Here is a
REAL
"EXTREMIST":
Posted on 01/28/2006 5:15:23 PM PST by new yorker 77
The inevitable confirmation of Samuel Alito for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court may seem to many to be one of those routine transactions between branches of government. In fact, it is part of a larger picture that ought to frighten and outrage Americans of every political stripe.
President Bush has, in recent years, asserted "inherent powers" and "exclusive authority" regardless of laws passed by Congress and language in the U.S. Constitution - and has used the purported powers as a reason to withhold information and exclude Congress from decisions.
On occasion, the court, with the support of outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, has thwarted the administration's radical agenda, as in its ruling that the president may not hold, indefinitely and without trial, anyone he declares an "unlawful enemy combatant."
The court will grow much more compliant with Alito's ascension. That is one of the many reasons that we think his nomination should be rejected, although we understand that won't happen with this Senate.
Congress, curiously, has played a major role in the diminishing of its own powers.
All of this is taking place under the rubric of a reactionary theory of American government called the "unitary executive." That theory has clanked around among right-wing academics and think tanks since at least the Reagan years. But in the hands of the Bush administration, it has become an aggressive battle plan for altering the very fabric of representative government in the United States.
In essence, the theory holds that the executive - the president - may interpret the laws and the Constitution as he wishes, without regard to congressional legislation or court ruling.
Alito has been a disciple of this radical theory for many years, and it shows in his record on the federal bench. He has rarely met a government intrusion that he didn't like. He has rarely found a limit to government's power.
That's not conservative. That's authoritarian. And that's frightening.
The Republican majorities in the Congress haven't just rolled over and played dead. They have actively and enthusiastically participated in the emasculation of their own offices. It is a grotesque parody of the system the Founding Fathers designed.
Perhaps all those "conservatives" in Congress should close their eyes and imagine such an all-powerful executive branch in the hands of, say, a President Hillary Clinton. Would they still be so eager to abandon their duty to the Constitution and the separation of powers it enshrines?
The foundation for Bush's assault, of course, is Sept. 11 and the war on terrorism. Bush has played upon the natural fears and anxieties - as well as the anger - of the American people since the terrorist attacks four years ago.
Every atrocity committed against the Constitution - illegal wiretaps, demands to see Internet communications of private citizens, snooping into medical records, detentions without trial or counsel, increasing limits on civil liberties - is couched in terms of "winning the war on terrorism," a war that, in an unusual moment of candor, the president himself admitted probably cannot be won.
In other words, an endless national emergency presided over by an all-powerful executive.
That's not where the founders meant us to go, but it is where we are being taken. It's a frightening destination.
one kooks-a-plenty shake going on there..
If I lived in Fresno, I'd be pissed off about everything all the time too.
Tread carefully there, newb....
Thanks for ratting me out.
Libs...anything their side does is great, anything the other side does is bad and wrong. Same old story that will never change.
This is a bald faced lie.
Fresno is one of the better places to live in California. One of the few conservative towns.
I agree.. but the funny part was the route the story took..
What a rag. The Fresno Bee has to the western version of the NY Times, they're way loonier than the LA Times.
I was referring to the ocean views.
Sorry to say, I lived in San Francisco for several years.
Dispatcher - are there any jackbooted thugs currently available in that vicinity?
Here is a
REAL
"EXTREMIST":
Who is he?
I meant that last post I did for the author of the article :)
Yawn. I remember during the Clinton administration, how he wanted just about every financial transaction to be reported to the government, a "clipper chip" in every computer to let the FBI have a backdoor for domestic spying, and more government snooping on anyone legally owning a gun. The argument was that if you snoop on millions of people, eventually you will find a criminal. Most leftists were delighted with that. Now there is a net narrowly focussed on terrorists and their helpers and you would think it is the end of the world and the leftists want to grant civil rights to foreign terrorists.
If you win elections you may choose nominees. If you don't then shut up and call all Republicans racist, homophobic, sexist, religious zealots!
So soon the libs forget the multitude of Presidential power grabs signed by Clinton. "Stroke of a pen, the law of the land." Talk about avoiding the Legislative Branch!
