|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/24/2008 2:25:30 AM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
If U.S. military forces took custody of these people during a state of war, then these people fall under a different jurisdiction of laws (the rules of war) than you or I walking down the street in downtown Anywhere, USA.
If they're subject to the rules of war, then either they're POWs, or they're civilians who should be tried, convicted, and sent away for the appropriate term (life? I imagine).
Still, I have to say I'm very impressed by your trust in your government on its ability to determine which people may be rightly detained indefinitely, without regard for what would normally be their human rights. Unfortunately I lack such trust in my government.
quote:
And I guess y'all don't care that the SCOTUS justices, flying in the face of both the Executive AND Legislative branches, gave the most brutal, vicious people in the world rights that, under the constitution, are reserved for American citizens.
Apparently those rights are reserved for people held on territory over which America holds effective sovereignty, e.g. Gitmo. And if they are the most brutal, vicious people in the world, surely there should be very little difficulty proving it. Is a trial really that difficult?
quote:
And don't tell me you, or the facists in black robes, care about morals and ethics. You care about politics, and you'll take every chance to stick it to the administration and those fighting the war on terror, endangering all of us (including yourselves) desperately trying to justify you hatred of George Bush.
No offence, but this seems slightly paranoid. More to the point, I'm not sure there's a single person in this thread who's unconcerned about morals or ethics. I think you should be slightly more considering in what words you choose. This discussion is probably going to lose civility rapidly if such personal attacks become the norm.
quote:
Time to grow up, though, 'cause after this ruling, the ****, and the suicide bombs, will be hittin' the fan, and your side has NO CLUE how to deal.
Ah yes, a vague appeal to fear. Very original.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/24/2008 1:37:14 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 387
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
No offence, but this seems slightly paranoid. More to the point, I'm not sure there's a single person in this thread who's unconcerned about morals or ethics.
Well, according to mapachito, I'm not. Take it up with him/her.
quote:
I think you should be slightly more considering in what words you choose. This discussion is probably going to lose civility rapidly if such personal attacks become the norm
Their's nothing uncivil about calling a spade a spade. This is about democracy and the rule of law. The courts today are out of control, and it's threatening our democracy as well as our safety.
quote:
Ah yes, a vague appeal to fear. Very original.
Origjnality is not my concern. Reality is. And I don't think it's vague, either.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/24/2008 1:59:07 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 387
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Case in point.
CLICK HERE
[Post edited by mod to fix screen formatting]
< Message edited by ta_mosquito -- 6/24/2008 9:21:37 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/24/2008 9:18:00 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11506
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Please keep the personal attacks and inflammatory posts to a minimum. I realize this is an emotional issue, but please don't take your frustration out on the other posters.
Thank you!
Tricia
Forums Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/25/2008 7:03:26 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 450
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
Their's nothing uncivil about calling a spade a spade. This is about democracy and the rule of law. The courts today are out of control, and it's threatening our democracy as well as our safety.
That is what the court said. The Constitution, and specifically habeas corpus, can only be suspended in rare circumstances and this is not one of them. I think this quote bears repeating:
quote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin
quote:
And I guess y'all don't care that the SCOTUS justices, flying in the face of both the Executive AND Legislative branches, gave the most brutal, vicious people in the world rights that, under the constitution, are reserved for American citizens.
I would suggest that you actually read the Constitution and then pick up a Con Law text book so that you can better understand the whole separation of powers. You also might want to read the actual case to see what the holding is instead of relying on what pundits have to say, especially Dick Morris, who must not even have read the case. OTOH, considering his past antics, I have a hard time taking him seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/25/2008 11:02:38 AM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 387
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
No offence, but this seems slightly paranoid. More to the point, I'm not sure there's a single person in this thread who's unconcerned about morals or ethics. I think you should be slightly more considering in what words you choose. This discussion is probably going to lose civility rapidly if such personal attacks become the norm.
Who on this post did I attack personally? I called the justices facists, which I believe they are. Good lordy, so far, in my short time on this thread, I've been congratulated for advocating torture and told I don't care about morals and ethics. Typical libearl MO. Throw out ad-hominum attacks on conservative ideas and people, then get offended when they respond.
quote:
I would suggest that you actually read the Constitution and then pick up a Con Law text book so that you can better understand the whole separation of powers. You also might want to read the actual case to see what the holding is instead of relying on what pundits have to say, especially Dick Morris, who must not even have read the case. OTOH, considering his past antics, I have a hard time taking him seriously.
He wasn't talking about this specific case, he was talking about the liberal approach of prosecuting terrorism through our judicial system, which he saw first-hand. He gave an example, the best example, of how disastrous and dangerous that was, and will now be.
That was also the finding of the 9/11 Commission, that the "wall" built by the Clinton Justice Dept. made it impossible for our intelligence agencies to share intelligence and act on it, which is their job. The result - 9/11. Because of this SCOTUS ruling, it WILL happen again.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/25/2008 11:07:30 AM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
Who on this post did I attack personally? I called the justices facists, which I believe they are. Good lordy, so far, in my short time on this thread, I've been congratulated for advocating torture and told I don't care about morals and ethics. Typical libearl MO. Throw out ad-hominum attacks on conservative ideas and people, then get offended when they respond.
Well, for one thing, you accused your opponents on this thread of being amoral political manipulators just acting out their hatred of Bush. I'm very sorry that you have been attacked on this thread, but I have not said you don't care about morals or ethics, and I'm not sure that accusing others of not caring about morals or ethics either is the best way to respond.
Of course, I can only assume this is not actually directed at me, since I'm not in fact a liberal. Still, if you feel patronizing and derogatory comments about "typical MOs" strengthens your case, by all means carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/25/2008 12:18:29 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2537
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
That was also the finding of the 9/11 Commission, that the "wall" built by the Clinton Justice Dept. made it impossible for our intelligence agencies to share intelligence and act on it, which is their job. The result - 9/11. Because of this SCOTUS ruling, it WILL happen again.
Please familiarize yourself with Patriot Acts 1 & 2 to see how that is no longer an issue. Why do you think the Department of Homeland Security was formed?
Why would it be legally ethical to flout all the laws your country professes to believe in? Why would it be morally ethical to treat people from other countries as less human than an American citizen? Do we believe that all people are created equal with certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS? Or is that just good PR?
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/25/2008 1:50:46 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 387
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
Please familiarize yourself with Patriot Acts 1 & 2 to see how that is no longer an issue. Why do you think the Department of Homeland Security was formed?
Exactly! Now you're getting it! The provisions of the Patriot Act are what critics of the president are so worked up about, what they say is flouting all the laws of our country. It has enabled the administration and intelligence communities to monitor and track terrorist activities and thrwart them. It was enacted to protect the intelligence communities from "the requirement that all our investigations to be conducted within the procedural framework needed to bring a criminal prosecution", as Morris said in his article. Gathering intelligence has NEVER fallen under those requirements, until Reno and Gorelic ruled that they were. Result - disaster. Now, the (I'll be kind) 'liberal' justices on the court have ruled that military justice must conform to the same procedural framework, which it has never had to before. Result - disaster.
quote:
Still, I have to say I'm very impressed by your trust in your government on its ability to determine which people may be rightly detained indefinitely, without regard for what would normally be their human rights. Unfortunately I lack such trust in my government.
I suggest to you both that you familiarize yourselves with the Detainee Treatment Act, which our democratically elected representatives in congress, along with our democratically elected president and his administration, worked out to deal with exactly the concerns you have. The court just brushed aside the whole thing, asserting once again that they know better than the will of the people.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php
To quote Justice Roberts in his dissent "So who has won...Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers, who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges. I respectfully dissent."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/25/2008 2:54:42 PM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 450
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
That was also the finding of the 9/11 Commission, that the "wall" built by the Clinton Justice Dept. made it impossible for our intelligence agencies to share intelligence and act on it, which is their job. The result - 9/11. Because of this SCOTUS ruling, it WILL happen again.
Please quote the portion of the Sup. Ct. ruling that would prevent intelligence agencies from sharing and acting on data. Again, you might want to read the decision or at least the holding.
quote:
I suggest to you both that you familiarize yourselves with the Detainee Treatment Act, which our democratically elected representatives in congress, along with our democratically elected president and his administration, worked out to deal with exactly the concerns you have. The court just brushed aside the whole thing, asserting once again that they know better than the will of the people.
I am somewhat familiar with the Act and I understand the objections of the Court. Will of the people?!?!? Ha! I agree they were fairly elected, but I must admit that I laughed out loud when you said a President with an approval rating in the 20's and a Congress (IIRC) with an approval rating in the teens knows what the people want. It doesn't matter anyway if they violate the Constitution, which isn't subject to the whims of the President and Congress. Do you honestly believe that every action by any President or Congress is ok?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/25/2008 5:42:17 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 387
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
I am somewhat familiar with the Act and I understand the objections of the Court. Will of the people?!?!? Ha! I agree they were fairly elected, but I must admit that I laughed out loud when you said a President with an approval rating in the 20's and a Congress (IIRC) with an approval rating in the teens knows what the people want. It doesn't matter anyway if they violate the Constitution, which isn't subject to the whims of the President and Congress. Do you honestly believe that every action by any President or Congress is ok?
