Can anyone tell me what business Waxman and the fed gov't have holding hearings

[hiaasenrocks]

about baseball and steroids? I'm not a baseball fan and I really don't care what the players do. I'm just curious why we have to spend time and money on this, and what jurisdiction the fed gov't has over this.

[rudy23]

1. This is why we don't have time to impeach.

To make room for the important stuff.

[hiaasenrocks]

4. It looks like Waxman really loves the face-time.

And if there's a face in this country that should never have face-time, it's Waxman's.

[Individualist]

12. Oh, but they probably will impeach - the baseball commissioner.

I say this tongue-in-cheek but wouldn't be at all surprised if this Congress actually did something that stupid and meaningless.

[hiaasenrocks]

13. Hey, why not? They've already overstepped their jurisdiction.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Their antitrust exemption is granted by Congress

That's the reason ....... but if you ask me, it all smells like bullshit and looks like grandstanding.

This bunch needs to be investigating REAL crimes by cheneybush.

[hiaasenrocks]

9. And they are really overreaching that jurisdiction.

So now we've got some dumbass baseball player and an idiot trainer arguing over who's telling the truth about whether one did something to the other and it's possible that one will wind up with a perjury charge on something for which the statute of limitations has run out.

Anti-trust? Hmmmm.

[Solly Mack]

3. The American way of life would crumble if people lost faith in baseball.

ROFLMAO

Sorry...

If only they were water-boarding their opponent...or even spying on them (snicker)...that would be patriotic!

[northzax]

5. three ways

first off, Major League Baseball is exempt from anti-trust regulation after several rulings by the Supreme Court (basically, the Supremes bent over backwards several times to exempt the sport from regulations) therefore, Congress has a vested interest in the inter-state commerce of an industry exempt from anti-trust regulation.

second: the use of steroids without a prescription or for non-FDA approved purposes is a federal crime, especially if it involves interstate commerce.

third: baseball has happily taken tens of billions of dollars in public subsidies playing states and cities off each other for stadia and facilities. you take public money, you get public oversight.

[hiaasenrocks]

8. Anti-trust exemption gives them jurisdiction over whether a player got a shot from a trainer?

This isn't about baseball overall.

This hearing is about who is lying: Clemens or the trainer.

Why do they have jurisdiction over a he-said-he-said squabble over a shot?

[northzax]

14. basically, yes

if Baseball is not policing itself, Congress has the ability to step in.

but mostly it's just grandstanding, protecting the kids you know (do kids even play baseball anymore?)

[hiaasenrocks]

15. Do we agree that it looks like they are overstepping their jurisdiction?

I know I keep saying this but it's true: That hearing was entirely about which of two guys was lying about something for which the statute of limitations has already expired, and all that can come of this, legally, is a possible perjury charge. I think it's ridiculous.

[skooooo]

6. This is why Congress' ratings are so low...

[paparush]

7. Wait till the spying hearings start....spying in the NFL that is...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=aWziF98brQw4&refer=home

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

MLB engages in interstate commerce, therefore Congress has jurisdiction.

[hiaasenrocks]

11. This hearing isn't about interstate commerce or anti-trust exemptions or anything of the sort.

This entire hearing was about whether a baseball player was injected with steroids by a trainer, and to find out which of the two is lying.

That has nothing to do with interstate commerce. It has nothing to do with anti-trust.

In fact, it doesn't even have anything to do with any federal law since the time period in question was so long ago that the statute of limitations (for THIS particular instance) has expired.