The negative reviews of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' Senate Testimony are pouring in, even from those who might be expected to defend the Bush Administration. For example, here is the opening of Byron York's coverage on National Review Online:
Judging by his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, there are three questions about the U.S. attorneys mess that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wants answered: What did I know? When did I know it? And why did I fire those U.S. attorneys?
As the day dragged on, it became clear — painfully clear to anyone who supports Gonzales — that the attorney general didn’t know the answers. Much of the time, he explained, he didn’t really know much at all — he was just doing what his senior staff recommended he do.
Gonzales said he would resign when he concluded he could no longer be effective in his position. Is there any doubt he passed this point already? Senator Tom Coburn also asked an important question at the hearing: "Why should you not be judged by the same standards by which you judged these dismissed U.S. attorneys." It appears Gonzales did not have much of answer, prompting this response from Coburn:
I would just say, Mr. Attorney General, it’s my considered opinion that the exact same standards should be applied to you in how this was handled. And it was handled incompetently. The communication was atrocious. It was inconsistent. It’s generous to say that there were misstatements. That’s a generous statement. And I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered. And I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.
Those factions, and everyone else, need to think about what it will mean if George W. Bush refuses to do the right thing, and insists that Gonzales stay on for the sake of proving the President is The Decider. How will the GOP senators who now say publicly or privately that Gonzales is "no longer effective" actually behave differently if Bush continues to act out his obvious contempt for Congress?
Congress can't fire Gonzales, only the President can. These hearings were nothing more than a vehicle for grandstanding politicians to get their moments in the spotlight.
I wonder how Congress would react if a member of the Senate were hauled before the Justice Department with no evidence of illegality, only incompetence?
I don't think anybody in Congress believes that they can fire a member of the Executive branch.
I'm not really sure what you mean by a "member of hte Senate" getting "hauled before the Justice Department" with no evidence of illegality. The Justice Department isn't in the business of public hearings for individuals againts which it is contemplating the pursuit of a criminal sanction.
Congress has the power to legislate, and that necessarily includes the power to investigate. In this case, the possible misuse of the prosecution power might well lead to legislative reform; especially with regard to the need for senate confirmation of successor U.S. attorneys.
Your claim that congress has "no power" over members of the executive branch is anything but originalist (maybe you ought to call yourself "Loyalist Texan"). If nothing else, Congress has the power to demand that the executive to provide an explanation. Or don't you think that "checks and balances" apply to this administration?
Under Article II, Section 4:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:
The President can't use his pardon power to undo the effects of impeachment as Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 explicitly exempts impeachment:
Read your Constitution.
Oughta be if it's not.
If it's impeachable, the incompetent, politicized boobs in the Senate should probably think twice before pointing fingers.
but don't worry about spurious grounds, as the 2/3 requirement is a solid safeguard against solely political uses of the impeachment power. in the current senate, for example, there are 49 republicans, meaning that at least 16 (plus all 51 democrats and independents) would have to vote to remove gonzales.
Steve, would the Supreme Court be able to review the Senate's decision. While the Senate would still be the "sole power to try all impeachments", the Constitution is silent on the review of such verdict. And, because the Constitution plainly states that the President may not use his pardon power in cases of impeachment, does the omission of a restriction of judicial review by the Supreme Court mean anything?
But I think it pretty likely that the Court would declare it to be nonjusticiable. Six justices explicitly said so in Nixon v. U.S., and one more -- Souter -- was a little muddled on the subject. Only two justices, neither of whom are on the court any more (Blackmun and White) indicated a significant willingness for a judicial role. And even that seemed to be mainly limited to a review of procedural issues, not substantive ones.
How does one graduate from high school w/out having heard the phrase "checks and balances"?
I disagree with your generalization about National Review being "anti-Bush." On the biggest controversies involving the White House, DOJ, executive power and war-on-terror issues, the columnists and bloggers at NR and NRO have generally acted as a pro-Bush echo chamber.
I agree that the Supreme Court is unlikely to take such a case, but it isn't clear to me that the Constitution is explicit on this. I don't see that the fact that the Senate is granted "sole Power to try" impeachments implies that there can be no judicial review. Is there precedent for the interpretation of "try" as including appellate review?
I seem to recall that the Supreme Court has decided (US v Nixon? - the judge, not the former president) that it's a political question, thus non-justiciable, i.e. you can't appeal to the courts the decision of Congress to impeach you or of the Senate to remove you from office.
My thought also, though of course, that's also what I thought the Court would hold in Bush v. Gore. So who knows?
As for the question of appeal, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution; [...] to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; [...] In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Now, IAmNotALawyer, so I am not sure an Impeachment qualifies as matter under either Law or Equity. It may be arguably neither. An appeal to the hypothetical brown-socks impeachment might be heard on Equity grounds, and perhaps Cruel and Unusual Punishment (if no other offenders have been so punished), but impeachment for lying to congress would have no such hope. Probably the clearest thing would be if Congress were to pass a law expressly indicating that the Supreme Court would not have such jurisdiction for impeachments, but that would require more foresight than I expect the current body could potentially muster.
How can anyone defend this man as a president of the US? He ignores the will of the people, and defends a man who has no credibility left as AG. Is this anyway to run a country?
Nah, just 67% of the people. Shows character!
Here's how NR does "anti-Bush":Indeed. You start applauding less enthusiastically, and Bob From Ohio starts thinking you're "anti-Bush."
So I repeat my original comment above. What does everyone do now?
We all must consider how we will react to the President's intransigience. That applies especially to those Republican senators and conservative critics of Gonzales whose opinions are being spurned.