Jake Kreilkamp discusses Attorney General John Ashcroft's pattern of ignoring cooperation agreements.
Basically, in death-penalty-eligible cases, AG Ashcroft ignores prosecutor's recommendations and orders prosecutors to seek the death penalty, 90% of the time against non-white defendants, and routinely abrogates agreements between prosecutors and defendants in order to seek the death penalty against defendants who are cooperating in other criminal cases.
As I've written before, the Republican Party, by their persecution of President Clinton, has convinced me that impeachment is a valid and neglected part of our Constitutional system of checks and balances, carefully designed by the Founders to ensure responsible behavior by government officials and prevent misfeasance and malfeasance in office.
Since Attorney General Ashcroft's behavior is clearly immoral (breaking agreements), irresponsible (it will result in fewer cooperating witnesses, meaning more, and bigger, criminals go free), and unconstitutional (by disparate racial impact, it violates equal protection guarantees), he has demonstrated an unfitness to hold office that merits his impeachment and removal.
I strongly encourage the House of Representatives to begin an in-depth investigation of Attorney General Ashcroft with the objective of executing their Constitutional privilege of impeachment.
Posted by Greg at February 12, 2003 12:26 PM
I think it's somewhat misleading to baldly claim that "disparate impacts" per se violates Equal Protection. Clearly, the Supreme Court has reiterated time and again that absent discriminatory intent, mere disparate impacts doesn't amount to a constitutional violation (see Washington v. Davis, US 1976).
I tend to think that many constitutional violations are arguable either way...however, your conclusion is so counter to settled jurisprudence that I think you do your readers a disservice by making such a claim.
You're probably right, although an Abe Fortas or a Thurgood Marshall could easily make a case for discriminatory intent, with a starting point of Ashcroft's affection for Southern Advocacy magazine (or whatever it's called), and the rest of his long history of cuddling up to the loony racist South.
So probably I should have thrown something in about discriminatory intent as well as disparate impact. However, Congress's impeachment power is, very nearly, unconfined; they can choose to impeach and convict someone merely for disparate impact if they want; they aren't bound by SCOTUS precedent.
Also, I was being at least slightly sarcastic in the item; you may not have noticed 8)
I'm really enjoying your take on the political issues. Keep up the good work!
This from today's AP reports...which, I noticed, was a point Kreilkamp conveniently left out of his otherwise thorough article:
------------------------------------------------
But a Justice Department spokeswoman told the paper that Ashcroft does not know a defendant's race or ethnicity when he reviews death penalty recommendations.
''So it's entirely race-neutral in terms of how it's reviewed by the attorney general,'' the spokeswoman, Barbara Comstock, told the Times.
impeach john ashcroft
he is responsible for a mass breach of his oath
to protect the constituion of the united state an oath he took on office.
HE IS TRYING TO DIS ARM AMERICA THROUGH THE USE OF GOVERNMENT MONEY AND LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS.
SAY NO TO HSI WORKS OR LACK OF PROTECTION FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
NO MORE 9-11 INCIDENTS HERE OR ABROAD