Lindsay Graham and Jon Kyl lied in SCOTUS brief

[Rose Siding]

and Brownback's office lies to a reporter. AND the DoJ bases their case on the lie

Lucky for them they're Republicans or they might be in some real trouble.

Did Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl mislead the Supreme Court?
By Emily Bazelon
.....
The senators base their argument on the "legislative history" of the DTA—the official statements that members of Congress make about a bill leading up to its passage, as captured in the Congressional Record.

...Justice Department lawyers for the Bush administration rely on the same colloquy as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the DTA would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear "pending cases, including this case" brought by the Guantanamo detainees.

The problem is that Kyl and Graham's colloquy didn't actually happen on Dec. 21. It was inserted into the Congressional Record just before the law passed, which means that the colloquy did not alert other members of Congress to the views it contains....
<snip>
...Their brief states that "the Congressional Record is presumed to reflect live debate except when the statements therein are followed by a bullet … or are underlined" (their italics). The colloquy appears in the record without a bullet or underline; ergo, the brief implies, it must be live. The colloquy is even scripted to sound live. "Mr. President, I see that we are nearing the end of our allotted time," Kyl says at one point. At another, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., appears to interject a question. "If I might interrupt," he begins.

I called Brownback's office to ask if he'd given this testimony live on the Senate floor. "Yes, it was live," an aide told me. I said that I'd been told otherwise by Senate staffers and mentioned the C-SPAN tape. "Let me call you back," the aide said. She never did. Nor did Kyl or Graham's press reps.

http://www.slate.com/id/2138750/

[helderheid]

1. Good thing is right!

[MADem]

2. Holy shit! How low can they go? n/t

[SCDem]

3. Please explain more for me

I live in SC and so am a Graham constituent and would like to send this to all my dem friends if only I understood what the ramifications of this are.

Thank you

[acmejack]

6. The very end of the Slate article explains it somewhat.

It also has some supporting urls. You really would need somebody with a legal background to make good sense out of it, though. The main thing is that they gamed the system by making their colloquy the relevant live Senate floor conversation that is considered law even when it is fictitious. They effectively usurped the Levin text which was the conversation which actually was relevant and should have been the lawful text.

Rule of law my ass!

[Rose Siding]

7. There's some analysis here-

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007217.php

and here-

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/fictitious-kylgraham-floor-debate.html

[SCDem]

11. Thank you

I emailed my crew!

[Webster Green]

4. Enough is enough!

The pukes have turned our government into a giant hoax.:grr:

[TahitiNut]

5. Shows what "unanimous consent" permits.

Fraud. Outright, despicable fraud. By unanimous consent. :puke:

[TacticalPeek]

8. K & R

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007217.php

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/fictitious-kylgraham-floor-debate.html

Not Huckleberry Graham!?
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_03_26_atrios_archive.html#114355872228506209

:evilgrin:

[originalpckelly]

9. Kudos to Emily Bazelon

She has found one of the unconnected dots. We need to start connecting the dots and let people understand all of the tricks that have been used to screw over the legislative branch. I mean the legislative is made of a bunch of bumbling idiots who would probably vote for themselves to be removed from office, but even this insults their intelligence. I think I am going to start a series of posts on the dots. We need to see the mounds of evidence against this administration and its minions.

[WiseButAngrySara]

10. Good Grief! Is this true? K&R in case it might be...n/t

[jsamuel]

12. holy wow! nice reporting

[Canuckistanian]

13. Good comment from Greenwald's blog

littlesky said...

I'm speechless. Kyl and Graham didn't come up with this idea on their own, and I doubt the GOP caucus came up with it either. I'd lay odds the exchange wasn't even written by the senators or their staffers, but instead by the DOJ. The GOP side of the senate appears to be nothing but an extension of the executive.
For the record I've always thought Kyl was a waste of space, but I thought Graham had principles. Looks like I was way wrong about Graham.
9:52 AM

[progressoid]

14. Here's an 8 minute report from NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5306135

[Rose Siding]

15. *Try* to imagine the wall to wall coverage had Democrats done this

It's almost Medal of Freedom bad -at LEAST worthy of an invitation to the pig farm.

My kingdom one party government for an ethics committee.

[understandinglife]

16. K&R. Thank you.

If You're pro-Bu$h, You're anti-America -- new meme.

[Inland]

17. Which is why "legislative history" is weak for interpretation of statutes.

Ninety nine percent of the shit that's in the "record" isn't heard, and one hundred percent isn't voted on.

[Gabi Hayes]

18. hey! you're the one who started this! thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x775579

[Rose Siding]

19. kick

[DemReadingDU]

20. amazing!

K&R