I haven’t written about the President’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s obstruction of justice sentence, in part because I suspect the subject has been more-than adequately discussed in other venues.
For the record, I’m somewhat neutral on the subject. I think that Scooter was the administration’s fall guy; and while it’s reprehensible that someone high up in the executive branch would obstruct justice, it still seems unfair that Scooter’s all alone in being penalized because someone else in the administration outed a covert operative.
I’m not in a position to judge whether the sentence is appropriate, or whether the commutation of the sentence was appropriate, but I do think that the Executive’s ability to grant pardons and the like is an important part of the system of checks-and-balances that is supposed to keep the government from running too amok.
Similarly, Congress is empowered in various ways to express its displeasure and to exert checks on the President’s authority if he pushes or exceeds the bounds of appropriate use of his authority. this post at an Orlando Sentinel blog suggests that’s exactly what’s being considered in Congress:
Rep. Robert Wexler of Boca Raton has come up with a new way for his fellow Democrats to vent about their anger toward President Bush. Wexler announced Thursday that he will propose a resolution to censure Bush for commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff. Libby had been sentenced to prison for lying about the leak of the name of former CIA spy Valerie Plame, whose husband was a critic of Bush’s Iraq war.
The article goes on to mention that censure is a tool that hasn’t been used by Congress against the President since antebellum days. However, I think it’s probably a reasonable tool for Congress to consider, provided that it doesn’t become overused through trendiness.
Predictably, the White House slams Congress for wasting time debating what amounts to a “stern talking to”, rather than actually “doing something”. However, I’m not sure that that’s a fair criticism, for two reasons:
- First, it’s been pointed out that past Congresses have let the White House get away with a lot of shenanigans, partly in response to the air of emergency arising from 9/11, and partly out of blind party loyalty. If Congress had exerted appropriate oversight, perhaps we wouldn’t be faced with such an insane budget deficit, and perhaps the administration wouldn’t feel so free to play fast and loose with the truth when it comes to promoting its agenda.
- Second — Isn’t the country better served when politicians are just playing at politics, rather than actually attempting to implement change (usually to our detriment)?