Posted on 03/27/2005 6:01:53 PM PST by CHARLITE
Judge Jake Bong was flattered that an attorney representing the sovereign state of Iran had turned up in his courtroom in Packapoopo, Georgia.
"Lemme get this straight, Mr. Wazoo, or whatever your name is. Sorry if I can't pronounce it. Y'all want me to issue a restraining order so's President Bush can't make war against your country, or use the armed forces of the United States to do bodily harm to Eye-ran's citizens or property. That right?"
"Precisely right, your honor."
"Well, heck, it seems like a reasonable request to me, so I hereby grant it. If you'll wait, I'll have my clerk draw up a copy of it for ya."
And so it was that the president's hands were tied while the mullahs of Iran developed nuclear weapons, financed and armed terrorist groups, funneled armed guerrillas into Iraq and Lebanon, and occupied Kuwait.
The Bush team swung into action quickly, applying to a state court to nullify Judge Bong's restraining order. But the state court upheld it. Attorney General Gonzales went to an appellate court, but that judge upheld the order, too.
As Iranian troops seized the Kuwait oil fields, and the price of crude rose to $90 a barrel, the president sought relief in the circuit court--again to no avail. "Judges must stick together if they want to maintain their authority over the executive branch," said a circuit court judge.
As Iranian-armed "insurgents" restored Syrian rule over Lebanon and initiated daily mortar bombardment of Israel, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the 5-4 decision against the president.
"With European public opinion so firmly set against military action, and evolving standards of decency ruling out any form of warfare, we sustain Judge Bong's restraining order," Kennedy said. "Much as we may deplore Iran's aggressive actions, the president may not use force unless his proposal meets the global test. A unanimous opinion of the United Nations Security Council must be obtained before military action can even be contemplated."
Defeated, the president could only say, "It's all in the hands of the courts."
Comments: leeduigon@verizon.net
This isn't humor - it's prophecy.
I just noticed tonight that there is an international copyright warning on the movies I watch. Does that mean that I am subject to criminal sanctions in France if I copy a movie? They'll have to come and get me if that's the case. It still gave me a bit of a chill to think that there might be international sanctions for such a thing (for the record, I don't copy movies or bootleg music - I just object to the "principle" of international law).
[Freepmail me to get on or off this Not-A-Ping-List.]
Well, there goes the coalition of the willing,defying the U.N. is one thing,but Judge Bong....
This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land;Authority to sue would come from Article III, sections 1 and 2.
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
On the bright side, at least we'd avoid a "constitutional crisis" if the other two branches of government remain too afraid to dispute any small claims court judge in Tinytown, USA.
Make that "Judge Greer," and it would no longer be fiction, nor humor.
I seriously think that you are right. I'm still reeling from the reality that a piddling local state judge could be allowed to ignore a subpoena from the U.S. Congress and a bill signed into law by the President of the United States.........and they're all standing around gazing upward......or around them, toeing the earth........not having the slightest idea, let alone intention, of doing anything about this travesty!
I heard some dolt from the MSM news media on MSNBC yesterday morning, opining that he thought Bush's numbers have suffered a precipitous drop "because he interfered in the Schaivo case......"
Nonsense. If anything, Bush's numbers are now perilously low because he didn't do enough to save Terri Schaivo!.........that, plus making an egregious error by calling the citizens heading for the AZ. border "vigilantes." Bad mistake, in my opinion.
Those two issues have caused the president's numbers to fall drastically. I don't know how he's going to recover. Had he sent U.S. Marshalls down to rescue Terri, his numbers would be in the high 50's or low 60's by now.
can anyone get this article to the prez and his gov bro that don't want to anything to upset an obviously whacked out court?
We've also seen it in Montana this month, when the Billings judge ruled that the USDA could not reopen the border to Canadian cattle. Even though the chances of a person in the U.S. or Canada catching 'mad cow' disease from eating beef is infinitesimal, that's not even the point.
Basically, we've had a judge overrule an executive department on trade policy. If he can do it on trade policy, it seems a very small step to the point where he or another can determine foriegn relations as well.
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.