What Keith Olberman is missing about FISA (keeping it criminal vs civil)..

[HardWorkingDem]

For those that are not aware, criminal charges require a much higher standard of proof than civil charges - criminal is BEYOND a reasonable doubt; civil is 51 percent.

Besides, just what does everyone think these big telecom countries fear more? The threat of a possible criminal slap on the wrist or a huge bite out of their wallets?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Sherman Antitrust, which could be a consequence of

conviction

[Suich]

2. This is what KO posted on Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/26/222646/124/440/542648

[HardWorkingDem]

3. I'm not slamming KO...just pointing out...

that the criminal charge avenue is not always the best way to go and putting a very few people in jail for a very short period of time might be less of a punishment than taking millions and millions of their dollars.

Not only that, the burden of proof of a criminal charge is much harder to establish, see OJ Simpson for the best example of this.

[The Magistrate]

4. The Immunity Provision is Probably Un-Constitutional In Any Case, Sir

It probably violates the clause forbidding Bills of Attainder, as it is a Legislative interference with an on-going Judicial proceeding, and thus is a seperation of powers matter.

It almost certainly violates the 'takings' clause, as it deprives plaintiffs of potential damages they hold a 'property right' to, without compensation for the loss.

Should this wretched botch of a law actually pass, the plaintiffs' lawyers in on-going cases will certainly mount challenge to the immunity provision, with excellent prospect of success. The courts have been a good deal more vigilant and energetic in preserving their prerogatives than has the Congress in recent years....

[HardWorkingDem]

5. You mean the conservative courts, sir...!?!?

Just what courts do you mean? The non-existent liberal activist ones? Or the ones in our real world? I would not put a thing past our current courts....or expect them to do the right thing.

[The Magistrate]

6. So Far, Sir, The High Courts Have Not Done Too Badly

The recent decision on Habeus Corpus being one example. The administration has not had anything like complete success with the Judiciary branch, though certainly it has had some, and more than it ought to have had. Judges, conservative or liberal or what have you, generally are jealous of the role and powers the Constitution assigns the Judicial branch, and zealous in protecting them against encroachments by either the Legislature or the Executive.

[merwin]

7. I could almost swear you're the more well knowledgeable brother of grovelbot.

And what I mean by this is an artificial intelligence plugged directly into the internet with the full knowledge of answer to life, the universe, and everything. You constantly surprise me on an almost daily basis :)

[The Magistrate]

8. Thank You, Sir

"I mostly kill time, and it dies hard."

[On the Road]

9. I Had Never Thought of Those Points

A bill of attainder was originally, I believe, used to declare a party guilty. So it would cover bills designed to exonerate as well?

[The Magistrate]

10. In Our Constitutional Jurisprudence, Sir

The thing has been interpreted expansively, as a safeguard of the seperation of powers, barring Legislative usurpation of Judicial function. If recollection serves, the last item ruled to violate the clause was connected with a highly publicized child custody case, in which Congress was moved to pass a law stating a particular individual could bring a court action they normally would not have been entitled to bring. You are quite right about the original meaning of a Bill of Attainder, however.