No, I don't. But if the people are dissatisfied with congress or the president, they have the opportunity to vote them out of office and vote in someone they think can do a better job. We have no such recourse with the courts. We aren't governed by opinion polls, either. We have a representative republic, framed that way by the founders.
Our country is being smothered to death by lawyers and judges. If this trend continues, we will have no rights or recourses when our liberties are taken away and our security is compromised.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/25/2008 6:03:33 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2537
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
I am somewhat familiar with the Act and I understand the objections of the Court. Will of the people?!?!? Ha! I agree they were fairly elected, but I must admit that I laughed out loud when you said a President with an approval rating in the 20's and a Congress (IIRC) with an approval rating in the teens knows what the people want. It doesn't matter anyway if they violate the Constitution, which isn't subject to the whims of the President and Congress. Do you honestly believe that every action by any President or Congress is ok?
No, I don't. But if the people are dissatisfied with congress or the president, they have the opportunity to vote them out of office and vote in someone they think can do a better job. We have no such recourse with the courts. We aren't governed by opinion polls, either. We have a representative republic, framed that way by the founders.
Our country is being smothered to death by lawyers and judges. If this trend continues, we will have no rights or recourses when our liberties are taken away and our security is compromised.
The reason why people are appointed for life to SCOTUS is to keep them from being beholden to public opinion or to the persons who appointed them. SCOTUS has resisted efforts of influence by administration's attempt to circumvent provisions of the constitution. The system of checks and balances works.
This lack of influence is unfortunately further proven out by the inability to overturn Roe v Wade even though 6 out of the nine were appointed by Republican Presidents. 3 out of those 6 by Presidents by men whose last name was Bush. All 4 Presidents were pro-life!
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/25/2008 7:01:51 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
If this trend continues, we will have no rights or recourses when our liberties are taken away and our security is compromised.
Given the court case in question protected habeas corpus, the claim that judicial activism is taking away liberties seems rather out of place.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/25/2008 7:43:30 PM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 450
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
No, I don't. But if the people are dissatisfied with congress or the president, they have the opportunity to vote them out of office and vote in someone they think can do a better job. We have no such recourse with the courts. We aren't governed by opinion polls, either. We have a representative republic, framed that way by the founders.
Our country is being smothered to death by lawyers and judges. If this trend continues, we will have no rights or recourses when our liberties are taken away and our security is compromised.
I think Constitutional Republic is a more accurate term. Our federal gov't is one of limited powers, with the Constitution outlining what powers they should have. The Supreme Court, among its duties, has the job of preventing the other two branches from violating the Constitution.
I would have to disagree with your assessment of who is smothering us and taking away our rights. While the Sup. Ct. has made mistakes, the other two branches have, over the course of our existence as a nation, violated our rights far more often and have assumed far more power than the Constitution gives them. I suppose we can elect people to correct this, but how often have you seen the gov't (even a conservative one) give up power? The judiciary is the least dangerous branch of gov't.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/25/2008 8:52:26 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
No, I don't. But if the people are dissatisfied with congress or the president, they have the opportunity to vote them out of office and vote in someone they think can do a better job. We have no such recourse with the courts. We aren't governed by opinion polls, either. We have a representative republic, framed that way by the founders.
Our country is being smothered to death by lawyers and judges. If this trend continues, we will have no rights or recourses when our liberties are taken away and our security is compromised.
I think Constitutional Republic is a more accurate term. Our federal gov't is one of limited powers, with the Constitution outlining what powers they should have. The Supreme Court, among its duties, has the job of preventing the other two branches from violating the Constitution.
I would have to disagree with your assessment of who is smothering us and taking away our rights. While the Sup. Ct. has made mistakes, the other two branches have, over the course of our existence as a nation, violated our rights far more often and have assumed far more power than the Constitution gives them. I suppose we can elect people to correct this, but how often have you seen the gov't (even a conservative one) give up power? The judiciary is the least dangerous branch of gov't.
The 3500 unborn children put to death daily in this country for last 30+ years don't agree...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/26/2008 12:13:47 AM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 905
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
To those cheering this ruling, I have to ask....do you want the US to win in the WOT or not?
Anytime someone supports a move which weakens our war effort, you just gotta ask....
And we have a winner!
Attempting to neuter the discussion by implying that those of us who agree with the high court's ruling want the terrorists to win.
Thank you for proving my earlier point perfectly.
How quickly we forget 9/11 and the almost 3000 americans that died that day. Why don't we ask those families what they think we should do with the terrorists in gitmo. They are prisoners of war, not american citizens, and should not be afforded the rights of an american citizen, when they are enemy combatants.
_____________________________
Isaiah 41:10
"Fear not for I am with you,
Do not be dismayed for I am your God,
I will strengthen you and help you,
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/26/2008 12:17:29 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2537
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
To those cheering this ruling, I have to ask....do you want the US to win in the WOT or not?
Anytime someone supports a move which weakens our war effort, you just gotta ask....
And we have a winner!
Attempting to neuter the discussion by implying that those of us who agree with the high court's ruling want the terrorists to win.
Thank you for proving my earlier point perfectly.
How quickly we forget 9/11 and the almost 3000 americans that died that day. Why don't we ask those families what they think we should do with the terrorists in gitmo. They are prisoners of war, not american citizens, and should not be afforded the rights of an american citizen, when they are enemy combatants.
So where do we find the legal definition of an "enemy combatant"?
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/26/2008 1:56:05 AM
|
|
|
OneJohn410
Posts: 1250
Joined: 6/1/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
quote:
If U.S. military forces took custody of these people during a state of war, then these people fall under a different jurisdiction of laws (the rules of war) than you or I walking down the street in downtown Anywhere, USA.
If they're subject to the rules of war, then either they're POWs, or they're civilians who should be tried, convicted, and sent away for the appropriate term (life? I imagine).
Still, I have to say I'm very impressed by your trust in your government on its ability to determine which people may be rightly detained indefinitely, without regard for what would normally be their human rights. Unfortunately I lack such trust in my government.
quote:
And I guess y'all don't care that the SCOTUS justices, flying in the face of both the Executive AND Legislative branches, gave the most brutal, vicious people in the world rights that, under the constitution, are reserved for American citizens.
Apparently those rights are reserved for people held on territory over which America holds effective sovereignty, e.g. Gitmo. And if they are the most brutal, vicious people in the world, surely there should be very little difficulty proving it. Is a trial really that difficult?
quote:
And don't tell me you, or the facists in black robes, care about morals and ethics. You care about politics, and you'll take every chance to stick it to the administration and those fighting the war on terror, endangering all of us (including yourselves) desperately trying to justify you hatred of George Bush.
No offence, but this seems slightly paranoid. More to the point, I'm not sure there's a single person in this thread who's unconcerned about morals or ethics. I think you should be slightly more considering in what words you choose. This discussion is probably going to lose civility rapidly if such personal attacks become the norm.
quote:
Time to grow up, though, 'cause after this ruling, the ****, and the suicide bombs, will be hittin' the fan, and your side has NO CLUE how to deal.
Ah yes, a vague appeal to fear. Very original.
quote:
quote:
If U.S. military forces took custody of these people during a state of war, then these people fall under a different jurisdiction of laws (the rules of war) than you or I walking down the street in downtown Anywhere, USA.
If they're subject to the rules of war, then either they're POWs, or they're civilians who should be tried, convicted, and sent away for the appropriate term (life? I imagine).
Still, I have to say I'm very impressed by your trust in your government on its ability to determine which people may be rightly detained indefinitely, without regard for what would normally be their human rights. Unfortunately I lack such trust in my government.
I must admit, I don't know about such things as much as others who have carried this thread there and back again and there again three times over. Let me ask you others... how long can detainees be held at Gitmo prior to their declaration of who they are and what they are being charged with, as they are stated to being so entitled?
A second question- who holds the records as to when such persons were first placed under protection of the United States of America?
A third question- if they are in holding, and yet were not officially charged yet- for whatever reason- isn't it quite plausible and true that they can say we haven't been charged yet- and there be no lie or impropriety?
I ask this not to test your own knowledge about such things, only to share with the rest of us what you so strongly argue about. I don't see any middle ground on this, where there's a fence you'd ever want to sit on.
My government (who's your government, btw?), being of the US, elected by the people, for the people, appears to not know how to wage such an enduring war/fight that we are in against terror. HOWEVER, the armed forces of my country are the best I know of, and do know how to do their job no matter the circumstances. I'm really quite proud at how they are choosing TO afford people human rights- the kind those humans may well not know a thing of in their own country. That includes the right to be alive at Gitmo. That's another thing that hasn't been explained so far in this thread- the human rights US troops can expect from Iranians, radical Islamic forces, and any other antagonists from any neighboring countries that want to be involved with creating suicide bombers to kill Iraqi native human beings and our troops.
I remember hostages in Iran once upon a time... a hostage crisis, and the picture of the Ayatollah's face in a black dot on the TV. Do you think it would be possible for that to happen again? How many soldiers does it take to properly process a detainee into Gitmo? Is it a relatively fast thing, or does it take an hour for each? Do our armed forces have designated patrols for the sole purpose of capturing people- for risking their own lives that someone that shouldn't be where they are might live? Please share the knowledge- then we can all be wise together and stop playing war here in this thread. Let's pool our collective knowledge now so we can give the OP Pink Panther his yes/no tally and he can write his thesis and come up with a new thread. Thank you.
OneJohn410
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/26/2008 7:25:44 AM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 387
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
quote:
If this trend continues, we will have no rights or recourses when our liberties are taken away and our security is compromised.
Given the court case in question protected habeas corpus, the claim that judicial activism is taking away liberties seems rather out of place.
I disagree. It's ON point. The court over-stepped it's constitutional role.
quote:
I would have to disagree with your assessment of who is smothering us and taking away our rights. While the Sup. Ct. has made mistakes, the other two branches have, over the course of our existence as a nation, violated our rights far more often and have assumed far more power than the Constitution gives them. I suppose we can elect people to correct this, but how often have you seen the gov't (even a conservative one) give up power? The judiciary is the least dangerous branch of gov't.
quote:
The 3500 unborn children put to death daily in this country for last 30+ years don't agree...
Have you heard of the Warren court? Do you know the devastating effect that court's judicial activism has had on our sociey? If your too young to remember, look it up. John's right about abortion, but it's just one of the tragic legacy's of the court that invented judicial activism.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/26/2008 7:41:55 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2537
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
I disagree. It's ON point. The court over-stepped it's constitutional role.
Have you heard of the Warren court? Do you know the devastating effect that court's judicial activism has had on our sociey? If your too young to remember, look it up. John's right about abortion, but it's just one of the tragic legacy's of the court that invented judicial activism.
So what is your view of the role of the SCOTUS? Is it to provide a check and balance on the other two branches of government or is it just a rubber stamp for Congress and the President. Oh, but with one qualifier, rubber stamp only the conservative agenda!
< Message edited by mapachito13 -- 6/26/2008 7:48:19 AM >
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/26/2008 10:41:08 AM
|
|
|
freakofnature
Posts: 819
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline
|
THIS JUST IN! BROWNBACK AND ROBERTS ON GITMO DETAINEES
"NIMBY"
See Letter Here
The letter states:
quote:
"We do not believe it is fair to ask our best corrections officers to disrupt the mission they perform so well in order to take on a detainee mission that will not improve on arrangements at Guantanamo Bay," the senators wrote. "Nor is it fair to ask the Kansas community to assume the responsibility associated with being located immediately adjacent to these detainees."
Legacy of the SCOTUS... Decissions...decissions. What to do with those at GITMO
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/26/2008 10:56:35 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 450
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
The 3500 unborn children put to death daily in this country for last 30+ years don't agree...
John
The judiciary didn't do this, the states did. Even without R v. W, there would be legal abortion in many states. That being said, that is one of the cases they got wrong, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/26/2008 12:06:59 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
How quickly we forget 9/11 and the almost 3000 americans that died that day. Why don't we ask those families what they think we should do with the terrorists in gitmo. They are prisoners of war, not american citizens, and should not be afforded the rights of an american citizen, when they are enemy combatants.
You really want them treated as prisoners of war?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/26/2008 1:12:17 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 387
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
quote:
Well, for one thing, you accused your opponents on this thread of being amoral political manipulators just acting out their hatred of Bush.
I didn't in any way say 'amoral'. I said you're hatred (okay, 'vehement opposition') has caused you to lose perspective and support a destructive cause.
And to that point, the more I look at the Detainee Treatment Act, the more it strikes me how far the Bush administration was willing to go to to ensure the detainees HAD recourses of appeal. Quoting Roberts again:
quote:
"So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court’s analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases, followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit— where they could have started had they invoked the DTA procedure."
He's talking about this paragraph in the DTA
quote:
(2) REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS OF PROPRIETY OF DETENTION-
(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant.
Only a truly decent leader of a truly decent country would be willing to extend these considerations to such a vicious enemy in time of war. So, excusee me, but this makes the claims that the administration was denying them basic human rights totally baseless, and the only explanation I can see for it is crass political opportunism. Maybe not by you specifically, but surely by those leading the opposition, who you seem to be listening to and following. As for me, I'll follow a leader like GW.
Good debate, ladies and gents. I'm moving on.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/26/2008 1:15:16 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 387
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Whoops, missed a 'quote' tag in that last post. Didn't show on my preview. ?? Sorry, still new at this. Carry on... BRB
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
