This is not a surprising ruling, given the obvious nature of the case:
While acknowledging the unprecedented nature of the F.B.I. search of Representative William J. Jefferson’s legislative offices, a federal judge ruled Monday that the seizure of records there was legal and did not violate the constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch.
The search, the first of a Congressional office, touched off a firestorm on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers joined in bipartisan protests to the Bush administration over the Justice Department’s decision to seek evidence of bribery on legislative ground. President Bush personally intervened and ordered the seized documents temporarily sealed.
The constitutional battle will not end with the decision Monday by Judge Thomas F. Hogan of Federal District Court. Mr. Jefferson’s lawyer, Robert F. Trout, quickly announced that he would appeal. And while Judge Hogan said the documents seized in an overnight raid May 20 and 21, including computer hard drives and boxes of records, could now be turned over to investigators, the defense is likely to seek a stay of that release.
In a statement announcing the appeal, Mr. Trout said: “A bipartisan group of House leaders joined us in court to argue that these procedures were in direct violation of the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, which the framers specifically designed to protect legislators from intimidation” by other branches of government.
I can’t decide whether this makes him an activist judge or a ‘law and order’ judge. I guess since those labels are based on political expediency, we will have to wait a few days to find out whether Rove and Co. think this decision is good or bad, and then we can get down to the heady work of trashing the judiciary.
Jim Allen
Coming this fall to NBC: “Law and Order: Activist Judge”.
That covers it, I think.
Pixie
Jesus, it just seems like common sense to me. The congressman failed to comply with a subpoena. What were they supposed to do? Oh well, he won’t come in or hand over any documents, I guess we’ll just have to close the case. What sheer idiocy. Fact is, this man was just given the treatment that anyone else would have been subjected to, and it scares the republican congress shitless since they might be subjected to that same treatment. If they had nothing to hide, why worry?
The Other Steve
law and order
If it had been delay’s office, then it would have been activist.
Mr Furious
LOL! Good one Jim.
I’ll say this much, John. Your little hiatus has brought you back stronger and pithier than ever. Welcome back!
fwiffo
Good.
Steve
Good quote by the court. Much pithier than my analysis:
But I will still claim full credit for calling the result!
Zifnab
But… but… freedom of speech, guys! Aren’t corporate donations to political campaigns considered a form of free speech? How can Jefferson be charged with a crime when he was just “speaking” with his “constituants”.
John Hutchison
I never understood this claim by much of Congress that Congressional offices should be off-limits to search warrants.
Suppose instead of evidence of bribery, there was kiddie porn sitting on top of the Congressman’s desk, and that it can be seen through the window on the door. Should that be off limits?
Or suppose a rape had occurred inside the office? Should the crime scene not be searched, just because it happens to be a Congressman’s office?
Or suppose there’s a homicide victim stretched out on the floor of the office? Should that be off limits too?
I think not.
Neo
To be valid, a search requires “a prior showing of probable cause, the warrant authorizing [the search] must particularly describe the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized, and . . . it may not have the breadth, generality, and long life of the general warrant against which the Fourth Amendment was aimed.” Here, neither Congressman Jefferson nor amicus contend that the search warrant issued here failed to meet any of those requirements.
This only goes to show what happens when you’ve got a lousy lawyer.
Steve
But of course it’s a valid warrant. I’ve never seen any argument that it wasn’t an otherwise valid warrant, that would be perfectly fine if it wasn’t a Congressman’s office being searched. You’re not a lousy lawyer just because you fail to contest every single issue, including the issues that are not reasonably in dispute. The argument is, plain and simple, that you can’t search a Congressman’s office even with a valid search warrant.
There is a principled argument along these lines, dating back to historical abuses where tyrannical English kings used to send their men rampaging through Parliament to intimidate the legislature and so forth. But it’s silly to argue that anything along those lines is going on here. It was simply a legit search regarding a legit crime.
jg
That’s how Darrell will play it. I’ve noticed he doesn’t enter threads where the topic is new. He waits until his argument is formed by the opinion makers on the right.
Perry Como
That was my original thought on the idea, but the court has settled it now. It was interesting legal question from a constitutional standpoint. Now that the judiciary has ruled, hopefully the legislative branch will abide by it. Or they can scream “activist judge”, as Mr. Cole said.
Ben
I want to say that 100% I agree with the decision. I think Jefferson is scuzzy and in all likelihood is guilty as heck… and that being said… I have a weird feeling about this.
Want to find out what your political opponents are doing and what their campaign strategies are? Just find one sleezy enough to take a bribe.. video tape it.. that or a judge crooked enough to issue a search warrent.. and then you get to dig around in all his correspondances and files and what not. Not that I think this is the case…
We all feel fine since it’s a clearly a house member and apparently a bold faced sleaze… but I still think it’s a touchy issue.
The Other Steve
The Republicans just hack into the computer system and read their email.
Barry
John Hutchison Says:
“I never understood this claim by much of Congress that Congressional offices should be off-limits to search warrants.”
Think of it as a matter of courtesy, a 200-year old custom.