for the war are gonna survive re-election (if they''''re up for re-election). In any case, they can claim they were lied to, just like the rest of us."

Point taken, I just hope that the dems who get voted out won''t be replaced by a new crop of neocon-derthal war mongering repubs, rather that a dem runs against them, and sweeps them out.

Actually, I was thinking about repatriating and trying for a rep seat, but California has such a bloodthirsty clique, I probably would be killed, then elected post mortem, fat lot of good that would do...; )
Reply to this comment
by harpoot July 11, 2008 7:49 AM EDT
The Bush administration is above the law. Everything they do is illegal/extralegal. They thumb their collective noses at the citizens. GOP mafia.
Reply to this comment
by July 11, 2008 7:41 AM EDT
Posted by brianbwb
----------------
Hmmm, I can see your point. Thing of it is...
Bush is already so corrupt, one more pardon of one more crook won''t add much.
I suspect that there is already gonna be a Guinness-record-type Democrat landslide, or at least enough to make ''em filibuster proof.
As for the dems having their own roles examined - I ain''t that sure that any of ''em who voted for the war are gonna survive re-election (if they''re up for re-election). In any case, they can claim they were lied to, just like the rest of us.
And, for any other results, politically or otherwise, that a pardon may have - one sure result would be that Rove would skate. Which may be the reason he''s thumbing his nose at congress, he want''s some immediate action so he can get to the pardon that he knows will surely come....
Reply to this comment
by oneworldusa July 11, 2008 7:24 AM EDT
In private, with no oath?

Talk about a serious cover-up.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 July 11, 2008 7:17 AM EDT
Sorry, meant "prosecution" trying to type while eating lunch.
Reply to this comment
See all 762 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more. Watch Now

  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Lambert: Offering No Apologies

    (442 recent comments)

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: