Posted on 03/23/2009 12:30:01 PM PDT by mnehring
The US Supreme Court will not hear the appeals of US Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. The refusal lets stand the opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the convictions and the sentences of the agents.
Although this effectively ends the agents’ hopes to have their felony convictions overturned, they are now free men thanks to a last minute commutation of their 10-year sentences by President Bush. Had it not been for Bush’s action, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case would likely have meant the agents would have served their full sentences. Nonetheless, since Bush declined to pardon the men, they remain convicted felons.
Is this a vidication of the much-maligned Johnny Sutton (and the trial judge, and the Fifth Circuit justices, all of whom some have suggested were involved, along with the Bush Administration, in some Oliver Stone-like conspiracy) or an indication that SCOTUS is satisfied the men are now free?
Legally speaking, of course, it upholds the government’s case.
blam
The court system in this country certainly does have the authority to hear the many cases brought forth so far. They (SCOTUS) denied even hearing the case.
They may be listed as Convicted Felons but...they are NOT. I hope and pray they both do well financially and that the people of the country stand up for them as the heroes they are. God bless them both and their families.
“Bush should have given them a pardon”
Yeah, he wanted it both ways. I’ll pardon them, but not really. Amidst the Obama madness, I do not miss such “leadership”.
>> They do have the authority to say if the President has been proved eligible according to Constitutional requirements.
Perhaps — but only prior to him taking office. He has won an electoral majority (thus been elected), been seated by electors, and taken office. So, even if the Court rules him ineligible, a House impeachment and Senate conviction would be required to remove him.
The Supreme Court is powerless to remove Obama after he’s been seated.
SnakeDoc
They can hear any cases they please — but they are powerless to remove Obama.
SnakeDoc
“What would you have them do? They do not have the Constitutional authority to remove a sitting President.”
They don’t have the Constitutional authority to nullify laws or force school busing, either. They could adopt one of their beloved implied powers if they really wanted.
not true. There are many patriots in texas who would be proud to have them, I am sure. Texas is just like that. I think they deserve more than that, and that is to be able to tell their story, in full now, and open up the eyes of the blind on this issue in their 15 minutes....IMO anyway.
Nah, he was busy trying to pardon 20 million illegals.
>> They don’t have the Constitutional authority to nullify laws or force school busing, either. They could adopt one of their beloved implied powers if they really wanted.
Perhaps. But, they would be usurping a power explicitly granted solely to another branch. I hope most on this board would not support such a Court usurpation — as we will certainly reap what we sow.
SnakeDoc
This whole mess is very relevent. We live down here along the border and see the boys and girls in green everyday. They wage a constant battle against all manner of lawlessness with a degree of courage and for the most part humility. But I dare say that, all of this will give them much food for thought when they are faced with a difficult split second decision. “ Will I be sent to prison for my decision? “ What is the long term effect on our law enforcement people when the government uses them for scapegoats?
So, who enforces the 20th Amendment?
Which proves they didn’t shoot an unarmed man. :-)
“Bush did the right thing—these two are not above the law just because we don’t like illegals. They don’t deserve to spend anymore time in prison for their comparatively minor offenses, but they weren’t innocent, either.”
What a ridiculous rationalization. First of all, pardons are part of the president’s legal authority. Therefore, when you pardon someone, you’re not putting them “above the law”.
Secondly, you and Bush are arguing that they’re not above the law when it comes to the verdict, but they are when it comes to the sentence? Was the sentence really that unjust, or was it controversial simply because we don’t like the fact that they were found guilty in the first place? I think the latter.
Bush wanted credit for saving them, but also wanted to avoid as much criticism as possible. It’s as simple as that.
From the 03.23.09 Order List:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/032309zor.pdf
CERTIORARI DENIED
08-755 )RAMOS, IGNACIO V. UNITED STATES
08-756 )COMPEAN, JOSE A. V. UNITED STATES
“The Supreme Court is powerless to remove Obama after he’s been seated.”
The court has usurped much more than that. I suspect they could make the ruling and see what happens.
Heck, I'd help them WRITE it.
You're confused. I didn't say pardoning someone was putting them "above the law."
Bush wanted credit for saving them, but also wanted to avoid as much criticism as possible. It’s as simple as that.
Only to you. What Bush did was not controversial or placing people "above the law" at all--which is why I didn't claim it or a pardon would be doing that. He did the right thing. A pardon wouldn't have been placing them above the law, but it wouldn't have been deserved.
“Perhaps. But, they would be usurping a power explicitly granted solely to another branch. I hope most on this board would not support such a Court usurpation — as we will certainly reap what we sow.”
That’s not as clear as you make it out to be. One could make the argument that he was never president in the first place, that in fact the office has been vacant since Bush’s term was up. Biden would then ascend to the presidency, since Obama’s status could not affect his validity.
In fact, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that an invalid election can possibly lead to a valid president who must be removed by valid proceedure. Just because we all went along with his inauguration does not necessarily make him de jure president. However, this is all academic, and I’m not a legal scholar. Plus, I don’t particularly care about the BC issue.
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.