To the Editor:
I seldom read the Op/Ed page of any newspaper, much less a paper from Vermont, but I feel compelled to respond to your editorial “A troubling symptom”. It must be terrible to be a member of the apoplectic, impotent Left nowadays. The American electorate has turned out or turned down your leaders, the GOP controls both Houses of Congress and the White House. As any president would, Mr. Bush has sent qualified, highly intelligent candidates that fit his ideology to the Supreme Court.
In other words, the system is working…and you on the Left can’t stand it. Too bad. Instead of crying about how right you are, why not try to engage the American People on their own terms? Why insist, by extrapolation, that we are idiots for voting candidates into office that we actually want, like Mr. Bush? How about dropping the overheated, Bush-bashing rhetoric and speaking calmly instead of screaming? MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, NARAL, Code Pink, Veterans for Peace and others have failed to convince because they (and you) come off so predictably frantic, hate-filled and unbalanced. That will win few votes. So, why not publicly oppose them and their methods?
Actually, I am quite happy about this turn of events. I believe Judge Alito (or Alioto as Ted Kennedy called him) will be brilliant as Associate Justice Alito, showing his wisdom, experience and intelligence on the Supreme Court as he has done on the Circuit Court.
So, keep up the good work. The crazier you on the Left appear, the better Americans will see your true natures and send your devolved, childish thinking to the ash heap of history.
The valid argument the liberals have is "Two words: President Hillary." I find it scary, because the conservatives may focus on terrorists, but President Hillary? Who are her enemies?
And, if elected, it will make no difference to her what the law is. It has never made a difference to the Clintons.
Were there laws that allowed them to junk the White House Travel Office? Were there laws that allowed them to secure 900 FBI files on their opponents? Were there laws that enabled them to collect millions in Chinese money to support their re-election?
Thinking in terms of legislation that will forbid abuses of power is self-defeating in their case. When (if) they have power, they WILL abuse it.
The only protection we have from the Clintons and their like is not to elect them in the first place.
I would say that anyone who is not a Marxist has the potential to be on her enemies list. Heck, any Marxist who forgets to blindly follow the party line won't be safe for that matter.
Let Al Gore get caught breaking a law that was so clear that nobody ever violated it before, and he says "there is no controlling legal authority" - insinuating but not saying in plain language that there is reason to suppose that the law is unconstitutional and he is challenging it (of course he never did, because with Janet Reno in the Justice Department his bluff was never called).Here we have a situation where the law has been tested in court, and the president was found to have the authority Bush is claiming. Not merely is there "no controlling legal authority" against the president - there is controlling legal authority in favor of the president.
Thanks for the target i'll bring it to the the shooting range and yes i will put a bulls eye in the center.
Just what I have said all along, no matter what the Dims are accusing the Bush Admin of, they are and have been doing the same.
I love when people like Al Sharpton say things like "Why haven't we gotten Osama yet?" And that if he was elected President, he would get him, as if the president should personally get on a C130, grab an M16, and go hunting in Bora Bora. Does he think Bush intentially let him go? Why? For what reason?
No matter who is in the White House, would they not still have the same military commanders and troops, and the same CIA and FBI? Do they think everyone would be fired and all new people would take over and solve all the problems and trouble Bush got us into? Get real!
Excellent.
Don't forget that Klintoon FIRED EVERY FEDERAL ATTORNEY when he took office and only hired back those recommended by dims. Not one damn word from MSM. It still bothers me that President Bush REFUSED to clean up DOJ, State, CIA, FBI and on and on when he took office and it came back to haunt him (leaks, leaks and more leaks and outright lies from his people. He still doesn't get it.
The left is total lost.
They can not grasp that conservatives ARE the majority and the looney left was only in power because there was no way to expose the lies.
(ie walter cronkite is a bit lefty liar, jimmy carter is a raging socialist egomaniac, and feminism is about promoting lesbians and destroying parenthood.)
keep in mind MOST ALL new fed judges come from the ranks of prosecutors in the DOJ.
GWBush may pick the judges but Clinton has all but rigged the judical candidate pool.
That's not where the founders meant us to go, but it is where we are being taken. It's a frightening destination.
GWBush may pick the judges but Clinton has all but rigged the judical candidate pool.
I had forgotten that negative part of it. T;hat's pretty heavy. thanks
Rather than one chief executive and commander in chief who is directly accountable to the electorate and their elected representatives, I think it'd be far better to run our country by the consensus of 535 prima donnas, most of whom have no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.