President Barack Obama today asserted executive privilege over documents long sought by Congress in the investigation of the “Fast and Furious” operation. The assertion in my view is facially overbroad and excessive. It is the latest example of sweeping claims of executive power and privilege by this Administration. Congress has ample reason to investigate this operation, which involves alleged criminal acts that may have resulted in the death of third parties, including a U.S. agent. The Justice Department is accused of complicity in one of the most ill-conceived and harmful operations in recent years. The very officials and agency accused of wrongdoing is claiming that it can withhold documents from a committee with oversight responsibilities.
The position of the Justice Department on the issue seems hopelessly conflicted. On one hand, the White House and Justice Department have stressed that Obama did not review these documents to protect him from the political backlash over the operation. Yet, it is claiming sweeping privilege over Justice Department documents. It is precisely the type of executive privilege claim that many of us denounced during the Bush Administration. The Administration is left with deliberative process rather than a presidential communication privilege since these documents were not “solicited and received” by the President
In a letter by Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the Justice Department refused to turn over the documents on the basis of privilege. The letter was delivered shortly before a scheduled contempt vote. The full House would have to approve the measure for Holder to be held in contempt.
Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., on Wednesday informing him that the president has granted the request.
The documents were written from February 2011 and afterward detailing how Justice officials learned about the Fast and Furious probe. Holder insists that they fall within the “deliberative process” privilege. The position however could sharply curtail the ability of Congress to be a check and balance in such controversies. Any documents prepared in response to such a controversy would be viewed as deliberative process. This claim is generally used in discovery in civil litigations and Freedom of Information Act requests. It is the most frequently invoked executive privilege in the federal courts. However, the documents must be both “predecisional” as well as “deliberative.”
The use of the privilege in my view raises serious questions over the separation of powers in the tripartite system. The deliberative process privilege is not constitutionally based and “disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct [has] occurred.” In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 729, 745 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
The Justice Department has long tried to expand the deliberative process privilege to allow it the same sweeping protections that come with presidential communications. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the notion that agency employees are chilled by congressional inquiries in NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co:
The probability that the agency employee will be inhibited from freely advising a decisionmaker for fear that his advice if adopted, will become public is slight. First, when adopted, the reasoning becomes that of the agency and becomes its responsibility to defend. Second, agency employees will generally be encouraged rather than discouraged by public knowledge that their policy suggestions have been adopted by the agency. Moreover, the public interest in knowing the reasons for a policy actually adopted by an agency supports [disclosure].
My greatest concern rests with the impact on checks and balances in a system already left anemic by ever-expanding claims of executive power.
Source: ABA Journal
“Of course, you’re going to try to rationalize away that you said metonymy when you should have said synecdoche, anon.
” Sometimes, however, people make an absolute distinction between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche. ”
We call such people precise and professionally trained rhetoricians.”
Instead of pounding your lap about this Gene, all you have to do is edit the Wikipedia and change:
“Sometimes, however, people make an absolute distinction between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche. ”
to:
“Precise and correct usage of metonymy differentiates it from synecdouche, and excludes synecdouche from metonymy [citation]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metonymy&action=edit§ion=5
I think this is the first time I have seen the word ‘synecdoche’ used in a conversation since I was in graduate school. That was, um….mumble, mumble…years ago.
Tell the truth, anon. You’re a legacy from Harrisburg, aren’t you?
Of course, you’re going to try to rationalize away that you said metonymy when you should have said synecdoche, anon.
” Sometimes, however, people make an absolute distinction between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche. ”
We call such people precise and professionally trained rhetoricians.
LK
yes, but can it play a piano?
““Okay, so I’m using a word in imprecisely the way that the Wikipedia entry for that word says is the way the word is used, and you call that an error.”
Since imprecision is a form of error, yes, I am. Again, the problem isn’t the device, anon, but rather your superficial and incomplete understanding of it.”
Of course, the Wikipedia doesn’t say it’s imprecise to use it how I use it.
It doesn’t say the way I use it is informal, non-standard, colloquial, or vulgar.
No, it gives the way I use it AS its definition and then goes on to state
” Sometimes, however, people make an absolute distinction between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche. ”
We call such people synecdouches.
Gyges, LOL, I would hope for nothing else.
Her inference with “no means no” which the Speaker said was the objectionable part of her comment, was a very well turned rhetorical flourish with a deep socio-political resonance; rape is not about sex, it’s about power. The Michigan House was hoist on its own Petard.
raff,
“Okay, so I’m using a word in imprecisely the way that the Wikipedia entry for that word says is the way the word is used, and you call that an error.”
Since imprecision is a form of error, yes, I am. Again, the problem isn’t the device, anon, but rather your superficial and incomplete understanding of it.
well.
this looks like pure un-adulterated vagina envy.
sorry guys, you don’t have one.
you can be angry about it, or you can accept what G*d gave you graciously.
