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
So far, in six years, my optimism has NEVER been misplaced!
marking
Thanks for recycling this great old joke. It will be used at the pre and actual 4th of July parties next week:
"Man stands up in a bar: "All lawyers are a-holes."
Another guy stands up: "I resent that remark."
Man: "Why, are you a lawyer?"
Other guy: "No, I'm an a-hole."
Hillsdale, Michigan I hope?
The most conservative city on earth!
The implications of what you are saying is that the President could use the armed forces of the US outside the US in any manner whatsover without constraint from Congress.
The Constitution makes the President Commander-in-chief, but the governing of that part of the militia which is employed in service to the United States, which would include the Commander-in-chief, is a power of Congress.
Has your head gotten back down to size so you can walk through a doorway, after what Rush said about you?Contratulations.
Seriously, you don't think so? Even if one resigned today? We still have 2&1/2 years before Bush is out of office, of course the rest of this year is shot, the RINO's will be doing all CYA work and nothing else.
OK I have a question. Can their ruling ever be undone, by a future Supreme Court?
"The immediate impact, of course, is that the court said nothing about HOLDING these people, so we'll just hold them until Helen Thomas looks, er, attractive."
Oh, GOOD!
They will never be back on the streets. ;o)
There you are!
Your analysis was excellent.
Too, legalese usually makes me go cross-eyed.
But, you wrote it so well that even * I * understood it.
Thank you, and a tip o' the hat to you! ;o)
I wrote in haste based upon my contempt of the congressional cowards. I was corrected by LS in Post 27.
I don't like Specter either. I just say, don't bash him until he deserves it. (Which he probably will, sooner or later, for something.) I think this was part of the deal with the WH not to back Toomey---that AS promised to push EVERY judge through, regardless.
Congratulations, my friend. Your excellent and perceptive statements on this decision have been duly and nationally recognized!
I thought there were still a half dozen or so still languishing in limbo, but I'm willing to accept correction! (I haven't been able to keep up for a couple of months.)
THis is an open attack on the Constitution. Ever since Maubury, the Supreme Court has assumed the absolute authority. Unfortunately there are many gutless congresscritters that are all to happy to let them envoke law on us and they can remain blameless, even tho it was their desire. They accomplish the dirty deed, and are allowed to condemn it with impunity.
Unless Congress points out that the Supreme Court was restricted from this decision by Congressional action, then it will continue.
Maybe some one will pint this out to GW, but I doubt it, sadly even if they did, I doubt he would make it an issue.
yes it can be... and most bad decisions are...
teeman
If there are 5 empty seats, then it is not a busload!
Wait a minute! Are those 5 seats reserved for certain SCOTUS posteriors?
I get it. It's one of those theoretical constructs, like infinity, or going faster than the speed of light. It will never happen, but it's an interesting idea. Unless you have to look at her for the entire time.
And I got a special punishment for the first one of you that puts her picture in this thread. Don't even think about it.
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.