<There is a legitimate question about the discovery process. >
Before going further, if the rationale is shown to be in error, then what legal actions exist for a defendant to ameliorate the effects of the bad decision until the decision is corrected? Do these actions range, depending on the severity of the effects? This is my question, my interest, aside from whether the ruling is good, or the rationale persuasive, or anything about this case or the actors. This is a question most folk seem to answer as "none", innocents should eat the bad law, no matter what. I do not see our Constitution [but our laws maybe] supporting this answer. Mine is a stance few take, but I can imagine cases where perjury and worse, uphold the Constitution. Does this reply to your certainty, " a fortiori", that implies removal?
<However, the rationale is that quest for a pattern of behavior that would demonstrate favoritism or punitiveness, should they be obscure in the individual instance. On that basis, Clinton himself signed the legislation permitting such discovery into law, after having supported its passage, and thus he cannot claim that he was merely a passive victim here:-)...>
Do I have this right...if the woman sinks, then she is innocent, but if she floats, then burn her. There are many ways, far less damaging to the defendant, to determine such patterns, than investigating his present sex life. The incident occurred long ago and far away; why not seek clear, historical facts there? The judge's objectionable ruling does protect the judge herself, as well as introduce non-case interests of the plaintiff over the defendant. Clinton was protecting collateral damage from the law, "his law" even, not avoiding discovery of patterns. Merely the arbitrary, unconsidered choice of which patterns. This kind of snideness is beneath you, and irrelevant.
<As to the suit itself, since Miss Jones files too late for a simple sexual harassment suit, she was actually litigating under a statute in the civil law that demanded a higher standard of proof, one that required not merely a "hostile work environment", but an actual effect on her career. On that basis, Judge Wright dismissed the suit. However, it was widely believed that he suit would be reinstated on appeal, due to a Supreme Court ruling in the interim that said that it was only necessary that there be an implicit threat of a job action, it need not be proven that an overt action against the plaintiff had been taken...>
What is this? You complain that the suit being tried was worthless because it was the wrong suit? I agree. You say the Judge agrees, too? Maybe we Should burn him, he is defending the wrong suit! Simply put, the President may have criminal sex, which is not this, or any other, charge, and he may have immoral sex, which is not under the authority of the law. He doesn't use Sexual Harassment. That is the case. But wait, it is "widely believed" that the suit would be appealed. It is also widely believed that a butterfly flapping its wings in China would be cause for Paula to sue the President. As to speculation about "implicit threat", does Paula need anything but Clinton's Existence to claim injury. The man said she wasn't important enough to remember; the facts support this; what part of her own No does Paula not understand? What legalese can change this? This paragraph is an attempt to reopen a case with speculation unsupported by fact and with legal theory untenable in reality. How does the hat check girl ever marry the millionaire if he can't get a date?
<In the final analysis, though, the salient facts were those taken up in Judge Wright contempt ruling, which is that the President defrauded the court after being directed to answer in the matter.> The fraud cries fraud, how poignant. The lady cements the opinion that this national uproar was not the fault of her bad rulings, but of that criminal who appeared before her. If we assume that Judge Wright's disastrous opinions in the trial, that fining the President into her personal account, and that threatening prison for appeal were not simply self-serving, then there remains my original question, which you, yourself, acknowledge concern with. If the Judge, any Judge, is outside her Constitutional authority, knowingly or not, say regarding discovery, what then of the law and the citizens?
<There is a strong a fortiori case, therefore, that he did indeed commit perjury and obstruction of justice, and therefore violated his oath of office "to faithful execute the laws", and thus that he should not only have been impeached, but removed from office....>
You are claiming a fortiori for the oath..., not the opinion, yes? The certainty lies in that all the investigations turned up no trace of alleged patterns of quid pro quo sex rewards or punishment, no sexual harassement. The a fortiori certainty is that the man was committing no Crime in his unusual testimony, but was Supporting something else, something not illegal, something Constitutional.
To me, the hand we have here is Individual Injustice vs Institutional Convenience. The case hardly supports such stakes, it is the politics, not the law, which has raised the bet. The principles remain the same, for him or us, he is 1st citizen as well as President. The principles are in the ordaining and establishing, not the derivative parts of the Constitution. |
