Comments on: Walpin Denied: Court Says He Wasn’t “Fired” Fired

By: Zuzu

Zuzu — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:12:07 +0000

The House bill was NOT virtually identical to the Senate bill at that time. However, the Senate eventually passed an amendment (not co-sponsored by Obama) that stripped the House language – which included a specific requirement for "for cause" removal – and inserted the language we know as the IGRA. That is called legislative history, and BTW, THAT is how you determine legislative intent.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h.r.92…

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:34:38 +0000

Of course Senator Obama wouldn't have sponsored HB 928, since he was, well, a Senator. However, he was a co-sponsor of the Senate counterpart that was subsumed by HB 928. You are technically correct to say that Senator Obama did not co-sponsor the bill that was passed, however he did co-sponsor a bill that was virtually identical to the bill that did pass the Senate. It appears his bill was tabled because, well, the House had passed almost exactly the same bill and what's the need to go through the full reconciliation process to merge the two bills if the House's bill was acceptable and ready to go?

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:17:58 +0000

Nope, it doesn't change that. It does, however, shed more sunlight on government and gives Congress an opportunity to bring potential controversies to light. It makes a capricious firing less likely to happen.

By: Zuzu

Zuzu — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:32:09 +0000

The point of my post was to note that what President Obama can do today, President Palin (to pull a GOP name out of the air) can do in 2013.

And every other President has done all the way back to Reagan if not before. The 30-day notice requirement doesn't change that – your gymnastics notwithstanding.

By: Zuzu

Zuzu — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 02:09:35 +0000

Gabe Simpson:

Do you think Jimmie actually bothered to read the case or the legislative history? If he had done the latter, for instance, he would have known that Senator Obama did not co-sponsor the bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h11…

And yes, the legislative history, as discussed in the decision, shows that Congress specifically declined to include provisions requiring removal "for cause." That's called legislative intent.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:07:51 +0000

I don't think it's difficult to divine the intent of both the intra-branch communication requirement and the 30-day notification. So far as I can see, Senator Obama wanted to take some of the "at-will" power form the President and invest it in Congress, if only a little. The cool-down period would give Congress time to look at the IG in question and the explanation, to ensure that the firing wasn't capricious or done to squelch a sensitive investigation.

You could very well be right. I think, though, that you have to work harder to come to a different conclusion than the one I have. I'm not saying I have the final word on the matter, but my explanation is the simplest.

In the end, this issue isn't really legal, but political. I believe the left is rallying around this decision because of the President, not the principle much it assailed President Bush for firing US Attorneys even though they, also, were "at-will" employees (whose firing did not require an explanation nor a 30-day notification). The point of my post was to note that what President Obama can do today, President Palin (to pull a GOP name out of the air) can do in 2013.

By: Gabe Simpson

Gabe Simpson — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 14:19:41 +0000

But Jimmie, if you read the opinion and the legislative history of the IGRA, isn't there a strong argument that the intent (if there's such a thing as singular intent) of the IGRA is to facilitate intra-branch communication, and that the law was *intentionally* written in a way to avoid giving Inspectors General causal employment?

In other words, how do you know what the actual "intent" of Congress was when it passed this IGRA?

By: Zuzu

Zuzu — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:22:31 +0000

The beef is that the court’s decision upholds only the letter of the law while allowing the administration to violate the very clear intent of the law. Courts are allowed to interpret intent — heck, the main argument over SCOTUS justices involves intent.

First, you haven't given any indication you actually understand what the intent of the law – either the 1978 or the 2008 version – is.

Second, courts only look to intent when the language of the law is not clear on its face. Which obviously is not the case here. Oh, and of course they would never use some vague idea about "intent" to countermand the requirements of the law.