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

Skip to comments.

CBS News: Will High Court Slash Bush's Powers? (short answer: No)
CBS News ^ | March 28, 2006

Posted on 03/28/2006 12:16:41 PM PST by presidio9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

1 posted on 03/28/2006 12:16:45 PM PST by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9

It's See-Bs. How anyone can still take them seriously as a source of information is beyond me.


2 posted on 03/28/2006 12:17:46 PM PST by MNJohnnie (The Left has their own coalition, "The Coalition of the Whining". ---Beagle8U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

CBS NEWS should worry about their own loss of power.


3 posted on 03/28/2006 12:18:08 PM PST by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

4 posted on 03/28/2006 12:23:32 PM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

prepare for the endless round-after-round of handwringing over Scalia's refusal to recuse himself when this does not go their way.


5 posted on 03/28/2006 12:26:09 PM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

CBS news and a RAT talking. Ha! Lots of luck stupid.


6 posted on 03/28/2006 12:29:09 PM PST by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Here's an idea: Let's put this one to a congressional vote as well. Regardless of how people respnd to polls. On election day, terrorism will always be the number one issue.


7 posted on 03/28/2006 12:29:17 PM PST by presidio9 ("Bird Flu" is the new Y2K Virus -Only without the inconvenient deadline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

"Lots of luck stupid"

I meant Lots of luck stupid CBS and RATs.


8 posted on 03/28/2006 12:30:50 PM PST by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
I can hear the wusses in the MSM crying now....he should have recused himself, he's a bigot and a homophobic and a xenophobe too....and all their other B.S. to boot! It always makes my day wen someone can tell the MSM to go to hell and make it stick.
9 posted on 03/28/2006 12:35:32 PM PST by geezerwheezer (get up boys, we're burnin' daylight!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Scalia does not have to recuse himself. His comments earlier this month mirror his previous written opinions on terrorist cases.

Just because a justice repeats his previous written opinions at a public venue does not make a case for recusal.

Methinks that the people with a weak case were overreaching by asking Scalia to recuse himself.

10 posted on 03/28/2006 12:38:35 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

I wonder when they'll demand Ruth Bader Ginsberg recuse herself from all ACLU cases because of her affiliation with the ACLU for so many years. Especially when the case pertains to abortion or lowering the age of consent, etc.

Maybe we should start sending emails to ABC-DNC/CBS-DNC/NBC-DNC [MSM/DNC] and ask that question.


11 posted on 03/28/2006 12:42:01 PM PST by BlessedByLiberty (Respectfully submitted,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"the administration claims this law retroactively voided hundreds of lawsuits. "

Only an idiot would claim otherwise:

"...(2) REVIEW OF COMBATANT STATUS TRIBUNAL AND MILITARY COMMISSION DECISIONS- Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (e) shall apply with respect to any claim whose review is governed by one of such paragraphs and that is pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act."

12 posted on 03/28/2006 12:52:45 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Foreign combatants fighting against the U.S. have not rights under the Constitution, and combatants who violate the obligations of combatants under the Geneva Convention and other treaties which create the "laws of war" have no rights under those treaties.

Should be a short deliberation.


13 posted on 03/28/2006 1:16:51 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlessedByLiberty
I wonder when they'll demand Ruth Bader Ginsberg recuse herself

I wonder if she will stay awake.

14 posted on 03/28/2006 1:41:45 PM PST by maine-iac7 ("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Scalia's presence on the bench signaled his rejection of a request to recuse himself that was filed Monday by five retired generals who support Hamdan's arguments. In a letter to the court, the generals asked Scalia to withdraw from participating in the case because of remarks he made in a recent speech in Switzerland about "enemy combatants." Speaking at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland on March 8, Scalia said foreigners waging war against the United States have no rights under the Constitution.

Who are these generals? Do they have aspirations in some future Democrat adminstration or on the staffs of some Dem politicians?

Still on the subject of Guantanamo Bay, Scalia also referred to the war in Iraq, saying: "I have a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I am not to give this, this man who is captured in a war, a full jury trial."

Now that's interesting. I did not know that Scalia has a son in the military. How many national politicians can say that?

15 posted on 03/28/2006 2:22:29 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Am I missing something? I don't see Kennedy's name anywhere in that article. Kennedy will almost certainly be the deciding vote, so how do you get "no" from an article where Kennedy isn't even mentioned?


16 posted on 03/28/2006 4:15:00 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Brig. Gen. David Brahms, Brig Gen. James Cullen, Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, Rear Adm. John Hutson, and Rear Adm. Donald Guter.


17 posted on 03/28/2006 4:16:18 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

PS. Matthew Scalia is an Army captain.


18 posted on 03/28/2006 4:18:36 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Scalia has a higher-than-typical public profile for a Supreme Court justice and does make the headlines occasionally, including last weekend when there were questions about a gesture he used when corralled by reporters at church.

Which the press lied about. They took a gesture meaning "I don't care" and said he made a "vulgar" gesture, implying that he flipped the bird when he did no such thing.

19 posted on 03/28/2006 4:36:40 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Here are the Oral Arguments - you can "watch" (listen) to them here: http://www.c-span.org/


20 posted on 03/28/2006 4:39:05 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

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.

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