Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gitmo; XJarhead; Congressman Billybob
Shouldn't he have recused himself if he is not competent to judge on the subject?

This whole thread is ironic in the extreme. What actually happened is that the judge "recused" the judicial branch from this case because this is a command question for the President. The plaintiff tried to get the judicial branch to limit the President's authority as C-in-C, and the judge didn't buy it. Certain court cases are deemed "political questions" that courts will not take, because they belong in the Executive and/or Legislative Branches.

Extreme example -- the President orders a Marine Regiment to be placed under Chinese Command and sent to Tibet to help suppress an uprising. If the Marine General Commanding refuses to follow orders from the President to obey the Chicoms, he's committing mutiny. If he goes to court, he'll lose. The issue has to be decided politically -- in this extreme case, Congress would no doubt step in and cut off funding immediately. But it's not an issue to be decided by a judge. If it was, then the judicial branch would be the C-in-C, not the President.

Judicial restraint always sounds better when it restrains court actions you don't agree with. It's tougher when it stops actions you want.

Ping to the lawyers -- did I get this right?

49 posted on 12/29/2004 7:46:02 AM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: You Dirty Rats

Thanks for the insight and clarification......but I still say that baby blue is a bad fashion choice for a warrior!


54 posted on 12/29/2004 8:11:35 AM PST by shibumi ("In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: You Dirty Rats

Oh, Yeah!....then there's that "oath" thing......


55 posted on 12/29/2004 8:16:10 AM PST by shibumi ("In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: You Dirty Rats
Ping to the lawyers -- did I get this right?

Yup, you did. I'd add that even if the President agrees to put U.S. troops under the command of a foreign general, he still retains the ultimate authority because he can withdraw them at any time. So we haven't surrended our sovereignity or ultimate control of our troops. We've just put them under the temporary tactical control of someone else, for purposes that presumably serve our interests.

It's a completely legitimate exercise of the powers of the C-in-C, even if some people might disagree with a specific application of those powers.

56 posted on 12/29/2004 8:21:55 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson