So the question, "why have Kenny-boy and Co. not been prosecuted?" is right up there in American Political Discourse...and we have all been wondering, wondering, wondering. Now, heeeeeere's the answer....
"Retroactive legislation moving rapidly through Congress would make it easier for corporate wrongdoers to escape responsibility for defrauding investors, harming the environment and otherwise maximizing profits at the expense of the health and financial well-being of ordinary citizens," says Nan Aron, president of Alliance For Justice, a nonprofit corporation based in Washington, DC. "In the wake of the worst corporate scandals in fifty years, rather than acting to deter wrongdoing, Congress is poised to encourage more white collar misconduct with passage of a so-called class action reform bill which actually retroactively helps several of our most notorious corporate miscreants escape accountability."
President Bush Wants Senate to Debate the Retroactive House Bill Which Lets Ken Lay Off Hook and Usurps Federal Judicial Discretion
...
How would the House provisions let Ken Lay and other white collar wrongdoers off the hook? HR 1115 retroactively applies all of its provisions to all current class actions pending in federal court in which the plaintiff class has not yet been certified, granting current defendants strong new powers to postpone financial liability for years and, perhaps, escape it entirely. (The Senate bill also strongly favors defendants, but would only apply to future cases.)
There you go...no justice of any kind for the Enronites who screwed us all...imagine that, congresscritters not only fellating the hand that feeds them, but offering it a post-coital smoke too.
If this passes, there needs to be a lot said about this in congressional elections next year. There seems to be an expectation of some sort of "justice" for the Energy Thieves so well-beloved by the 1600 Crew, and this pretty much seems to put a nail in the coffin of any real, meaningful justice goiing forward...keep the article handy and use it against your congresscritter if they supported it, especially the way energy prices and all seem to be increasing.
posted by Jo Fish on 08.27.03 at 08:12 AM
Comments:
a great example of why blogosphere is great.
good catch, thanks.
posted by: 56k on 08.27.03 at 10:27 AM [permalink]
Now..I know it's illegal to pass a law retroactively making an action illegal. That's the famous "ex post facto" provision of Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution.
"....No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
1. Is it constitutionally permissible to pass a law making a previously committed crime "legal" ? Any Lawyers or Constitutional scholars out there care to weigh in on this? (Alleged consitutional scholar Anne Coulter need not apply - your plastic surgeon called and wants to continue the SRS by working on your adams apple.)
2. Or is Article 1 kinda sorta de facto as dead as last year's mullet because Holy John doesn't like the serfs to have a voice?
posted by: Lurch on 08.27.03 at 01:43 PM [permalink]
Jo,
This is sickening. Every time I think these motherf@ckers have sunk as low as they can go, they lose another pound of shame and sink another fathom. I'm sooo damn sick of this. I feel like I've aged twenty years in the last three.
Lurch,
RE: #1
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the Constitution speaks to that element of legislature. I know they have "grandfather clauses" that address the issue, though.
We ought to hit Jerlyn up for the answers, over at Talk Left.
Lurch: it's constitutionally permissible to do anything that retroactively favors defendants.
posted by: phil on 08.27.03 at 04:44 PM [permalink]
I have not read the proposed legislation, but from the commentary, it sounds more like it relates to federal civil procedure (federal court rules) rather than to making acts legal or illegal retroactively. Class action suits are civil suits and do not address "crimes" per se. If you take away the jurisdiction of the federal court, the suit can only go to state court (if the state court allowed class actions under its rules)
Exactly how much rope does the Bush administration need? You'd think the with the 'economy' and the war they might ease up on the crony corruption. Maybe they see the end coming so inevitably that the next year and a half will be Lootapalooza for everyone named 'Bush'.
posted by: Preston on 08.27.03 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Phil:
I'm not certain that's true in civil cases ... but i'm not a lawyer, nor do i play one on teevee ...
posted by: wystler on 08.27.03 at 05:07 PM [permalink]
