| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:22 am Post subject: SCOTUS rules against Bush's tribunals |
 |
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in creating military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and the Geneva Convention.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5129904.stm
And the neo-con, warmongering, ignorant bushites lose another one, democracy gets another breath of life. So much for stacking the court. Fox news will be slamming Bushes court tomorrow morning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| While I prefer the terminology "Diana Ross and the Supremes" rule against..." I do applaud the decision. Now if I could only remember which president said, "mumble, mumble, mumble. Now let him enforce it." Wasn't it Andy Jackson speaking about John Marshall? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So much for stacking the court. |
Yeah, three of the majority judges(Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter) were Republican appointees. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:46 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
I am happy about that.
But I beg the question, why does our judicial system have to be so slow?
Working with a business model, one might hire more judges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Working with a business model, one might hire more judges.
|
Would having more judges increase the speed at which decisions are reached? Wouldn't it still take the same amount of time for the lawyers to make their arguments, etc? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fantastic news.
But in some ways it doesn't go far enough. The court decision does not address whether or not the administration even has the right to hold 'detainees' at Guantanamo. But, I suppose it is a tricky situation, having to clean up the administration's mess. There is a good chance at least some of the people detained there were connected with Islamic terrorism.
On the flip side, the ruling is further good news for other cases.
WashPost
| Quote: |
Legal analysts said that the court's opinion could lead to a challenge to the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program, because wiretapping is already covered by a federal statute, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, just as military commissions were, in the court's view, covered by the UCMJ.
"The same reasoning would seem to apply to the NSA case, because the argument that the authorization to use military force enables them to ignore FISA goes down the drain," said Joseph P. Onek, senior counsel of the Constitution Project, a Washington-based civil liberties organization that opposed the commissions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem is though, that Bush has already said he's going to get around the court decision by asking Congress to pass a law allowing him to convene a military tribunals.
So this begs the question, will Congress allow it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The problem is though, that Bush has already said he's going to get around the court decision by asking Congress to pass a law allowing him to convene a military tribunals.
So this begs the question, will Congress allow it? |
I totally agree with this. If Congress decides, it decides. Trouble is, Bush has far too much used, "executive priviledge" and sanctimoniously tried to legitimize his tin pot emperor rulings because of the "state of war". All a fiction and unconstitutional.
I think in this particular case he will do the same and WON'T go to Congress. He will just keep the status quo with his executive priviledge and spit in the American people's faces and apathy.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Quote: |
The problem is though, that Bush has already said he's going to get around the court decision by asking Congress to pass a law allowing him to convene a military tribunals.
So this begs the question, will Congress allow it? |
I totally agree with this. If Congress decides, it decides. Trouble is, Bush has far too much used, "executive priviledge" and sanctimoniously tried to legitimize his tin pot emperor rulings because of the "state of war". All a fiction and unconstitutional.
I think in this particular case he will do the same and WON'T go to Congress. He will just keep the status quo with his executive priviledge and spit in the American people's faces and apathy.
DD |
I think the following scenario is more likely:
He'll defer to Congress, they'll likely tell him to proceed in a certain manner, he'll appear to accept their decision, and then he'll write a Constitutional signing statement. He'll then claim he has the right to ignore one of the three branches of government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:05 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Would having more judges increase the speed at which decisions are reached? Wouldn't it still take the same amount of time for the lawyers to make their arguments, etc? |
otoh,
Perhaps my point is better applied to the lower courts.
If you follow the timeline, it does kind of follow.
However, if this weren't about the White House, were it anybody else, I believe there would be some kind of order to cease and desist until the issue is resolved in court.
What we have is a ruling to follow the Geneva Convention 4 years after it started being violated.
Something is very wrong about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:08 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
And when will there be rulings about extraordinary rendition?
Absent of a plaintiff, is such a thing possible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So much for stacking the court. |
Actually this is not that surprising. True conservatives would be even more likely than liberals to reign in the expansion of executive power. Conservatives are by definition strict constructionists and narrowly interpret governmental powers. Presidents must follow the laws laid down by Congress within the confines of the Constitution as interpreted by the Court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
