"I am in charge. On your knees to us."
Posted on 06/16/2008 5:37:30 AM PDT by Dukes Travels
Once again, the dictatorship of the black robe has struck. Five Supreme Court justices have legislated from the bench, usurping and abrogating power to themselves that constitutionally belongs to the president and Congress. And the result is that American lives are much more at risk.
I am speaking, of course, of the atrocious decision made this week that gives captured terrorist combatants habeas corpus appellate access to American courts. We're talking about murderous monsters who are not U.S. citizens, who haven't even followed the Geneva Convention by wearing a uniform or carrying a flag and by attacking nothing but civilians, and who are waging war against us in guerilla fashion.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
Who appointed them?
"I am in charge. On your knees to us."
The American people have great faith in the Supreme Court, but no one knows why. It’s part of what they were taught are “checks and balance”, a term also not in the Constitution.
Once again, Reagan’s legacy asserts itself.
Whether we like it or not (I hate it !) the “military tribunals” concept was always “shaky” in my mind - if only because it SOUNDS like and LOOKS like the sort of thing we would have expected in a Communist or Fascist regime.
Perhaps I mis-remember my reading of the Constitution in Civics Class those many years ago...
But I seem to have gotten the impression that the Judiciary, the Executive, and the Legislative branches of the Federal Government are supposed to be *co-equal*...
What, besides long-standing tradition, would block President Bush (should he actually grow a pair) from declaring this ruling unconstitutional??
Just askin’....
We are DOOMED!!!!!
It was even worse, because the secretary of the Navy wrote implementing regulations that turned them into kangaroo courts rather than neutral adversarial proceedings. It is based on this failure in implmentation that the majority granted habeas rights to the detainees. It isn't a big deal anyway. It just means that the US government has to prove that it has legitimate reason for holding the terrorists as terrorists.
If folks want to be angry they should be angry with the secretary of the navy.
What, besides long-standing tradition, would block President Bush (should he actually grow a pair) from declaring this ruling unconstitutional??
***Just askin’....***
You mean something like what Andrew Jackson said..”The supreme court has spoken. Now let’s see them enforce it!”
He then did what the SCOTUS ruled against, removal of the Indian tribes.
In the very early days of the republic the Supreme Court usurped for itself the right to judge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. They should have been impeached for usurpation of power then, but such was the respect for James Marshall that this was accepted by Congress. It has since become accepted that this is a proper function for the Supreme Court, but no such role was ever intended.
Ginsberg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton
Souter - President G.H.W. Bush **There are some who believe that G.H.W. Bush thought Souter to be conservative and rested on assurances of John Sununu, who had appointed Souter to the bench in New Hampshire (Source:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFDE1530F936A15754C0A966958260 ; http://www.conservapedia.com/David_Souter and there are a ton of others)
Stevens - Gerry Ford
actually, this ruling may be a blessing in disguise...now we can do what the libs have been crying for for 5 years, go by the geneva convention....the bastards are armed combatants not in uniform...they are spies and saboteurs...line ‘em up and shoot ‘em dead on the spot...no more non uniformed prisoners...no more gitmo
I suggest that we wait until after the Supremes rule on the DC/2nd Amendment case. I believe that Kennedy will be the swing vote again on this one and is considered to be leaning in favor of ruling pro 2nd Amendment. However, if he should go with the four lib's again. Then I say forget about impeaching and let's get a rope (metaphorical speaking of course) - five metaphorical ropes...
The US Supreme Court unanimously approved this process under the Law of War, in the Quirin case in 1942, concerning eight German saboteurs who entered the country from two different submarines. In short, this is legitimate.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Gravity: Not Just a Good Idea, It's the Law"
What, exactly, does the Constitution say on the matter?
Having not declared war, and having not been invaded, and having not suffered an insurrection, whither the power to grab someone and declare them an “enemy combatant” and toss them in a cage? What slippery slope does that start?
My response is, in the words of one more eloquent than I,
“NUTS”
Isn't it dispiriting that an appointed judge is, in practice, the ruler of the US. It is upon Kennedy personal feelings that all contested law rests. If only the SC still had an abiding respect for the Constituion, we wouldn't be in such a position.
This would not have happened if the policy were to take no prisoners.
Oh, he (Kennedy) just loves playing that contrarian “swing voter” so deftly played by the loathsome Sandra Day O’Connor for so many years.
There is no requirement that a DOW include the magic words “Declaration of War” to effectively be a DOW. Congress did in fact pass an authorization of the use of force against the perpatrators of 9/11, any nations or individuals who helped them, and any others who presented such a threat. Nor is it required in the Constitution for the Congress to pass a DOW for an actual state of war to exist. For example, in requesting a DOW following Pearl Harbor, FDR asserted that a state of war had existed since the attack. The USA was invaded and attacked on 9/11 and has been in a state of war ever since, even in Congress had not authorized force.
If they have the ‘right’ to a civil trial, doesn’t that mean that we as citizens of the US have the right to sue them under the same system...In particular I want to go after the oil families for the ‘pain and suffering’ they have caused myself and my fellow Americans :)
Even the women!
