Posted on 06/29/2006 3:50:16 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Or Rosa Parks. Nancy Pelosi was just about to break out into "This Land Is Your Land," after rejoicing at the ruling.
Well, SCOTUS is really beginning to stink. To even think about Geneva Convention rules applying is ridiculous. And it's even more ridiculous that they are making a BOLD attempt to control the military. I don't believe our constitution makes any such provision. I always thought the Commander-In-Chief role belonged to the President. Talk about a lame attempt to rewrite the constitution!
And Robert's! What's up with him. Is he holding up the white flag and calling it quits?
Rush reading FR's "Congressman Billybob"right now!
Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | 6/230/06 | LSJust doing crosslinking American writers won't do . . .
Congrats, John!
Great job. Thanks for the analysis.
Rush reading FR's "Congressman Billybob"right now!
Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | 6/230/06 | LSRush Limbaugh Live Thread Fri June 30th, 2006
RushLimbaugh.com ^Just doing crosslinking American writers won't do . . .
Congrats, John!
Oh, the ironies!
The elitist meida trumpets this as slapping down an 'imperial president' when in fact it is the others, in this case the USSC, who are over-reaching their authority.
Amazing.
It's gonna take me a while to digest all this.
But I think you may be right.
i'm with you... the privateer was already awarded... the peace "treaty" happened after the fact and the appeal became moot at that point...
when you where a robe, i guess you forget you put your pants on like everyone else...
teeman
The vote in this case was 5-3, not 5-4 - only because Roberts did not participate because he was on the 3-judge panel which unanimously found for the administration and whose judgement was under appeal. The fact that he would not sit on this matter was noted at the time of his confirmation hearings.But since his vote was part of that finding in favor of the administration in the lower court, and since that finding would have stood in favor of the administration in the event of a 4-4 tie in SCOTUS, Robert's vote was implicit even tho he did not actually cast it. You can't pin this one on Roberts, unless you expect him to be able to sway the other members of the court.
Okay now. Don't go and get all bent-out-of-shape, here. Thank you for the information. Just to let you know...A simple explanation about Roberts being forewarned on this, would have been quite sufficient. I've not got an axe to grind. You do a nice job at explaining things. Don't go and mess it all up by adding the unnecessary stuff about pinning it on Roberts. FYI, that is an opinion about me, and it is one that is best kept to oneself, for it is a negative remark...
It never ceases to amaze me how wimpy and deflated congress is when the SCOTUS challenges their authority. If the President were to do so, I believe the outrage from the Democrat aisle would be heard from here to the moon.
But let the SCOTUS usurp their authority, which it reguarly does, and they slink off into corners with their tails between their legs.
But let the SCOTUS usurp their authority, which it reguarly does, and they slink off into corners with their tails between their legs.
Of course the partisan makeup of "objective" journalism has nothing to do with that . . . </sarcasm>
Example:
On day 1, Muslim terrorist A converts his AK - 47 rifle to an automatic weapon.
On day 2, A is caught and charged with violating the 1968 Gun Control Act and the Volckner Act.
On day 3, A begins his court proceedings. At that time, he is entitled to have his case heard by the ACOD (appellate court of dimwits.)(referred to in some sources as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
In a brilliant political stroke some time ago, President Bush nominated Hillary Clinton to the ACOD, figuring that she can't make the ACOD any worse than it already is. Congress ratified the nomination unanimously so that they would also not have to listen to her shrieking anymore. (The ACLU lobbied desperately against the nomination, but Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer were having none of it.)
On day 10, A is convicted and announces an appeal to the ACOD.
On day 11, Congress is horrified when they realize that this is exactly the kind of second amendment case Hillary Clinton would support, and Judge Clinton has previously stated that the right to kill Christians and Jews and other Americans is part of a terrorist's political free speech, therefore inviolate as long as they do not sell tickets to the massacre within 30 days of an election.
Congress then creates the Appellate Court Of Die Terrorist Scum, whose members must make successful head shots at 600 yards on Cindy Sheehan targets in order to be nominated. Congress transfers original jurisdiction for A's case to the ACODTS.
All kidding aside, the law they just passed has an ex post facto effect, doesn't it?
The problem here was that Congress tried to get cute, and the Court called them on it.
The Democrats wanted a bill that would restrict the Court's jurisdiction only over future cases, not pending cases. The Republicans (or at least most of them) wanted to remove jurisdiction from all cases, including pending ones. What they wound up passing was a bill that had 3 separate jurisdiction-stripping provisions. Two of them explicitly said that they applied to all pending and future cases. The third (actually, it was the first)-- the one that applied to cases brought by Gitmo internees-- didn't say either way. Then both sides made floor speeches explaining how the bill supported what they wanted to do.
You are right to the extent that Scalia probably had the better of the argument that ambiguity in jurisdiction-stripping bills should be interpreted against continued jurisdiction. But the issue was not clear-cut, and that ambiguity is absolutely Congress's fault. So the majority was not being clearly lawless here.
How is it that the typical, reasonably informed American citizen knows more about, and understands better, the U.S. Constitution than the majority of the SCOTUS??
@@@@
I thought this was President Bush's rationale for nominating Harriet Meirs.
You may be correct. On the other hand, it may be that their arrogance blinds them to their twisted logic.
As I point out in my article, the dissent could also have cited the very first case the Supreme Court ever decided, which was The Schooner Peggy. In that case, the law changed between the trial and the hearing in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided, rightly, that the law at time of appeal, applied.
The Ex Parte Clause has nothing to do with this case.
John / Billybob
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.