What’s the deal with Congressional and Senate hearings? Why don’t the people who come before them get sworn in? None of the boys from the oil industry were sworn in (despite much protest,) and neither was Bush’s top attorney. Why aren’t they swearing these people in?
I guess that’s really a stupid question isn’t it? It’s obvious that they aren’t being sworn in because they don’t want to be accountable. But what does it matter? These chuckle heads don’t say anything anyway… They say things in the form of an opening statement, and then when asked to address questions from the legislature, the reply is America’s corporate mantra:
I’m sorry, there’s nothing I can do.
Attorney-General Alberto Gonzalez was brought before such a committee recently, his swearing in was waived by the head of the committee, and after making asinine remarks about George Washington’s electronic surveillance program as justification for the current administration’s conduct (wtf?), Gonzalez went on to fail to answer any further questions.
Oh sure, he said lots of cool stuff like “I’m not comfortable answering that question at this time…” ad nauseam, but he didn’t offer any insight, answer a single question, directly or indirectly. Same story with the oil executives, same story with Supreme Court nominees.
Believe it or not, the legislature is an equal body of government to the president. According to the constitution of the United States, we have three equal branches of government in order to protect the people from tyranny, and corruption. That said, where’s the opposition? And why doesn’t anyone care?
At a time when the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive branches of our government are all being controlled by the same party, there’s no love here. It’s simply being back handed and the motions are being walked through with a glorious snore. Why a snore? Because they’re covering their asses (poorly?) The hippies and all their hubbub still keeps them up at night? Because money and power really don’t buy happiness? How the fuck would I know? Your guess is as good as mine.
If I were a United States Senator sitting on one of these hearings [color=grey]fat chance pal[/color] I’d pound on the desk and shout at these clowns and get crabby on their asses:
[color=grey]“Attorney-General Gonzalez I don’t really care what you feel comfortable with or uncomfortable with, you are here today Sir, to answer our questions. Now will you kindly answer my question, or I’ll hold you in contempt and throw you in jail to think about your level of comfort with regards to your knowledge and experience with regards to illegal wire tapping Sir.”[/color]
And then I’d slam the gavel down really hard so the mic fed back.
And the Republicans are scared of old ineffective bad-face-lift Pelosi? It’s a good thing no one would ever vote for someone named Sunshine…
Fucking lame-asses. What’s wrong with you? [color=grey]What’s wrong with us?[/color]
5 Comments
people with power are always going to be worrying about how to stay in power, and how to get more power. that’s why their party doesn’t stand for ideals anymore- it stands for getting more power.
it’s a common misconception that you have to be sworn in to testify at a congressional hearing. some hearings you do, but the majority you don’t. that’s because they are not courts, and they can’t throw anyone in jail. they may think they can- but thank goodness they can’t. that’s why we have the separation of powers.
on the flipside though, it actually does serve a purpose not to have people sworn in at congressional hearings. however absolutely frustrating it can be when you know the slimeball is lying, or refusing to answer questions you think he should be answering- if we did require everyone to be sworn in at congressional hearings, how would that affect the participatory aspect of our government? it’s difficult enough to get people to participate, but what if they knew that they are accountable for possible legal ramifications of everything they say?
Interesting that you can be imprisioned for contempt of court, but not for contempt of congress. Can you be imprisoned for contempt of President? Hehehehe…
* holds out his amrs and sighs: take me away *
I just watched a foreign correspondant lats night http://abc.net.au/foreign/content/2006/s1567148.htm & Gore Videl rasised the same concerns that the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive branches were all pupets of smae administrations & was ereoding the biil of rights
That’s actually an interesting debate. There are people (that endangered species called “Moderate” among them) who believe that our government is better served with opposing parties in charge of the different branches because they will provide checks for each other. But then there are others who believe that it is better to have one party in both the white house and in control of congress because when there are opposing parties in the white house and congress, they spend all their time fighting one another and keeping one another’s initiatives and bills from getting passed that they don’t get anything (or much of anything done). There’s no right answer either- the constitution set it up so that either scenario could occur, legally, and legitimately.
courts have a completely different code of conduct and culture than does the congress, or the executive branch. while a judge can throw someone into jail for lying or being uncooperative, a judge can also get in big trouble for, say, discussing a case that is pending in court. But the opposite is true for Senators and Reps. It’s their job to talk about pending legislation with people- otherwise they could be accused of not getting enough public input!
Personally, I think the Dems are putting up a pretty good fight in Congress. Although they are still the minority, and they couldn’t do things like block Senate confirmations of Supreme Court Justices, the very fact that the Republicans worry at all about them is good for dissent, and dissent is good for a healthy democracy. After all, it was the lack of dissent that led to the “group-think” that got us all into believing that WMD bs and into Iraq because of it.