Posted on 04/22/2005 6:17:01 AM PDT by JBW
Aside from the issue of whether the evidence supports the conclusion that Jose Padilla is an enemy combatant, do we agree that there is a significant legal and factual difference between the mass detention of thousands of Americans based on their ancestry and the detention of one individual based upon his being a member of a terrorist organization at war with the United States?
"Why do you ask?"
Curious, because you appear to think like a lawyer, answering a question by asking a question.
I like Charles Krauthammer. He is a brilliant man. I always read and consider his thoughful analyses. I do not, however, accept them uncritically and automatically.
Unfortunately, brilliant though he may be, he is also a committed, knee-jerk statist; this article merely continues that pattern. Those who pay unquestioning obeisance to Krauthamer's "brilliance" would do well to consider the following:
"Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
- Charles Krauthammer, "Disarm the Citizenry", The Washington Post, Friday, April 5, 1996, page A1
Any judge that even imagines using foreign law to base decisions ought to be impeached.
There is no "aside from the issue" of what the evidence supports. The FDR administration determined that the detainees were loyal to a foreign threat. We can certainly disagree whether the evidence supports that the determination, or maybe we agree, but that was the administration's determination.
In the Padilla case, the administration has told you that he is loyal to a foreign threat. You have no idea whether or not this is true. But, for some reason, you seem to think that the Court in Korematsu should not have taken the executive's word for it, but the Court in Padilla should take the executive's word for it - right?
To be clear, I agree that the Court in Korematsu was wrong. But it would have been 'judicial activism,' as that term is currently defined, for the Court to tell the executive that they could not do what they wanted without due process as required by the Constitution. Just as it was 'judicial activism,' as currently defined for the Court to tell the executive that it couldn't do whatever it wanted with Padilla - a correct decision, IMHO.
Krauthammer does NOT tilt left on most matters besides war. His viewpoint is born out of respect for the Constitution and public decency--two things that conservatives are supposed to hold dear.
And it's nonsense to say he is not a "true rightist" when there has never been one "rightist view" or one "leftist view." The conservative movement accomodates many types of conservatives who disagree on some matters but are connected by a few similarities.
Yes, I am.
Two issues here - first of all, the Dems are trying to block many judges who would move the courts in that direction, and, second, judges may start out with a feeling of judicial restraint, but often lose that restraint over time as their power goes to their heads.
I think it might be time to re-visit lifetime appointment to the courts, or perhaps have judges re-approved every 12 years or so, so they remain accountable to another branch of government at some point - and act accordingly.
It was not a PERSONAL question, rather a question for me to understand why you think like you think.
I have nothing personal against lawyers. Now lawyers are trained to think in a certain way, I am not a lawyer but spent enough time around a group of lawyers to have some insight upon how their minds work.
Now you have a vested interest in maintaining the legal system as is, which explains why you are so put offfff by Tom Delay a non-lawyer!!!!!!!!!!
I see it differently. The legislative branch has shirked its duty by avoiding "controversial" issues. That has created vacuums in the law that judges are filling. I blame Congress.
term limits is my answer. I would like to see 10 year terms for federal judges. 10 years as a federal judge and if you get appointed to a Circuit court, then you get another 10 years as an appellate judge. And if you get appointed to the Supreme Court, then you get another 10 years as a Supreme Court justice.
The Constitution; Article IV, Section 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Congressional Territorial laws, such as the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise
and various free State laws where Dred Scott resided.
He was a federal citizen, and a state citizen, not to mention those original inalienable rights that he had just by being a person, a living human being. Taney and the majority violated the prescriptions of the law in all four categories.
Cordially,
I heard Padilla's lawyer on the radio. It was hilarious! The guy argued that Padilla was picked up by the feds "on the streets of O'Hare airport."
Me too. This overblown polemic achieves the opposite of its intent. By changing just a few words it would be a powerful endorsement for the actions of DeLay et. al., and that was its effect on me.
As far as basing a citizen's rights on 'intelligence' reports from the executive branch - well, I would hope we would all agree that this is an extremely dubious proposition.
Do you believe the government should have to prove its allegations against citizens, or simply state them?
By the way, do you know how many American citizens or others legally present in this country have been 'detained' without being charged with any crime in the last 4 years? As far as comparing it with Padilla himself - we don't know how ridiculous that is, because we don't have any idea whether any of the charges have any basis - and if the government had its way we'd never know. The principle behind the executive's assertion of the right to detain without any due process is exactly the same.
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.