Skip to comments.
Boumediene-Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia- DISSENT (on Gitmo ruling)
Bench Memos at National Review ^
| 12 June 2008
| Ed Whelan
Posted on 06/12/2008 1:04:44 PM PDT by SE Mom
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
To: SE Mom
"Well- the president cant ignore it-..."Sure he can. All it takes is the guts to do so.
41
posted on
06/12/2008 2:37:24 PM PDT
by
Czar
( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
To: Earthdweller
With dumbass decisions like this one, it’s a wonder the military doesn’t revolt.
42
posted on
06/12/2008 2:39:07 PM PDT
by
Czar
( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
To: Miss Didi
Well, we can make examples of the UnAmerican Democrat party, and their liberals on the Court.
We can rail to our family, friends, and every stranger we meet, about their perfidy, their betrayals, their disloyalty and treachery.
It is our duty to let every American know who is responsible for allowing Islamic headchoppers who are so cowardly and evil that they kill women and children, wear NO UNIFORMS in battle, the honor of a US Constitutional right.
43
posted on
06/12/2008 2:40:40 PM PDT
by
roses of sharon
( (Who will be McCain's maverick?))
To: Carry_Okie
"It is a violation of the essence of social contract that is the foundation of nationhood for which the Court majority now shows no respect." Sovereignty is such a dirty word. Let's dust it off and shine it as a blazing light. The vampires and roaches will scatter from here to Kingdom come.
To: DuncanWaring
“The fact that we have three co-equal branches of government means the President can tell the Supreme Court to take a hike.”
it certainly would seem that the usual deference to other branchs by the Liberal Supremes is kaput.
But if Bush really thumbed his nose at this ...
The Dems would be on the liberal media pronto demanding impeachment over it, calling him a war criminal,. We’d have sob stories about the poor widdle jihadists stuck in Gitmo without even Halal meals and taxpayer-funded lawyers! Obama would win in a landslide and pardon ‘em all. And the dumb-nut people would cheer.
The inmates are running so much of the asylum that normal people are the ones who look crazy.
Fire off a letter to the editor on this - this is outrage of the month ... or at lest judicial outrage since the CALI Supremes imposed homosexual marriage.
45
posted on
06/12/2008 2:42:15 PM PDT
by
WOSG
(http://no-bama.blogspot.com/ - co-bloggers wanted!)
To: WOSG
Gee..you sure are a doom and gloom one today. You have us losing the election already. LOL
To: vollmond
Logically...if they now have rights one mustn’t violate, how can we take no prisoners, how can we kill the enemy?
To: Miss Didi
UNLEASH Hell, make these bastard hear us for once.
HELPFUL TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Public Information Office: 202-479-3211, Reporters press 1
Clerk’s Office: 202-479-3011
Visitor Information Line: 202-479-3030
Opinion Announcements: 202-479-3360
48
posted on
06/12/2008 2:54:14 PM PDT
by
roses of sharon
( (Who will be McCain's maverick?))
To: Miss Didi
"
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to (have their citizens suffer and) repeat it."
George Santayana
49
posted on
06/12/2008 2:55:48 PM PDT
by
Diogenesis
(Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
To: Miss Didi
Pray. Go over the heads of the Supreme Court to the Supreme Being. He’s listening.
50
posted on
06/12/2008 3:00:39 PM PDT
by
RoadTest
( Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. But he spake of the temple of his body.)
To: Earthdweller
Without sovereignty, natural law competition among communities cannot function and representative government means nothing.
51
posted on
06/12/2008 3:01:00 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(We have people in power with desire for evil.)
To: SE Mom
Justice Scalia: "
What drives today's decision is neither the meaning of the Suspension Clause,
nor the principles of our precedents, but rather an inflated notion of judicial supremacy."
52
posted on
06/12/2008 3:01:22 PM PDT
by
Diogenesis
(Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
To: Carry_Okie; Earthdweller
"...and representative government means nothing."It's already reached that point.
53
posted on
06/12/2008 3:04:17 PM PDT
by
Czar
( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
To: Miss Didi
From the AP: Bush disagrees with, will abide by courts Guantanamo ruling This means that he will find another way to do what he wants to, in a way that circumvents the ruling. Maybe he could just "release" the prisoners in the middle of the Iraqi desert, give them their AK-47s back, and then drop-in some Marines to have a firefight. That would be my preference.
54
posted on
06/12/2008 3:04:50 PM PDT
by
SunStar
(Democrats piss me off!)
To: Czar
"...and representative government means nothing."
It's already reached that point. We've not a representative government in quite a while in my opinion.
55
posted on
06/12/2008 3:10:23 PM PDT
by
StormEye
To: SE Mom
(Kennedy) It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution. But the cases before us lack any precise historical parallel. They involve individuals detained by executive order for the duration of a conflict that, if measured from September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American history. See Oxford Companion to American Military History 849 (1999). The detainees, moreover, are held in a territory that, while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government. Under these circumstances the lack of a precedent on point is no barrier to our holding. We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. If the privilege of habeas corpus is to be denied to the detainees now before us, Congress must act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension Clause. . . . The MCA does not purport to be a formal suspension of the writ; and the Government, in its submissions to us, has not argued that it is. Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention.
Dear Lord, you've got to be kidding me! He just made it up, right there o the spot. He created a new right, then created a new standard by which the right could be abrogated. If they go back to congress to explicitly overrule this, I guarantee Kennedy will again pull something equally asinine out of his posterior.
56
posted on
06/12/2008 3:11:07 PM PDT
by
Blackyce
(President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure.")
To: Czar
"...the President should ignore this ridiculous decision. Combatants, even suspected foreign combatants, should have NO access to American courts. None."
Exactly so.
Ignore this stupidity.
57
posted on
06/12/2008 3:11:48 PM PDT
by
Radix
(Think it is bad now? Wait until you have to press "2" for English!)
To: Czar
No it hasn't...
Every other nation is far worse off. Look at Canada today. They are throwing Priests and journalists from the proverbial bell tower. Even if we have to import every free thinking human on the planet to the US..we will win because socialist countries can not fund themselves without capitalism. They will let us live so they can drink our blood and while we live they will never make all of us slaves.
To: AuntB
Why doesnt some of this rub off on the others?It would require that they actually care something about following the law rather than promoting an agenda.
59
posted on
06/12/2008 3:12:22 PM PDT
by
Right Cal Gal
(Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
To: SE Mom
...judicially brainstormed separation-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable "functional" test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other constitutional protections as well). Does that mean the government can use Kelo to seize Mexico citing eminent domain? After all, our industries could put the land to better use than Mexico has.
-PJ
60
posted on
06/12/2008 3:12:44 PM PDT
by
Political Junkie Too
(Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson