Infoholic...You beat me to this one. You're even using the same source I found!
Oh well, instead of posting the news itself, I'll just post my comments.
Just to make my comments a bit more clear, most of my comments are based directly upon direct quotes in the news source, but I'm going to make people
link to the source and read it, instead of me quoting what you've already linked to.
Dismissing the case on "jurisdictional grounds" in a Federal
Court when the violations were commited by people in the Federal
Government? Dismissing the case because the Judge wasn't going to "express an opinion" involving the Constitution? Huh?
Since when are Government Officials "immune" to being charged for commiting violations of the Constitution? The Constitution is clear in such cases:
Congressional Trial for Impeachment (removal from Office) followed by Judicial Trial for the specific crimes to enforce Court Ruling & Lawful
Why would "Hizzoner" John Bates need to make
an opinion on the Constitution when all he really needed
was to make a Ruling based from
the Constitution? At worst, all he would have needed is a Recess long enough to review
the Constitution, not dismiss
the case out of
hand! This just goes to show what happens when a President "stacks the courts" for political gain.
How stupid does Bates think People are, anyway?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Govenment Officials acting in violation of Constitutional writ while in Office considered to be an Impeachable
Offense? And where better to establish the facts on such Constitutional Offenses than in Federal Jurisdictional Court?
IMO, Plame should now take this "judicial dismissal" to Congress & press for Impeachment (in the Judicial and
the Executive) for the improper
rulings in her case. Even if a Judge's term is "for good behavior," doesn't mean that he can't be removed
for displaying "bad
[edit on 19-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]