Take That Paris Hilton (And George Bush)

In the latest issue of Roll Call, Norman Orstein makes a compelling and detailed case that the "Bush Justice Department is to checks and balances what Paris Hilton is to chastity". (Unfortunately, subscription required). Some excerpts:

Of course, we can feel better with the administration's assurances that there were checks on the president's wiretapping by the Justice Department. Especially since those assurances come at the same time we have learned that the unanimous career-staff recommendation that the Texas redistricting scheme engineered by Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) that violated the Voting Rights Act was derailed by Justice Department politicos. That followed on the heels of the revelation that the abominable Georgia voter identification law, also challenged by career Justice attorneys as a poll tax, was derailed by some of the same politicos.

We can be even more reassured since this week one of the key politicos in these cases, Hans von Spakovsky, was rewarded with a nomination to the Federal Election Commission. Watching Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez justify the wiretaps by relying on the inherent powers of the commander in chief suggests that the Bush Justice Department is to checks and balances what Paris Hilton is to chastity.

While Orstein disappoints me by not calling for Bush's impeachment, he offers more politically feasible solutions to our growing constitutional crisis:

beyond oversight hearings, Congress should do two other things. First, it should re-pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with its flat language that prohibits what President Bush did without the approval required by the special court, then send it to Bush. If he signs it, that would be a signal he accepts the reality of the law. If he vetoes it, and if that veto is overridden, as it surely would be, it would underscore for him the reality of the rule of law.

Second, Specter and the other members of Judiciary need to add one more important item to the Alito hearings. We need an extended exploration of the judge's views of presidential power. If he is indeed a strict constructionist, he will say that, as the Constitution and the framers make clear, the inherent powers of a commander in chief do not allow presidents to act like kings or despots, whether under the pressure of war or through the claim of national security, especially if they invoke a war, like the war on terror, that will never end. This step is much more likely to happen than the first.

Meanwhile over at Reason, Jacob Sullum makes a compelling and detailed case that Bush is a despot. He too disappoints me by failing to call for Bush's impeachment. But, his editorial makes the best case yet for impeaching Bush, even if he never uses the "I" word.