Posted on 06/29/2006 3:50:16 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Ah, thanks for the explanation. As far as I'm concerned, that resolves the matter.
Not really. If you will note the question, I was really wanting to know, what's up with Roberts, just like the question said. You must remember that it was you who decided to take affront to the post. I did not initially post to you, and therefore how in the world could I have known you'd just be sittin' there a waitin' to be offended.
Besides, the whole point is, you messed up a good post with one snyd remark, tacked onto the end. And the question is, Why? Do you just wanna see what you can get away with? Not a good plan. You are unnecessarily trying the patience of the reader...
Um Sorry Billybob, I see I was unclear in who I was directing my last comment to. I was responding to sourcery comment. He and I have been going back and forth on his opinon that "Scalia must be reading invisible ink". I was merely making the observation that sourcery feelings about what the Commander in Cheif powers are are meaningless compared to Scalia's.
I just tried to lighten things up a bit, noting that you had also had a potentially provocative remark at the end of your original post, in the "white flag" comment.
Apparently you are in no mood to be humored. Fine, go in peace. I wave the white flag on this discussion. Have a nice day.
BTTT again.
Trying to understand the SCOUS..they have who knows who to actually draft their opinions..and they don't cosider the reader when they write....
FYI, your attempt to promote peace, did no such thing. It only reignited a flame that was fast doing a self-extinguishing number on itself. This is the perfect example of, leave it alone unless your help was specifically requested by BOTH parties...
Yes, we get that. What you don't seem to get is that I did not express any opinion at all regarding the powers of the Commander In Chief to detain and/or try enemy combatants. All I said was that Article II, section 2 doesn't address the issue of the power of Congress to prevent the Federal courts from hearing cases on certain subjects (and the only reason that was even an issue was because of someone else's typo.) This is the third time this has been explained to you. Are you stuck on stupid?
THAT'S why I think it's a misnomer.
John, when Limbaugh covered your essay on his show I was outraged at the media misrepresentation of this ruling. Now that I've read your essay, I'm even more animated! This manifestation of a leftist unconstitutional court of 5 subpremes is why we must keep control of the branches of congress and the White House until the leftist sludge is in the minority on the high court.
Take it easy, ma'am. Take it easy.
"This manifestation of a leftist unconstitutional court of 5 subpremes is why we must keep control of the branches of congress and the White House until the leftist sludge is in the minority on the high court."
This is why the GOP cannot lose the Senate. If they do, the Democrats will have control of the judiciary committee, and President Bush's judicial nominees won't make it to the floor for an up, or down, vote.
The gang of fourteen are also peeing on the process, holding their own kangaroo court over the process. Specter encourages such foolishness.
With each and every comment, you are creating more and more trouble. But like many, you just can't fathom such a thing. Most especially since a woman is directly telling you...
<< The Court is, in effect, saying that "[It owns] the Law" and "neither Congress nor the Constitution should control the actions of this Court."
And that point, which is avoided in the press coverage, is harmful far beyond the confines of the various cases involving Gitmo prisoners. >>
Brilliant analysis, brilliant piece. Thank you.
God save our beloved FRaternal Republic from this tyrannical gang!
And what price The Second American War of Independence -- by any other name?
BUMPping [Cop a load of this!]
"And this is the greatest defect in the press reporting on this case. A majority of the Court has thumbed its nose at both the Constitution and Congress by refusing to obey the 2005 law withdrawing its jurisdiction. The Court is, in effect, saying that “we own the law,” and “neither Congress nor the Constitution should control the actions of this Court.”
The money quote from John.
Thank you for the excellent analysis and putting it all into more easily understood terms.
Regards
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.