Sensenbrenner unhinged

July 11, 2005

My friend Darrell alerted me to an incredible story that ran over the weekend about House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and his bizarre intervention in a Chicago drug case. At this point, I think it’s fair to say Sensenbrenner has just about lost it.

In an extraordinary move, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee privately demanded last month that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago change its decision in a narcotics case because he didn’t believe a drug courier got a harsh enough prison term.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), in a five-page letter dated June 23 to Chief Judge Joel Flaum, asserted that a June 16 decision by a three-judge appeals court panel was wrong.

He demanded “a prompt response” as to what steps Flaum would take “to rectify the panel’s actions” in a case where a drug courier in a Chicago police corruption case received a 97-month prison sentence instead of the at least 120 months required by a drug-conspiracy statute.

I realize congressional Republicans have largely given up on antiquated principles of our democracy such the separation of powers, but this is ridiculous. Here we have a lawmaker who disagreed with a court’s sentence for a low-level drug pusher, demanding that an independent branch of government revisit its ruling. Because he says so.

On the merits, Judge Flaum did revise the court’s ruling to cite a relevant Supreme Court case — that showed Sensenbrenner was wrong about the law.

But the fact that Sensenbrenner doesn’t know what he’s talking about isn’t as significant as his tactics.

[S]ome legal experts believe the action by the Judiciary Committee chairman, who is an attorney, is a violation of House ethics rules, which prohibit communicating privately with judges on legal matters, as well as court rules that bar such contact with judges without contacting all parties.

Further, the letter may be an intrusion on the Constitution’s separation-of-powers doctrine, or, at least, the latest encroachment by Congress upon the judiciary, analysts said.

David Zlotnick, a law professor at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island and an expert on federal sentencing law, said, “I think it’s completely inappropriate for a congressman to send a letter to a court telling them to change a ruling.”

Considered in context, Sensenbrenner has, through his actions, hinted strongly that’s he’s become unhinged.

* In May, Sensenbrenner was caught rewriting amendments offered by Dems on his committee to make them appear to support sexual predators.

* In June, Sensenbrenner cut off a hearing on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act when witnesses started criticizing the legislation in a way he didn’t like. After declaring the hearing over despite Dem protests, GOP staffers turned off the microphones. Sensenbrenner’s office then announced Dems would no longer have access or permission to use committee rooms.

And now he’s taken to demanding federal appeals courts change rulings he doesn’t like.

The Republican war against the judiciary is scary enough, but Sensenbrenner’s behavior suggests he has no business chairing the House Judiciary Committee.

This isn’t about Sensenbrenner being unhinged. It’s about pushing back against the investigation of Rove. Digby explains here:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_07_10_digbysblog_archive.html#112102002815321863

  • Wow great connection. So if you see your opponent setting up for something, and you can actually figure out what their next move is, how do you stop them? Because, frankly, if all you do is figure it out, and they still get to make the move unimpeded, what was the point of figuring it out?

    One idea would be to ring the claxon bell on a setup of Patrick Fitzgerald. By saying it loud and often, the move will be revealed for the naked attempt at stopping an investigation of the WH that it is. Letter to the editor? Other ideas?

  • Ditto to what the other guys said above. This isn’t an irrational action; there was a specific objective in mind.

    These were either warning shots or outright torpedo attacks on Fitzgerald. Nevertheless, CB, your final sentence is correct. Using political clout to intimidate a prosecutor or the judiciary is absolutely an abuse of power. There is no constitution worth the paper it’s written on if the ruling party is above the law.

  • A recent re-districting put me and my working class neighborhood in Sensenbrenner’s district–in Waukesha County, Wisconsin.

    Receiving his newsletters is an education in itself. They are full of puffed-up GOP hubris, reek of self-satisfied entitlement to the whole Bush program.

    His whole career in congress has been leading up to his coronation as Chair of Judiciary. Mercifully, six year limitations on positions of chairman of major committees will see him out of that position next year.

    With any luck, he’ll continue the bombastic program he’s been pursuing this past year. That could make a 2006 replacement in the Wisconsin 5th District a distinct possibility. The district is pretty safe for traditional Republican conservatism. But a moderate GOP congressman–with draditional conservative values, and with no seniority–would be a distinct improvement.

    He’s had vigorous Democratic opposition in the past; and this will continue

    The chicken-hearted Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel will not likely cover this flap. That once semi-useful newspaper has become little more than a shopper, slobbering all over Republicanism and Bushism.

  • Actually, Jim Bouman, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel did cover (surprisingly) an earlier flap, the one arising when the terminated his committee hearing, walking out and cutting the mikes. Might be worth some letters, calls, emails. Addresses, numbers and mailto links here.

    Randi Rhodes has been jumping all over Senssenbrenner on Air America, too, but I couldn’t find anything on her webpage.

  • I read an editorial in my paper (the Times Picayune in New Orleans), defending Judith Miller. I can’t blame media for thinking this is something they need to defend, but in doing so, they are actually (and unwittingly, I think) defending Rove’s treason. This point needs to be corrected in all of the local papers in the country.

    I wrote them a letter-to-the-editor, with the following key point, based on the info I got through TCBR:

    The Times Picayune, like other news sources, has been duped by criminals into believing that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is on a “fishing expedition.� Not so. There was a crime, there were witnesses (like Plume), and now there will be a cover up.

    Already, a top Republican Representative (James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.), has intervened for no apparent reason in a Chicago drug case by (unethically, mind you) writing a letter to the appellate court to criticize the prosecutor. Why is a Wisconsin Representative (and chair of the Judiciary Committee) interfering in a low-level case, in another state, no less? Well, it just so happens that the prosecutor in that case is none other than Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. This Administration won’t make the mistake of firing the Special Prosecutor without cause like Nixon did. This is the first step in manufacturing that reason, covering up Rove’s treason, and ruining a good prosecutor’s career.

  • I can’t blame media for thinking this is something they need to defend

    Media need to defend their source when that source is ratting out a criminal (e.g., Woodward & Bernstein protecting “Deep Throat”). They have no such obligation, imho, when the source is also the criminal himself (e.g., Rove). If anything I’d say they have an obligation “out” such criminals.

  • Can’t we get Sensenbrenner’s local newspapers to discuss his “arrogant antics”? If not, the press really is moribund.

  • Don’t forget that Sensenbrenner likes to be called “Tex”.

    And that his family fortune comes from feminine hygiene products.

    (yes, I realize that these are undignified, cheap shots (though true, nonetheless), but when you’re dealing with someone this unhinged, you need to choose a weapon that has a chance of working.)

  • Ed,

    That was my point. Key word was “thinking”–point was they’re wrong. Also the point of the letter to the editor (where I say they were “duped by criminals”).

    This is the point we need to get out there: this is about being the witness and perhaps accomplice (Novak) to a crime, not about revealing a source.

    • Comments are closed.