Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility

For those we lost, We will not forget 09/11/2001

“The task of statesmanship has always been the re-definition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order.”
— Franklin D. Roosevelt (Commonwealth Club Address, 1932)

“Roosevelt was wrong! The principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence are the principles of individual liberty. Our unalienable rights, given to us by God are given to us as individuals. Our rights do not come from society or the government, and they cannot be redefined by politicians. The nature of these rights carries with it the implication of individual responsibility, without which we surrender them.”
— Perri Nelson, November 6, 2008

A bheil Gàidhlig agaibh?

<< Sony's Bacchanal | Main | Wednesday Hero - Luis E. Fonseca >>

Ethically challenged former House Ethics Committee member loses appeal

Published Tue, May 1 2007 1:17 PM
Technorati Tags: News and Politics, Democrats, Corruption, Courts

The Seattle Times is reporting on Rep. Jim McDermott's failed appeal of his failed attempt to wriggle out of the consequences of his unethical behavior:

"McDermott's offense was especially egregious since he was a senior member of the House ethics committee"

WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott had no right to disclose the contents of an illegally taped telephone call involving House Republican leaders a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

In a 5-4 opinion, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that McDermott, D-Seattle, should not have given reporters access to the taped telephone call.

McDermott's offense was especially egregious since he was a senior member of the House ethics committee, the panel ruled.

When he became a member of the ethics panel, McDermott "voluntarily accepted a duty of confidentiality that covered his receipt and handling of the ... illegal recording. He therefore had no First Amendment right to disclose the tape to the media," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote on behalf of the court. Four judges agreed with him.

The ruling upholds a previous decision ordering McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.

So, I'm wondering about this. Will Rep. McDermott pull an Al Sharpton and have his supporters pay the fine? We already know that Rep. McDermott is ethically challenged. I wouldn't put it past him to try something like this.

Boehner called the court's ruling encouraging, and noted that the court agreed with the bipartisan report of the House ethics committee in December.

"As I've said many times: When you break the law in pursuit of a political opponent, you've gone too far," Boehner said in a statement. "Members of Congress have a responsibility not only to obey the laws of our country and the rules of our institution, but also to defend the integrity of those laws and rules when they are violated."

Naturally the left is calling this a blow to free speech. Bruce Johnson, a Seattle Lawyer said that the system of having partisan hacks rat out opposing partisan hacks is the basis of "Our whole system of public scrutiny".

Only in the twisted world of partisan politics could unethical behavior be considered to be ethical. George Orwell tried to warn us, but I guess his message didn't get through.

Cross posted at NW Bloggers

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rightlinx, The Random Yak, Faultline USA, stikNstein... has no mercy, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, Leaning Straight Up, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Thoughts, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.