2008 Supreme Court Rejects McDermott Appeal
posted by on December 3 at 15:52 PM
WASHINGTON — The long legal fight between two members of Congress over an illegally taped telephone call ended Monday when the Supreme Court refused to review the case.The court left in place a federal appeals court ruling that Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., acted improperly in giving reporters access to a recording of a 1996 telephone call of Republican leaders discussing the House ethics case against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga…
The decision upholds a previous court ruling ordering McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, more than $800,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $800,000 in legal costs for Boehner, who filed suit against McDermott nearly a decade ago.
My long 2006 look at the case is here. Toward the end of the piece McDermott talks about how a Supreme Court hearing might embarrass Republicans during the run-up to the 2008 elections.
The Republicans and Boehner thought they were avenging Gingrich when they started this lawsuit, McDermott says, but a sword cuts both ways.“You gotta be careful when you try to take vengeance. Because what goes around comes around.”
Looks like things didn’t quite come around the way he’d hoped.
sad, just shows that you can't win by playing the republican's game on their terms, the have rigged the system. the only hope is to change the game in a positive way that punishes those who play the republican's game
thanks from the 7th, ralph nader.
Eh. It sucks, but it'll come back to bite the GOP on the ass eventually. They're the ones that employ dirty tricks most frequently.
Very true, Gitai.
Just wait until Sen Clinton is appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Obama.
I am a die-hard, card-carrying Democrat. I donate money monthly to my local district Democrats and to the DCCC and to the DNC and to one of the Democratic candidates for President. And, while I feel bad for Jim McDermott in this case, I have to say that he *did* act inappropriately and, reluctantly, I have agreed with the various rulings based on the law.
More importantly, this legal "problem" has been eating up money and his attention for years now, whether you agree with the courts or not--he should have settled years ago. He's foolish for not having done so in the current legal climate.
What I would like to see from McDermott now is renewed focus on us, his district. I do not feel he serves the district with the same aplomb he did years ago. We are in dire need of transportation dollars, environmental investment, infrastructure initiatives, and health insurance reform--among many other things. Jim has an illustrious record for the district, but the shine has clouded in the past few years with distractions and I'd like to see things sparkle again.
Or, I'd like to see the mantle passed to a vibrant, fresh Democrat instead.
I'm lovin' it. Pay up Jimmy boy!
Any word on how the criminal investigation into Rep. Boehner's long association with Jack Abramoff is going? If Boeher goes to jail on felony charges, does McDermott still have to pay?
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).