It is a very rare thing for a non-lawyer to serve in the United States Congress. Without doing background checks on the members of the Judiciary Commitee of the U.S. House of Representatives, I would wager a large sum that almost all of the members, both Republican and Democrat, are lawyers. Why does this matter? Anyone who has perused the U.S. Code knows that every bill written by the Congress is filled with legalistic hair splitting. For example the spirit of the latest telecommunications bill is designed to "promote" competition, if you listen to the press statements made by Congress(wo)men. Yet, the bill itself decides in explicit detail who is to compete with whom, in what markets, on what timetable, etc. Congress knows that it cannot depend on the Judicial branch to make legal decisions based upon the spirit of what Congress intended. Rather the Judicial process depends upon the letter of the law, the arguments presented to the Court, and the Judge and Jury.
A classic example of this was rendered during the past year by Thomas Penfield Jackson in his initial ruling upon Microsoft violating the 1995 consent decree.
In short, Microsoft has demonstrated, at the very least, the ambiguity of the term "integrated product." Microsoft has advanced a plausible interpretation of the term, and has provided a reasonable explanation for its understanding that the consent decree did not preclude Microsoft's insistence that OEMs accept IE as part of Windows 95. The government has not clearly convinced the Court that Microsoft violated a "clear and unambiguous" provision of the consent decree, Armstrong, 1 F.3d at 1289. Accordingly, the Court declines to hold Microsoft in civil contempt of the Final Judgment.IV.
Although the government has not satisfied the evidentiary burden necessary to sustain a finding of contempt, it does not necessarily follow that Microsoft's licensing practices are, in fact, in compliance with the terms of the Final Judgment. Notwithstanding the Court's conclusion that Microsoft's interpretation of Section IV(E)(i) is plausible in light of the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the consent decree, the Court is also not convinced that the interpretation is the correct one.
This ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeals because of more "legalistic hair splitting" over the definition of "integrated product". And the current testimony in the case goes to the heart of that definition, which partly hinges upon the definition of who Microsoft's customers are and how the computer OS market is defined.
And of course every member of the House Judiciary Committee knows that this process is the standard operating procedure for U.S. jurisprudence. So for the Republican members of the Committee to argue that Clinton's defence is just "legalistic hair splitting" is disingenuous at best. Of course America is a Republic based upon elections and those who vote often hold the same values of "passing judgment upon sinners" and "retribution on this Earth" as their officials. So it is better policy to energize the zealots and hope that the moderates on both sides become so disgusted with politics that they stop voting.
So with the one situation where Congress serves not only as the Legislative branch but also as the Judicial branch of government, the true spirit of the demagogues, hypocrites, and liars is exposed. Unfortunately for our nation, this spirit permeates the White House, the Congress, the Press, and the Public. The only constitution in crisis here is the non-zealot American's stomach for more politics as usual.
Postscript note: Kudos to Keith Olberman for rising above this nonsense despite the loss of his job and a certain amount of his freedom. After deciding that he didn't want to spend his airtime on MSNBC talking about the Lewinsky affair, he was forced to give up his own show and leave MSNBC.