Posted on 06/30/2006 9:24:33 AM PDT by LS
Edited on 06/30/2006 10:02:56 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Cong. Billybob's analysis now under discussion!
The Gitmo Prisoners’ Case:What the Supreme Court Really Did, And How the Press Blew the Story
The majority on the court has no real interst, IMHO, in the facts, history, precedent, or constitutionality of their ruling or the case...as has been the case in so many instances since the court was filled with their ilk.
Would that they all would apply the research and sentiments as FR's Billybob has done in this case. Our nation would be much better for it over the last 25-30 years if they had.
Thanks to FR Billybob.
The longer-term impact is that we desperately need that fifth justice, and for all his weaknesses in immigration, Bush has been a stalwart in picking judges. Ok, there was Miers, but aside from her, his selections have been stellar.
We can't, as Christians, pray for the untimely demise of those on the Court with whom we disagree, but we can pray that God rewards them amply, according to their deeds :)
http://webnewsroom.blogspot.com/2006/06/supreme-court-undermines-war-effort.html
"The Justices have made their decision; now let them enforce it." These are the words of President Andrew Jackson after he lost a Supreme Court case called Worcester v. Georgia, a case in which the Court held that the Cherokee Indians were entitled to federal protection from the actions of state governments.
This should be the attitude of the Bush Administration toward the Supreme Court decision denying its ability to set up military tribunals, which were used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II and in every American war back to the Revolution. President Abraham Lincoln even sent a Democratic Congressman to jail for criticizing his war policies. Back then, America knew how to fight a war.
There is no constitutional basis for this decision. The terrorists held at Guantanamo are not lawful combatants. They do not represent a country nor fight on a battlefield under a flag. They do not wear uniforms. Thus, they are not prisoners of war under the Geneva Accord. And since they are not Americans or on American territory, they are not entitled to the protections of U.S. law.
This case involved Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard. Does the Supreme Court want him released so he can reconnect with his Al Qaeda buddies?
This irresponsible, unconstitutional decision will damage our ability to hold terrorists and question them aggressively. Unfortunately, there are five members of the Supreme Court who seemingly would rather protect the rights of terrorists than you and me. These justices clearly wouldn't know the Constitution if it introduced itself.
This illegal, unconstitutional decision should be ignored.
I think you're wrong. Those five justices know the Constitution. It's that thing they wrap the Ten Commandments in whenever they don't want religion in American life.
With Arlan Specter running the show, there wouldn't be enough time to get a Justice confirmed during Ws term, even if a justice were to resign today.
Sure there would. Alito was confirmed in a few months, even with a delay. Bash Specter all you want, but he has been super in getting the judges through.
Well, one good turn deserves another:
waste: 'wAst, n., 1. a busload of lawyers going over a cliff with five empty seats.
Exactly, agree wholeheartidly.
The longer-term impact is that we desperately need that fifth justice
ABSOLUTELY, and AMEN!. God grant that Bush be allowed to appoint another...many things that have gone awry over the last 30 years could be corrected with such an opportunity.
We can't, as Christians, pray for the untimely demise of those on the Court with whom we disagree, but we can pray that God rewards them amply, according to their deeds
...and also pray that the opportunity arises to choose another conservative, God-fearing, constitution honoring, and oath abiding justice.
U.S. MARINES SMASH HUNS GAIN GLORY IN BRISK FIGHT ON THE MARNE, CAPTURE MACHINE GUNS KILL BOCHES, TAKE PRISONERS
(Chicago Daily Tribune)
MARINES IN GREAT CHARGE OVERTHROW CRACK FOE FORCES
(New York Herald)
Does anyone detect a difference from the Al-Aqaeda Times?
Ok, three guys, a doctor, priest, and lawyer, die and go to heaven. There they are greeted by St. Peter who says, "We have a change in policy. To get in, you have to answer one question. Father, I'll take you first."
The priest came over and Peter said, "In 1912, a passenger ship sank after hitting an iceberg. What was it?"
The priest said, "That would be the Titanic." Peter said, "Enter into your rest, my son." He then ordered the doctor over.
Same process here: "In 1912 . . ." the smug doctor said, "I know, I know, the Titanic sank. I just saw the movie." Peter said, "Ok, how many people died?" The doctor said, "I konw this! 1,517." Peter said, "Enter into your rest."
The even more smug-lawyer came over and said, "I know, I know, the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank, killing 1,517 people. So what's your question?"
St. Peter: "Name them."
Congressman Billybob seems to be right on in pointing out that the most important (and arrogantly dangerous) aspect of this ruling is the fact that the court completely ignored lawful legislation concerning the withdrawal of jurisdiction by Congress.
I wasn't a mistake, it was intentional. These people are conscious, deliberate Gramsciam moles. Their intent is to deconstruct our Constitutional Republic.
I'm going to break ranks here and open myself up to many readers ire, but this is the result of a critical error in judgement by the Administration.
Congress (astoundingly, actually following the Constitution for a change) passed a law in 2005 removing this category of issues from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. No matter how much the media, Dems and the Left howled and shrieked, there was no legal reason for the President to "ask" the court to "clarify" the matter. The Supreme Court has now used this unnecessary and misguided attempt to "unite, not divide" to state unequivocally that they are accountable to no one.
It was a tremendous blunder, and if allowed to stand will have tragic consequences far exceeding any short-term political or electoral gain in the next election. It is even worse than President Bush's blunder in failing to veto the Constitutional obscenity that is the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform because he believed the courts would fix it.
Oh, I wish I was president somedays.... The Times and DemoRATs would be wishing they could see the light of day...
Eagles Up!
Exactly: so the real danger is, even if Congress writes legislation so clear the Court can't miss it, they may still act like the NEW legislation doesn't exist.
1) As I keep pointing out, this case was all about "trying" them---not HOLDING them. We can hold them forever.
2) By forcing Congress to again put this on the front burner . . . just before election time . . . it absolutely kills Democrats. It may well swing a half-dozen House seats alone.
3) It again puts the Court front and center, just in time for Ginzy or Stevens to retire or have, shall we say, health issues. People will never again think any of Bush's appointees are "out of the mainstream," as the loonies on the left made clear they are the ones out of the "mainstream."
Pretty darn cool to get Rush's attention. Quite an honor.
*
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.