[Darth Sidious]

If the Republicans are the ones *#&@-ing the Constitution, then the Democrats do have a moral obligation to call them on it... just as the Republicans would (we hope) take the Dems to task on it if the tables were turned. That's what a robust, engaged democracy with two major parties should be about.

Unfortunately, it's now very clear that we do not have a robust, engaged democracy. Our politics have become stagnant and listless, as both parties are now hellbent on giving more power to the federal government, rather than existing to keep the feds in continual check.

Fact of the matter is, we've now had two presidential administrations back-to-back that don't give a flying rat's butt about the Constitution, and very few people of our elected officials really mind that it's happening. The judge is right: the Constitution means what it says, to hell with "expert" interpretation.

[steve50]

Our whole system depends on what a $1000 an hour lawyer can convince a lifetime appointed lawyer/judge our Constitution means. It's much easier than passing laws to ammend that once honored document. Looks pretty bleak to me.

[ReadMyMind]

With Representative forms of government, the people usually wind up with the government they deserve.

For anyone interested, here's another link describing this judge:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/judge12.shtml

For what it's worth, I agree with the judge. Padilla or Mustafa or whatever he's called should be tried in a US Court. If the evidence won't stand up in front of a jury, then it sure doesn't justify tearing down the bill of rights.

[Doc On The Bay]

Before we go all "GOOEY-EYED" over this "Latino-Islamic Mutant," we OUGHT to have the Unbiased, Rational Opinion of an impartial Judge who possesses appropriate Security Clearances!

IF a fully informed impartial Judge rules that "Osama Bin Lopez" is NOT a security threat, then "'Let 'er Rip" to defend his "Rights!"

If the "guy" is what the 'Feds believe----SQUEEZE HIM UNTIL HE SQUEALS!!

Doc