FBI Raid on Lawmaker’s Office Legal
From the Associated Press:
An FBI raid on a Louisiana congressman’s Capitol Hill office was legal, a federal judge ruled Monday.
Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said members of Congress are not above the law. He rejected requests from lawmakers and Democratic Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May 20-21 search of Jefferson’s office.
In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever raid on a congressman’s office violated the Constitution’s protections against intimidation of elected officials.
Jefferson’s theory of legislative privilege “would have the effect of converting every congressional office into a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime,” the judge said…
Thank you, Judge Hogan. As I said on this blog back in June, Congress’ power grab in seeking such an unprecedented privilege was reckless and dangerous. At least one judge has now shot this down and I personally believe the Appeals Court will do likewise. Score one for the People.
9 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Darn those despot Judicial Activists!
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — July 10, 2006 @ 7:08 pm - July 10, 2006
[...] Gay Patriot [...]
Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Rule Of Law Prevails Despite Democrats Efforts — July 10, 2006 @ 7:42 pm - July 10, 2006
[...] Sister Toldjah California Conservative Flopping Aces Wizbang Leaning Straight Up Gay Patriot Center for Sanity The Real Republican [...]
Pingback by Search of Congressman’s Office Ruled Legal at 4thelittleguy.com — July 10, 2006 @ 10:45 pm - July 10, 2006
It’s always funny when stupid people use words they don’t understand, like “Judicial Activism.”
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 8:45 am - July 11, 2006
Not that it will do any good, but here is an example of what is, and is not, judicial activism.
Comment by rightwingprof — July 11, 2006 @ 9:04 am - July 11, 2006
Rightwingprof: I read the site you linked & I don’t understand any better “what is, and is not, judicial activism.” To me, it still sounds like Judicial Activism is basically any ruling a person (polictically right, left, or otherwise) disagrees with.
Is there an example of a ruling you disagree but would not call “Judicial Activism?”
Comment by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion — July 11, 2006 @ 10:54 am - July 11, 2006
BTW: It wasn’t just the Democrats, the Speaker of the House was supporting the idea, too.
This ruling is fine with me because it’s like when the courts decided against Nixon to prove that the President wasn’t above the law. Personally, raids like this don’t seem likely to become a commonplace occurance in the near future.
Comment by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion — July 11, 2006 @ 11:03 am - July 11, 2006
#6 Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion — July 11, 2006 @ 10:54 am – July 11, 2006
Rightwingprof: I read the site you linked & I don’t understand any better “what is, and is not, judicial activism.” To me, it still sounds like Judicial Activism is basically any ruling a person (polictically right, left, or otherwise) disagrees with.
Your last point is basically correct. Recognize, though, that RightWingProf was merely advertising his web site.
Comment by raj — July 13, 2006 @ 9:29 am - July 13, 2006
Comment by YTUYT — July 14, 2006 @ 2:43 pm - July 14, 2006