Constitutional abuse by Da Dims

[SuperScout]

Retired Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN), has been trying to shield himself from a lawsuit by a former congressional aide by using a legal defense so unusual that it has alienated his former colleagues and been scorned by the courts.

Mr. Dayton, a Minnesota Democrat and heir to a department store fortune, at first argued that the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause protected him from the lawsuit by a former staffer who alleged he was fired because he suffered from a heart condition. After the senator left office last year, he changed legal tactics by claiming he could no longer be sued for conduct that occurred when he was an elected official.

That argument was rejected by a federal court last month, but not before Reps. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, and Christopher Shays, Connecticut Republican, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the former employee.

Granting Mr. Dayton (D-MN) immunity because he had left office "would render the protections [granted by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995] wholly illusory and defeat the goals of the [law]," the two lawmakers argued. The Senate Legal Counsel's Office also filed a brief in the case, saying Mr. Dayton should not be allowed to escape liability just because he had left office.

Lawmakers preparing to retire would become "essentially immune from liability" for wrongdoing against employees because their cases would not reach trial before their terms expired, the brief said.

That was the same conclusion reached by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, who ruled last month that Mr. Dayton was liable under the 1995 act, which extends many labor and workplace safety laws to about 30,000 employees of Congress and its agencies. Congress had intended in the act "to provide the means — both administratively and financially — to guarantee its employees redress for labor or employment violations," Judge Leon's ruling said.

"Simply put, interpreting the [Congressional Accountability Act] in the manner advanced by [Mr. Dayton] would effectively immunize a lame duck member or senator who may engage in the very conduct the [act] was designed to protect employees from."

The lawsuit was filed in 2003 by Brad Hanson, 54, a campaign worker for Mr. Dayton who later worked in his Fort Snelling, Minn., office. His work included running a health care help line to help Mr. Dayton's constituents resolve health insurance problems.

In 2002, Mr. Hanson's doctors told him he needed heart surgery which would require several weeks of recuperation. "Hanson alleges that when he informed Senator Dayton, on July 3, 2002, that he needed cardiac surgery, the senator responded by saying, 'You're done,' " the court's ruling reads. "Indeed, the senator is alleged to have told Hanson to go on medical leave, only to inform him several weeks later that he would be terminated effective September 30, 2002."

In addition to violating the Congressional Accountability Act, Mr. Hanson's lawsuit accuses Mr. Dayton of violating the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. ( Why not fully prosecute him!)

Mr. Dayton's first response was to file a motion to dismiss, arguing that he was immune from liability under the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The constitutional provision protects elected officials from liability for their legislative words or actions.

Rep. William J. Jefferson, Louisiana Democrat, cited the same clause in a highly publicized corruption case. Mr. Jefferson says the Speech or Debate Clause should protect him from federal indictments accusing him of accepting bribes to broker business deals in Africa. His trial was scheduled to begin in late February but was postponed after his attorneys appealed against a ruling that he could not invoke the legislative privilege.

Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, also is invoking the Speech or Debate Clause to protect himself from a defamation lawsuit filed by one of several Marines he accused of killing "innocent civilians in cold blood" during a Nov. 19, 2005, incident at Haditha, Iraq. The incident left 24 Iraqis dead.

Mr. Dayton lost his Speech or Debate Clause argument in district court and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and let the lower court's ruling stand.

But Mr. Dayton left office on Jan. 3, 2007, while the Supreme Court case was still pending. His lawyers then filed a new motion claiming Mr. Hanson's lawsuit should be dismissed because Mr. Dayton was no longer a senator. The court's ruling that denied that motion was published last month.

No court date has yet been announced for a hearing on Mr. Hanson's lawsuit. Attorneys for Mr. Dayton declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. Mr. Dayton was previously caught up in controversy in October 2004 when he closed his Washington office until after the November elections, saying classified information showed there was a risk of a terrorist attack. He explained that he did not want to subject his staff and visitors to terrorism risks.

He gained more notoriety that year for accusing government agencies investigated after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of lying to cover up their own misdeeds. (Were any of these ever proven? Nope! Just another windbag Dim.)

[reconeil]

Brice,
Let's face it. You just like many others (myself included) usually displaying a quite warranted disgust with our largely Leftist Pandering Political System of Governance,...are mostly spittin or pissin-into-the-wind. Nothing ACTUALLY ever changes sensibly, no matter what. Borders STILL wide open & STILL waiting for another attack.

After all, you too must have realized by now that perpetually Politically-Correct (an oxymoron) Leftists or ACLU (actually anti-America CLU)-minded and/or Political Supremacist Democrats,...can pretty-much do as liked or wanted. Excellent proof of such being the ex: "Loverboy-In-Chief" Bill Clinton. JFK & Brothers also merit some Dishonorable Mention.

Regardless, does anyone honestly believe that if instead a Republican President had been orally serviced on a daily basis by another Public Servant (some joke) also on OUR Payroll during working hours in OUR Oval Office, he too would have so easily skated past the entire U.S. Congress (Chief Justice of Supreme Court inclusive) during the impeachment proceedings,...with nary even a chastizement or punishment for a MISDEMEANOR, or MISDEMEANOUR as Old English penned in The U.S. Constitution????????

Well, I sure-as-hell don't believe so.
Whether just plain old womanizing or despicably deviant behaviors are perpetrated by A Clinton or A Kennedy, such are most always venerated by their flock and indiscretions basically excused as: "It's no ones business what presidents do in their off hours or during their personal time". Sure hope Islam doesn't attack us AGAIN during president's: "Off hours"?

Whereas, if even slightly similar occurs while a Republican is In Office,...WATCH OUT!
It becomes a whole different story and/or that: "Even the appearance of any impropriety" automatically warrants immediate dismal, pilloring or; "Nailing-to-The Cross".

Why is that? Are that many in The Public & Press that gullible or stupid that they actually believe such an obvious Political Double Standard has anything whatsoever doing with A DEMOCRACY??

Granted: "The End justisfies The Means" Crowd/Breed and/or Leftist, Socialist or Communist type rulers adamently & stubbornly believe in a 1 Party Supremacy Form of Governance, and destroying all opposition as best as possible. But,...SO WHAT? Isn't this still America?

Neil