Mr. Nadler objected to an amendment (the Fossella amendment) that would prohibit the expenditure of funds to enforce a court decision denying asylum to the partners of Chinese nationals whose asylum applications are based on a fear of forced abortions and forced sterilizations. (Mr. Nadler indicated that he was going to propose legislation to overturn this order and agreed that it was wrong.)
Mr. Nadler's objection was that "the idea of saying we will not permit funds to be used to carry out an order of a court destroys, undermines, and subverts the rule of law in this country. We cannot subvert the rule of law in this country by denying funds to carry out an order of the court". I think he is right in this view and commend him for it.
On the other hand, Mr. Nadler voted in favor of an amendment (the Poe amendment) providing that no funds be used to incarcerate two border patrol agents, apparently sentenced excessively. Now, this amendment passed with about 395 votes and from the debate, no one was arguing that these sentences were just. However, do we really want Congress to be engaged in this activity? Congress is not a court and did not conduct a trial, nor is the pardon power vested in Congress. I fail to see how Mr. Nadler's objection to the Fossella amendment does not apply with equal force to the Poe amendment. So, Mr. Nadler, why the vote in favor of the Poe Amendment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment