Posted on 06/13/2009 9:16:53 AM PDT by Reagan Man
Sorry, but there isn't much the judiciary could do that would surprise me nowadays.
Paraphrased: "Like any other government official, the Telepromotee in Chief is responsible for the forseeable consequences of his conduct."
Despite the surface appeal of the ruling's logical extension, $5 says it gets reversed on appeal based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. "Sometimes known as official immunity, the doctrine was first supported by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1871 case of Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)."
"Twenty-five years later, in Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483 (1896), the Court expanded the doctrine to include officers of the federal Executive Branch. Federal courts since Spalding have continued to grant absolute immunity—a complete bar to lawsuits, regardless of the official's motive in acting—to federal executive officials, so long as their actions are discretionary and within the scope of their official duties."
Despite these precedents, I have to acknowledge that in today's regime realities, there's a better than good chance I'll lose my $5.
They'll be lionized when the attack finally comes from the islamofascists. And America will want to put the grown-ups in charge again.
I think Padilla has a legitimate argument, although it’s less clear to me that Yoo should be the proper target of a lawsuit. If we are going to hold foreign enemy combatants indefinitely and without trial during a war, there needs to be a legal bright line between such foreign enemies and U.S. citizens (such as Padilla).
If you are a U.S. citizen, then you must be entitled to all of the Constitutional protections that accompany that status. The government can’t just grab you and incarcerate you without charging you with a crime and allowing you a speedy trial. If you committed terrorist acts, then it’s up to the government to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is vital to a free society and our political system. Otherwise the government can potentially seize any critic and make him “disappear” just by labeling him an “enemy combatant”. At least doing that to non-citizens doesn’t directly threaten our political freedom.
For the same reason, it’s much more important to have 4th Amendment protections against warrantless wiretapping of two parties within the United States than against warrantless wiretapping where one of the parties is outside the country. It’s vital that the government be prevented from bypassing Constitutional protections and spying on internal political opponents under the guise of fighting terrorism.
For those of you who didn’t fear the government having extra-Constitutional powers when Bush was President, just remember that administrations change. Do you feel equally safe under President Obama?
ONLY if the chief executive is a coward. A chief executive with any spine at all will tell the scumbag judges to go play in the street - - "war" isn't in their job description.
Yep. He appointed this scumbag judge.
The Padilla case was always sketchy because of his US citizenship and in retrospect the Bush administration erred in handling him as an enemy combatant. By doing so they’ve probably caused a lot of long-term damage than had they simply treated it as a straightforward law enforcement issue.
Got that right!
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.