Barbara Bush on the refugee's & the NY Times on Bush

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The doctrine of sovereign immunity states the Federal Govt. is immune from a lawsuit unless it consents to be sued, which it will not or has not done in this instance.

Plus when it is done they can tie it up in courts dragging their feet forever while the little guy goes broke from legal fees, right?

Tie Brown up by his ___.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Plus when it is done they can tie it up in courts dragging their feet forever while the little guy goes broke from legal fees, right?

Tie Brown up by his ___.

Most lawyers would take this on a contingency fee basis which means they would get a percentage of any monetary settlement as payment in lieu of fees. So, the fee issue is not really there from that perspective.

As for a criminal suit, the Justice Dept would have to initiate that against the FEMA people and the Senate probably would via impeachment against W.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The doctrine of sovereign immunity states the Federal Govt. is immune from a lawsuit unless it consents to be sued, which it will not or has not done in this instance.

That's...odd...I remember learning something else in my class...which i can't remember the details of. Isn't there some loophole type thing to that...or something? Actually, my contact just told me he's not aware of any suits successfully being brought against the gov't.
Thanks for the info.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

That's...odd...I remember learning something else in my class...which i can't remember the details of. Isn't there some loophole type thing to that...or something? Actually, my contact just told me he's not aware of any suits successfully being brought against the gov't.
Thanks for the info.

The govt. often expressly waives SI.

Here is some info.

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY - A doctrine precluding the institution of a suit against the sovereign [government] without its consent. Though commonly believed to be rooted in English law, it is actually rooted in the inherent nature of power and the ability of those who hold power to shield themselves.

In England it was predicated on the concept that "the sovereign can do no wrong", a concept developed and enforced by - guess who? However, since the American revolution explictedly rejected this interesting idea, the American rulers had to come up with another rationale to protect their power. One they came up with is that the "sovereign is exempt from suit [on the] practical ground that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." 205 U.S. 349, 353.

"[S]tatutes waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States must be`construed strictly in favor of the sovereign." McMahon v. United States, 342 U.S. 25, 27 (1951).

11 U.S.C. S 106, "Waiver of Sovereign Immunity," provides:

(a) A governmental unit is deemed to have waived sovereign immunity with respect to any claim against such governmental unit that is property of the estate and that arose out of the same transaction or occurrence out of which such governmental unit's claim arose.

The interest served by federal sovereign immunity (the United States' freedom from paying damages without Congressional consent)

Federal sovereign immunity is readily distinguishable from the states' immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and foreign governments' immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The latter two doctrines allow one sovereign entity the right to avoid, altogether, being subjected to litigation in another sovereign's courts. Pullman Constr., 23 F.3d at 1169. Similar sovereignty concerns are not implicated by the maintenance of suit against the United States in federal court. Federal sovereign immunity has had such broad exceptions carved out of it that, as Pullman Construction concluded, "Congress, on behalf of the United States, has surrendered any comparable right not to be a litigant in its own courts." Id. In the present day, federal sovereign immunity serves merely to channel litigation into the appropriate avenue for redress, ensuring that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." Pullman Constr. at 1168 (quoting Art. I, section 9, cl. 7).

Federal sovereign immunity is a defense to liability rather than a right to be free from trial.

The Supreme Court has ruled that in a case involving the government's sovereign immunity the statute in question must be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign and may not be enlarged beyond the waiver its language expressly requires. See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-35 (1992).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm

In addition, the govt. will sometimes pay the legal fees on the party suing it pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) - which is too complicated for my finger to type A google of that will reveal its many applications.

[amber]

Thanks. I just got other info that sections of the Fed gov't can be sued, for instance the Dept. of Interior, by the native americans, if the federal courts deem it a constitutional issue. I also just learned there's no laws on the books, or any handy guide, or anything, for the House to base impeachment on. They just get to make it up. Yay.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

Thanks. I just got other info that sections of the Fed gov't can be sued, for instance the Dept. of Interior, by the native americans, if the federal courts deem it a constitutional issue. I also just learned there's no laws on the books, or any handy guide, or anything, for the House to base impeachment on. They just get to make it up. Yay.

Those are still express waivers of SI.

Impeachment proceedings can be brought for any offense. The Const. has no requirement in the Constitution that it can only be for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." These are merely the circumstances under which removal from office is obligatory. In the end, the process is so cumbersome and time consuming, it is rarely used and is limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by SapphireSister

Do you guys think things would have been handled any differently if this had occurred during Clinton's presidency?

Is the Pope German?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Who can say for sure because there are so many different players. I do know this though, Clinton would have appeared far more humane in this. For example, he would not have said this was so important that he cut his five week vacation short by two days in an effort to look like he actually gave a shiitte.

He never took a five week vacation.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

B. He would not have appointed someone like Brown to head FEMA, all his friends are smart.

Clinton's FEMA director, James Lee Witt was chosen by Governor Blanco to head the releif efforts in LA.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

My heart sinks every time I think of this. When he was working out and acting blase during his campain while Gore was out working hard I was convinced people wouldn't vote for him. I overestimated people. He's handled his presidency in just as careless a manner.

Gore won that election honey. He won the popular vote. They stole Florida.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

With the courts ,the house and to a lesser extent the Senate packed with Bush supporters ,sadly he is unlikely to be brought up on charges.After all this is a man who lost the popular and most likely the electoral vote in 2000 and still managed to become President and has so far gotten away with the whole Iraq debacle .And if you look at the polls so far 90% of Republicans think he did a good or great job in responding to Katrina.

Have you heard the audio clip of his wife repeatedly calling it "Corina"?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I do not think Bush broke any laws here. I think he acted carelessly and is a jerk for that. But, that is not against the law.

Not so fast. He is charged with keeping his citizens safe. He was most certainly negligent in task.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by macfanken

Has anything been posted here about Al Gore chartering an American Airlines jet to fly patients and evacuees out of New Orleans?

It has it's own thread.

[macfanken]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

It has it's own thread.

OK, glad to hear it! I can't keep up with all of the threads!

[gldstwmn]

Here ya go:http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=22152

I even posted pictures.