Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FDL - Libby won't like this Supreme Court Decision!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 10:21 AM
Original message
FDL - Libby won't like this Supreme Court Decision!


Well, so much for that hazy “people convicted of perjury and lying to federal agents during the course of an investigation didn’t really commit crimes and oughtn’t go to jail, and they never prosecute that anyway” talking point malarky. And it comes from the US Supreme Court, too:

The case that the court decided yesterday, Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754, was meant to help define “advisory.”

Victor Rita, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, asked for a lighter sentence based in part on his past military service. But the judge gave him 33 months, as suggested by the guidelines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld the sentence, saying that penalties within the guidelines are “presumptively reasonable.”


Hmmmm…he committed perjury while under oath before a federal grand jury which was investigating his allegedly criminal actions and he also lied to federal agents. And federal prosecutors brought this case against him, tried him in a court of law and a jury of his peers convicted him, and then a federal judge sentenced him under the federal sentencing guidelines applicable to his conduct, with a bump up for an enhanced penalty for the underlying crime related to the investigation.Now why does that sound familiar, I ask myself?


You have to read the entire thing. It is beautiful.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
VP505 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well sooo what,
we all know that "Scooter" is such an outstanding citizen and has done sooo much good public service that this couldn't possibly apply to him. Doncha know that he and all the Bu$h cabal are just way above what's applicable to some peon! :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. But Scooby's service ...
was superior to the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. yeah - my bad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. The Supreme Court overturned lower court rulings and all precedent, in order to
install this criminal cabal in the White House, in 2000, and, although the climate seems to be shifting against the cabal (talk about climate change--floods and hurricanes of disclosure of their perfidy), the Supreme Court is even more entrenched with truly fascist judges now, than it was in 2000.

The 4th circuit (known as one of the most "conservative") issued another blow to the Bushites the other day, in a case about indefinite detention and military tribunals. Can't recall the name of it (Arab name, hard to remember). But we must realize the possibility that these lower court rulings are cosmetic--to give an appearance of return to the rule of law--while the Supreme Court lurks, waiting for the chance to spring Bushite criminals like Libby, and keep the big honchos safe, and possibly, in addition, to reinforce outrageous concepts like the "unitary executive," presidential "signing statements," massive government secrecy, the VP's office as its own branch of government, and the sacred right of Bushite corporations to count all our votes with "trade secret" programming.

We were all quite helpless, in 2000, to prevent the Supreme Court from crowning a king. What could we do if they just nixed all these "rule of law" decisions?

There are things we could do, long term (sick a special prosecutor on them to dog their every hunting party, and impeach them; "pack the Supreme Court"--add to the number of justices--as FDR tried to do; amend the Constitution to shorten their terms, or subject them to a vote of the people). We ARE the SOVEREIGNS of this land, and can do whatever we want and need to do, to protect our interests, at least in theory. But first we have to get back our right to vote from these Bushite insider hackers who are fiddling the elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC