Bybee may have to face the music after all

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Pressing for Bybee to be impeached:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21780.html

Sad precedent.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sad precedent.

Impeaching a judge for breaching ethical standards he was required to uphold in a manner that resulted in the torture of who knows how many people?

I would say it would only be sad if he wasn't impeached.

I don't know Jay, but I know someone who is close to Jay who claims that Jay is tormented over his authorship of the memos and that he regrets the memos were ever used in the manner in which they were used by the administration (he feels betrayed by Bush because he, for whatever reason, didn't think Bush would use the memo as a justification for torture).

All that says to me is that he also knew what he did was unethical and inappropriate; he just hoped nobody would actually act on what he wrote.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Impeaching a judge for breaching ethical standards he was required to uphold in a manner that resulted in the torture of who knows how many people?

I would say it would only be sad if he wasn't impeached.

I don't know Jay, but I know someone who is close to Jay who claims that Jay is tormented over his authorship of the memos and that he regrets the memos were ever used in the manner in which they were used by the administration (he feels betrayed by Bush because he, for whatever reason, didn't think Bush would use the memo as a justification for torture).

All that says to me is that he also knew what he did was unethical and inappropriate; he just hoped nobody would actually act on what he wrote.

I've yet to hear a compelling case as to how Bybee broke any ethical standard. And even so, it's a true stretch to pull that allegation all the way to impeachment. You'd be hard pressed to find many cases of impeached federal judges on such flimsy standards.

This is nothing more than political retribution for folks too cowardly to go after Bush.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I've yet to hear a compelling case as to how Bybee broke any ethical standard. And even so, it's a true stretch to pull that allegation all the way to impeachment. You'd be hard pressed to find many cases of impeached federal judges on such flimsy standards.

This is nothing more than political retribution for folks too cowardly to go after Bush.

Why is it a stretch to impeach a judge for unethical conduct? You are aware, aren't you, that you can be disbarred for unethical conduct (and many are)? Is the standard for impeachment higher than the standard for disbarment? That would be odd, particularly if he were disbarred but not impeached.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I've yet to hear a compelling case as to how Bybee broke any ethical standard. And even so, it's a true stretch to pull that allegation all the way to impeachment. You'd be hard pressed to find many cases of impeached federal judges on such flimsy standards.

This is nothing more than political retribution for folks too cowardly to go after Bush.

the argument is that the document he produced was not an honest piece of scholarship.

Legal justification labeled as legal opinion.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Impeaching a judge for breaching ethical standards he was required to uphold in a manner that resulted in the torture of who knows how many people?

I would say it would only be sad if he wasn't impeached.

I don't know Jay, but I know someone who is close to Jay who claims that Jay is tormented over his authorship of the memos and that he regrets the memos were ever used in the manner in which they were used by the administration (he feels betrayed by Bush because he, for whatever reason, didn't think Bush would use the memo as a justification for torture).

All that says to me is that he also knew what he did was unethical and inappropriate; he just hoped nobody would actually act on what he wrote.

Sorry, I don't believe that he is that naive. "Come up with a document that justifies torture." "Ok."

....

Years later. "I thought it was just an intellectual exercise. I didn't know they would use it."

"Uh, yeah, maybe you really are that stupid. If you are, you don't deserve to be on the court."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why is it a stretch to impeach a judge for unethical conduct? You are aware, aren't you, that you can be disbarred for unethical conduct (and many are)? Is the standard for impeachment higher than the standard for disbarment? That would be odd, particularly if he were disbarred but not impeached.

I assume there are degrees of punishment, impeachment and/or disbarment being among the most severe.

I don't have at my fingertips the impeachment of every federal judge ever, but what I've read is that impeachment for a non-criminal "offense" like this that occurred prior to ever sitting on the bench is quite rare.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

the argument is that the document he produced was not an honest piece of scholarship.

Legal justification labeled as legal opinion.

That's the silliest rationale I think I've heard yet. Such a standard would lead to judges everywhere being impeached on political whim, or conversely, no general counsel ever willing to be open and frank with those whom he counsels.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I assume there are degrees of punishment, impeachment and/or disbarment being among the most severe.

I don't have at my fingertips the impeachment of every federal judge ever, but what I've read is that impeachment for a non-criminal "offense" like this that occurred prior to ever sitting on the bench is quite rare.



That's the silliest rationale I think I've heard yet. Such a standard would lead to judges everywhere being impeached on political whim, or conversely, no general counsel ever willing to be open and frank with those whom he counsels.

See this is the part you don't get. He wasn't the President's personal counsel. He was a lawyer working for the Justice Dept. He was a bureaucrat, he was working for the American people. He was supposed to maintain the commitment to the people and the Constitution and the rule of law that is implicit in working for the American people, not serve up whatever Bush and Cheney asked him to.

He was not "general counsel." He was an official in the Justice Dept.

Sorry, your spin doesn't work on me.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

See this is the part you don't get. He wasn't the President's personal counsel. He was a lawyer working for the Justice Dept. He was a bureaucrat, he was working for the American people. He was supposed to maintain the commitment to the people and the Constitution and the rule of law that is implicit in working for the American people, not serve up whatever Bush and Cheney asked him to.

He was not "general counsel." He was an official in the Justice Dept.

Sorry, your spin doesn't work on me.

Whatever, that's just semantics to me. There's no distinction in my mind between lawyers in the Justice Dept and lawyers in the White House, as it concerns "commitment to the people and the Constitution and the rule of law." No public sector lawyer gets a free pass on that, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think you've made the case that Bybee has. Moreover, even if you're right, you've not made a compelling case why that justifies impeachment.