I find it exeedingly ugly that so many gripe about what the other sex has when none of us would be here if it weren’t for that essential contribution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgEXRKIZRvc&feature=related
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgEXRKIZRvc&w=560&h=315%5D
Gene,
Just what kind of doctor are you? 🙂
Malisha; “I have this on good authority from the Uterod”
****
What! Are you still getting their e-newsletter? I haven’t heard from them in a couple of months, I better check my e-checkbook and make sure I’m current in my dues. Thanks for reminding me, girlfriend. 🙂
.
.
.
.
(You crack me up.)
Lotta,
“LOL, that’s right, my vagina reads minds, votes, makes small household repairs and can program a VCR. :-)”
But can it get you banned from speaking to the Michigan State House?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/06/14/155059849/michigan-state-rep-barred-from-speaking-after-vagina-comments
LOL, what with all us “vagina voters” this year those voting machine manufacturers are going to have to start making those machines closer to the ground; even on my tip-toes and my best day…. 🙂
Do we now get to start calling people who vote for candidates that have or vote anti-women policies “dickhead voters”? Seems appropriate to me. 🙂
Ya know anon, even on the interwebs people give off a ‘vibe’. Maybe the reason people call you a misogynist is your vibe. It always strikes me when you get on one of your rants that while you may be using the word vagina, you’re actually want to use the word c**t. I don’t get that vibe from any other poster here. You’re an angry man. It shows.
LOL, that’s right, my vagina reads minds, votes, makes small household repairs and can program a VCR. 🙂
Okay, so I’m using a word in precisely the way that the Wikipedia entry for that word says is the way the word is used, and you call that an error.
In the meantime, when you are invited to correct the Wikipedia entry, you admit it’s correct, but then pound your lap some more.
Fine, book it. done.
Why? There is nothing technically wrong with Wiki, but rather the error lies in your lack of ability to properly understand both it and what I said about synecdoche as it relates to metonymy. That you used a word without fully understanding it is your fault. And I can’t correct that. I’m not that kind of doctor.
“If you want to be inaccurate, be my guest. Like I said, I find your perpetual errors amusing.”
Well then Gene, I encourage you to correct the wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metonymy&action=edit
Gyges,
” Look up and down this thread and others ”
And in this thread:
Thanks Mark, the other way we the people aid and abet this is because we allow the Democratic Party to assume they can count on our votes, because “who else are you going to vote for”, and “if Romney gets in it’s DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM”. As well as all the bullying that goes on, even/especially at sites like this: “All women and good men should vote for Planned Parenthood candidates or else MISOGYNY”, “You like Ron Paul, YOU ARE A RACIST!”, “You are a white Democrat considering someone other than Obama? RACISM!”
Support proportional voting, and if you don’t see a candidate you like, vote for the most viable third party candidate to encourage other alternative party runs in the future.
But you’re perceptive, after Spindell claimed I was a misogynist for using the phrase “vagina voter”, I made clear there was nothing misogynistic about that phrase.
And you’re doubly perceptive because after a year or so here and however you’re long you’ve been here, you’ve picked up that I do have criticisms of modern feminism.
BUT critiquing modern feminism is not misogynistic. That’s another fallacy that modern feminists would love people to believe.
But given how many feminists have their own beefs with modern feminism (from Camille Paglia to Wendy Kaminer) and how many other women have beefs with feminism in general there is no way to claim that to criticise modern feminism is misogynistic.
That’s just a bullying ploy.
But if that’s your claim, then just state it.
If you want to be inaccurate, be my guest. Like I said, I find your perpetual errors amusing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
Metonymy ( /mɨˈtɒnɨmi/ mi-TONN-ə-mee) [1] is a figure of speech used in rhetoric in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept. Metonyms can be either real or fictional concepts representing other concepts real or fictional, but they must serve as an effective and widely understood second name for what they represent.
For instance, “Hollywood” is used as a metonym (an instance of metonymy) for U.S. cinema, because of the fame and cultural identity of Hollywood, a district of the city of Los Angeles, California as the historical center of movie studios and movie stars. Another example is “Westminster,” which is used as a metonym for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, because it is located there.
…
Synecdoche
Synecdoche, wherein a specific part of something is used to refer to the whole, usually is understood as a specific kind of metonymy. Sometimes, however, people make an absolute distinction between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche. There is a similar problem with the use of simile and metaphor.
When the distinction is made, it is the following: when “A” is used to refer to “B”, it is a synecdoche if A is a component of B and a metonym if A is commonly associated with B, but not part of its whole.
As I said my use of it conforms quite nicely. If you want to restrict it further, that’s your business, but my use of it is clearly well within the common understanding (using the wiki metric).