Skip to comments.
Support Grows For Judicial Memo Whistleblower (MemoGate)
Talon News ^
| 12-03-02
| By Jeff Gannon
Posted on 12/03/2003 6:37:14 AM PST by jmstein7
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Good -- we're not letting this one go.
1
posted on
12/03/2003 6:37:14 AM PST
by
jmstein7
To: jmstein7
Hatch is a joke - c'mon Utah, you can give us a better Republican Senator than that! Put him out to pasture.
To: over3Owithabrain
Committee Chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) told reporters he took the action because, "I am mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my watch."
This guy has consistently disappointed conservatives. Is it a morman thing or what?
To: jmstein7
Jonathan Stein of the Hofstra University Law Review believes that firing the staffer may be unconstitutional under whistleblower laws. He cites several cases to support his argument that the staffer's actions were consistent with his First Amendment Rights.
Wonder if the Whistleblowers law even applies to congress.
To: jmstein7
Can somebody please put Hatch on administrative leave for dereliction of duty?
5
posted on
12/03/2003 6:43:08 AM PST
by
Triple
(All forms of socialism deny individuals the right to the fruits of their labor)
To: ClintonBeGone
That's actually a misquote. What I said was that they have an actionable First Amendment claim which resembles a whistleblowing claim -- but its not quite the same.
6
posted on
12/03/2003 6:48:34 AM PST
by
jmstein7
To: jmstein7
Couple of thoughts. First of all, the "leaker" better land on his feet somewhere else in the GOP machine. Politics is dirty business, and this guy knows how to play.
Second, I'm not sure Congress should be able to classify documents as confidential if they are simply correspondence. The FOIA should apply to all Congressional documents not classifed due to national security or other legal concerns.
Thirdly, can you imagine the level of press outrage if such information was revealed and the GOP was the culprit?
7
posted on
12/03/2003 6:52:10 AM PST
by
Mr. Bird
To: jmstein7
When are the voters of Utah going to wise up and throw this half-assed Hatch-Back out to the junkheap of history?
This smarmy lttle wimp of a traitor only shows a backbone when he's attacking his own team.
8
posted on
12/03/2003 6:57:59 AM PST
by
ctonious
To: Mr. Bird
My thoughts exactly. I have not heard one TV news report about this. I wonder why?
To: Mr. Bird
Unless things have changed radically in the last few years, FOIA (the federal law) applies only to the Executive branch of government, and not the Legislative or Judicial. Whether it should or not is a different question.
To: jmstein7
Nice work! Props to Kay and Jeff!
11
posted on
12/03/2003 7:03:35 AM PST
by
diotima
To: Tired_of_the_Lies
Really? I thought court records were covered. Certainly, the operative word is should.
12
posted on
12/03/2003 7:04:39 AM PST
by
Mr. Bird
To: Mr. Bird
Public access to court records is not covered by the FOIA, or at least wasn't a few years ago.
I can't speak definitively to how or why court records are open to the public, but it is likely derivitive. in criminal trials at least, of the accused right to a fair and open trial under the Constitution and, in both civil and criminal trials, partly to the right of freedom of the press.
Whtever the legal analysis, court records were generally open to the public long before the FOIA was enacted in the aftermath of Watergate.
To: jmstein7
Hatch is a Dem stooge. We should be focusing on the content of the memos. Instead, Hatch is deflecting onto this poor staffer. Thank you, Sen. Hatch.
14
posted on
12/03/2003 7:16:52 AM PST
by
kevao
To: jmstein7
That's actually a misquote. What I said was that they have an actionable First Amendment claim which resembles a whistleblowing claim -- but its not quite the same.
Ha! That's you cited in the article. I missed that on first blush. You've provided an interesting theory, but is there any authority upon which to base it? It would appear that the GOP staffer has rather unclean hands, at least from a legal perspective. How do you establish too that the judicary staffer, possible a lawyer himself, had some reasonable basis to believe that the democrats memos contain evidence of illegal activity? Especially if he didn't know what the memos contained until he read them.
To: Mr. Bird
Second, I'm not sure Congress should be able to classify documents as confidential if they are simply correspondence. The FOIA should apply to all Congressional documents not classifed due to national security or other legal concerns.
FOIA may not even apply to congress. It all depends on whether they included themselves when they wrote the law. Some state legislatures have exempted themselves.
To: Mr. Bird
Really? I thought court records were covered. Certainly, the operative word is should.
It's usally defended in some lame 'seperation of powers' arguement.
To: jmstein7
Very nice... this helps put the focus back on the Democrats' wrongdoing instead of their synthetic outrage over how the memos were revealed.
To: over3Owithabrain
He will be replaced next year, at least as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, by Arlen Specter. You'll be pining for the days of Hatch before the snow melts.
19
posted on
12/03/2003 7:42:31 AM PST
by
seamus
To: Mr. Bird
What the memos revealed was the Dems working hand-in-glove with lobbyists, even to the point of re-scheduling hearings at their request. Isn't this precisely the sort of unhealthy arrangement with lobbyists that the Dems (especially Henry Waxman) have been telling us the public has a right to know about, and which formed the basis of their legal challenge to obtain Cheney's memos regarding the energy task force? Doesn't the public have a "right to know" about the iner workings of the Dems as well as the Republicans?
20
posted on
12/03/2003 7:47:10 AM PST
by
Steve_Seattle
("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson