Welcome to PatsFans.com

Hamden, dissenting opinions

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Jul 5, 2006.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,598
    Likes Received:
    167
    Ratings:
    +459 / 12 / -14

    A couple of articles on the Supremes overstepping their bounds (5 of em anyway). They ignored a law passed by congress restricting them from acting on Haebus corpus petitions by enemy combatants held outside the US.

    link:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTYwOTYzMWY5NGZlNDM0MTg2MDc3ZjkxYmI4ZmY4NmU

    and for your reading pleasure:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23204

    Imperial judicary anyone?
     
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,196
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +817 / 27 / -33

    This is the same thread theme that goes along with the activist judges rants, heard Bush several times say he was waiting for the decision of the Supreme Court on this and other issues. If he was proactive and dealt with a diverse inner group, he may have come with an alternative solution to the mess in Cuba. A question I pose is how do we get out of the Cuba mess with all the insurgents detained there?? Instead he does not deal with others than those who think like he does, so there is not a lot of creativity in his decision making. A case in point is several weeks ago he was supposedly convening a diverse group of people to discuss the Iraq conflict, I thought that was a good thing. Next thing I read he is in Iraq, so the diverse group of people thing was a smokescreen and lipservice. I guess a photo op was more important.

    Criticize the SC as much as you want, but it is how our country works, like it or not the balance of power thing is what makes our country great. The reality of the SC is that it is one of the components that makes our Gov't really great, I do not like its composition, but more often than not their decisions are made on law not emotion or public opinion.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2006
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,196
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +817 / 27 / -33

    One more thing I find it interesting, that one of the premier think tanks of the right, Cato Institute filed an amicus brief on behalf of the detainees at Guantanamo. There seems to be a lot of consensus that these folks are entitled to some form of due process, that is what makes our judicial system great. Don't come back and say did our tortured soldiers have due process? We are not like them we are Americans and it is our responsibility to show how it is done correctly.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2005
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,967
    Likes Received:
    317
    Ratings:
    +583 / 22 / -19

    The ruling basically said the president does not have the ability to unilaterally make these decisions. Creating law must be done in conjunction with Congress. It was a far reaching decision in that it restored the balance of power.
     
  5. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    VERY good posts...There are some on the right who also see a problem with the fact that there is no due process at Gitmo..there are two systems of justice in place now (the military system and the civil/criminal court system..) and there are some that wish for a third..a military tribunals. Theproblem with a third is that there is no history and no legal precendents to build on...
    Lt Comander Swift noted that in most cases there would be issues..some issues..with a tribunal and NO history, everything would be an issue..In other words a real chaos. Yes, those at Gitmo need dur process, the large question is what process. There was also a comparison to the Barbary pirates but that was a long time ago, but it may be more similar than different to the terrorists now.
    You are so correct though.we are NOT them..thank the lucky stars we are not!!! We need to show the world one..that we will not in anyway fold our democracy because of terrorism..(THAT we have bent any is a disgrace..and shows that the terrorists have won in some way) and two that while we deplore terrorism and those that cause it, that we in no way lessen our strong stand on human rights and will treat those taken accordinly. (Unfortunately with Gitmo and other practices, the country which led the human rights movement many years..has tumbled a bit..)
    I agree with your statement about the SC and I too do not like the composition of it..but the fact that THIS court ruled this way speaks volumes of its importnace. If it were anything close to a left leaning court, one could argue that..but one can't with this makeup. And yes..the law is more important than emotion or public opinion...absolutely.
     
  6. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I saw him trying on his Burger King crown...didn't work....
     
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,598
    Likes Received:
    167
    Ratings:
    +459 / 12 / -14

    One of the points of the article was that congres did pass a law regarding this, and the court chose to ignore the law limiting their jurisdiction in this matter.

    The court has taken the position that it is superior to the other branches of goverment, this takes us away from balance of power, and towards an imperial judiciary.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2006
  8. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Imperial judicuiary??? THAT is laughable...
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2006
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,598
    Likes Received:
    167
    Ratings:
    +459 / 12 / -14


    Why do you feel that it is OK for the Courts to ignore the legislature and write their own law?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2005
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,967
    Likes Received:
    317
    Ratings:
    +583 / 22 / -19

    Are you defending segregation and opposition to interracial marriage? There are many cases where the courts have to do what the popularly elected are unable to do. Also, the court directed the administration to work with the Congress on Gitmo, so I don't think this example particularly supports your point, unless you believe the Congress can pass a law that says, "The President can do whatever he wants and no one can stop him." The Congress has a responsibility under the Constitution. They cannot give up that responsible even if every right-winger wants them to.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2005
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,196
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +817 / 27 / -33

    Think you need a good civics lesson and less time listening to right wing talking points, the SOTUS is charged with interpreting the law in light of our Constitution and how that has been interpreted previously. Nothing more and nothing less, to say that they have taken the position that is superior leads me to believe you do not understand its role or you are mimicking someone else who believes this. The SOTUS is not supposed to be political, and you might complain about this decision, but in reality there are as many complaints from both sides about other decisions, bottom line is the buck stops there.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2005
  12. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    We had the Governor here explaining about "activist judges" and talking about how the people ened to decide about what marriage is or is not. I think courts may have a ruling in this and they should. He was implying that it is democracy in action deciding civil rights..I hasten to add that he is completely wrong on that as there was NO big vote that freed the slaves or helpws with civil rights or desegregated the schools..or??? Courts making decisions have interpreted the laws..always have, always will.
     
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,598
    Likes Received:
    167
    Ratings:
    +459 / 12 / -14

    While the court does rule on laws the constitution assigns the duties of CiC to the president. and congress to authorize the use of force by the executive branch. The US courts also rule on matters of law withing US territory. Hamdan is not being held within US terrotory. Also the law passed 12/2005 the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), congress directed the court to not to intervene on haebus corpus petitions filed by enemy combats. The court defied congress.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>