Dismissing charges on former Sen. Ted Stevens.


You are a whiner about race relations, but you sure do know govt. misconduct in the DOJ when you see it, and how to at least convincingly pretend, to be non-partisan about your job.

Yay.

Bravo to that, for sure.

I hope Holder is being equally non-partisan with his determination that the proposed DC voting rights bill is constitutional. Apparently his intervention in that matter is unusual for an AG, or at least that's the impression I got from this article:Rest of the article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033104426.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR (I think you need to register and log in to see the article)

Holder has some history with this issue, so his view probably thought through. I just hope he is not getting proactive on the issue for political reasons.

It's a disgrace that DC residents don't have full voting representation in the House and Senate. If this bill proves to be unconstitutional, then lets get going with an amendment.

How odd, a fat cat crooked Republican pork barreller extraordinaire has "errors" so bad in his prosecution prosecuted by the Republican justice department, he gets to walk when the Dems come it. How odd.

How odd you seem so pissed off in every post you make here, whether it seems to be something you agree with or something you are against. How odd.

it seems like mr. holder possesses integrity.

that's a good thing, right?

(learned hand lives! )

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Hmmm . . . might be something there. Perhaps enough genuine malfeasance to be a problem so do something crooked with a side piece of the puzzle and give him the golden-judicial parachute of his dreams.

However, that said, congrats to Holder for showing how it's done.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

IIRC no insular areas have full representation- never have.

Your point being?

The Constitution spells out in detail how D.C. is handled. You would need an amendment to change that, although the Congress thinks it can do it through legislation.

The solution is to shrink the District to the area encompassing the Federal buildings and making the rest part of maryland, where they will have Senate seats and House seats. The district was originally carved out of Maryland.

This only comes up when Dems are in power because the District is a Dem stronghold and increasing Dem headcount in congress is the goal, not because they think those people are not represented.

__________________
MB-less

I wonder if the other shoe will drop and Holder investigates the alleged misconduct by the prosecutors.
As to DC, aren't the residents taxed by the Federal g'ment the same as residents of the several states? Taxation without representation comes to mind.

Maybe he's just not a very happy person.

__________________
1993 300E 2.8 185k miles
2006 Mustang Convertible 4.0 Eaton Supercharged

If you can't read and understand the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, why should you get special dispensation on where you live? Move out of D.C. if you want to be PROPERLY REPRESENTED. No one is FORCING ANYONE to live in an area that has been designated a NO VOTE ZONE by the Constitution.

When you buy a house, you know (or your attorney does) that there are certain covenants that pertain to residents within the D.C. proper...if you don't like 'em, move. Simple as that.

Congress can't change that provision of the Constitution WITHOUT proposing an amendment and the states have to vote on it.

Simple to understand.

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

Sounds like you don't agree with 'one man one vote' that has become a central concept of our government. When the constitution was written, the actual site for the seat of government was not yet decided. Further, when it was moved, the population was not nearly the size it is now. Most people agree that the founding fathers did not envision a major city arising in the district. Remember, although the Constitution is a well thought out document, it was created by flesh and blood people, who are fallible. The Constitution is a living document, and needs to be interpreted by the people using it. I think it is high time to allow the residents of D.C. to vote in national elections. After all, Congress is their 'state legislature', yet they can't even vote in the election of those officials. I don't think they should be treated as a separate state, with their own reps in the house and senate, but rather should be counted as part of Maryland or Virginia.
Start writing the amendment.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

That sounds right to me. Others, including Ken Starr (!), believe otherwise. Either way, we need to make the change.I don't see why that is better than giving Americans living in DC the same rights as other Americans.You are dead wrong. I'm sure that vote counts motivate many Democrats, but that is not the only reason people advocate for the Americans living in DC to have full voting representation in Congress.

I doubt integrity had much to do with it, the sham prosecution of former Top Porker Stevens didn't take place under his watch, it was done by Steven's Republican pals, who looks to me like they gamed the system to make sure one of their own didn't go to prison where he belonged, and Holder had no choice but to let him walk. This was a pretty much open and shut case, Stevens owned a home. The home was built by someone who benefited from Steven's actions in the Senate. End of case. Seems pretty odd that so much "prosecutorial misconduct" took place on such a simple case, this wasn't Enron, this was the guy's house, with paycheck stubs for workers and receipts for materials, all paid for by someone other than the mighty senator. Some hero you Republicans have, just like Libby, a proven perjurer, or Alberto Gonzalez who got political prosecutors appointed (gee, I wonder which one of them prosecuted Stevens?), or the war criminal murderers at the top, Bush and Cheney.