Darryl Levinson (continued): The decadence of the US Congress

[Sanford Levinson]

>From the NYTimes story on Gonzales's testimony:

When Mr. Feingold pushed to have Mr. Gonzales sworn in, Mr. Specter
called for a vote. The committee voted, 10 to 8, along party lines not
to have Mr. Gonzales sworn in.

 

What more need be said about the cravenness of the US Congress--and the
priority of party loyalty?  (Were the Republicans (properly) afraid that
Gonzales might commit perjury?)   Recall, incidentally, that Bush wasn't
required to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission.  Is this just
another sign of monarchical prerogative in our new constitutional
system? 

sandy  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060206/18061d64/attachment.htm