Hahaha!
Weren’t these the same 5 who gave us the abominable KELO decision?
Our government is no longer a government of laws, but rather a government of men. These guys do whatever they want to do, and are not constrained by the Constitution or the laws. At some point, I think it’s inevitable that the President and the Congress will realize that there is only one way to deal with a rogue Court that abuses its power, and that is to ignore it—disavow its decisions, and renounce the doctrine of judicial supremacy.
spot on!!!!! these goons have the lib playbook, and are running it step by step...if it works for them, it will also work for us...
“In the very early days of the republic the Supreme Court usurped for itself the right to judge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.”
Absolutely correct. Most constitutional scholars see Marbury v. Madison as a power grab by the Supreme Court, which, as you say, was acquiesced to because of the respect accorded to Justice Marshall. But the fact is, without the Supreme Court having the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, there would be no real meaning to our Bill of Rights, other than as a suggestion to our legislators. More to the point, there would be no appealing the Washington D. C. gun control law, or any law banning weapons, despite the express prohibition of the Second Amendment, if the Courts did not have the ability to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Our entire “Bill of Rights” would be nothing but a constitutional curiosity, I’m afraid. So, let’s move on and get the right people on the Court.
Now that’s a very good point! If they’re going to force us to strictly adhere to the Geneva Conventions then we must insist that the enemy at least suffer the consequences that the Conventions provide for spies and saboteurs. Of course the Libs will want to change the rules since the Geneva Conventions is a ‘living, breathing, etc document.
but that will require the approval of every signator on the document...the world cannot agree on anything right now, so that is a moot point...no more prisoners means no more prison...
You might as well say that courts in general, civilian as well as military, are Fascist or Communist, rather than simply a function of any organized society.
The issue is how they are managed, not that they exist.
I guess if anyone is to blame, other than the justices themselves, it’s Clinton.
A just like dictators, the black robes will wield their power with the end of a rifle if necessary.
To declare war, using the words “declare” and “war”, greatly and easily clarifies that war has, indeed, been declared (ya think?). To _not_ do so opens gray areas of “sorry, we meant...” and “but you said...” and “well the Constitution implies...”; as such, squishy games get played with whether or not we are, in fact, at war.
Just declare it already so it’s totally clear to everyone.
It’s really not that hard ... and if it is, then we aren’t.
Maybe the fact that he would be impeached in 2 days a Democrt congress.
The good news is John Paul Stevens is fairly old and should be about to retire.
The bad news is John Paul Stevens is about to retire and we have either McCain or Obama to appoint the replacement.
After this decision, I've pushed myself into the category of more likely to vote for McCain than not, if for no other reason than he has a better chance of accidentally appointing a conservative Justice than Obama does.
More and more, it’s looking like the last election...I just can’t bring myself to vote for either one. I hate to do it 2 elections in a row, but I can’t see voting vote for someone I don’t want to vote for.
Article III section 2 "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." Sounds like the constitution already gave the supreme court the power to try cases under the constitution.
A just like dictators, the black robes will wield their power with the end of a rifle if necessary.
Not so. It was already contemplated by the founding fathers. Hamilton, in Federalist No 78 stated:
Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void. There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.
The problem if you read the majority opinion is that the implementing regulations signed by the Secretary of the Navy turned a neutral adversarial process into a kangaroo court (implementing regs gave presumption of fact to the government and provided that there would be no indpendent legal advocate for the detainee.) Read the decision. Then get angry at the Secretary of the Navy.
Being as their decision is unconstitutional, Bush should just pass and Executive Order stating such and that for that reason he will not abide by their ruling."All told, this decision, in which five imperial justices declared that the Constitution and Bill of Rights really are a suicide pact, is so far afield and so in defiance of the oath they took to uphold those two documents, that impeachment would not be an unjustifiable response. Short of that, Congress ought to use their power to check-and-balance the court given in Article III, Section 2 by re-passing the 2006 Acts with language officially removing this from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
"It's already not, but since they can't seem to figure it out, a stern reminder and rebuke is in order."
The liberals are always whining about 3 separate but equal powers, but invest supreme power to the Supreme (not omnipotent) Court.
A just like dictators, the black robes will wield their power with the end of a rifle if necessary.
Sorry for the error in posting: this should read—They are just like dictators and the blackrobes will wield their power with the end of a rifle if necessary.
Rifles against RPGs and tanks ain’t too effective.
"No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."Wouldn't also "No Supreme Court decision, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid" be true?
The “coequal” is a creation of liberals. The term is not in the Constitution. The Constitution gives less than one fifth the space to the judicial article that it does to the legislative article. There is nothing also in the constitution about “interpreting” law by the high court. England has no such high court to override Parliament. As usual, the American people are uninformed.
Republican presidents are always putting liberals on the Supreme Court. Even the great Coolidge chose Harlan Fiske Stone!
“Sounds like the constitution already gave the supreme court the power to try cases under the constitution.”
Yes, it gave the Court jurisdiction, but nowhere does it expressly state that the Court has the power to declare acts of Congress void.
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.