Posted on 03/23/2009 12:30:01 PM PDT by mnehring
The US Supreme Court will not hear the appeals of US Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. The refusal lets stand the opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the convictions and the sentences of the agents.
Although this effectively ends the agents’ hopes to have their felony convictions overturned, they are now free men thanks to a last minute commutation of their 10-year sentences by President Bush. Had it not been for Bush’s action, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case would likely have meant the agents would have served their full sentences. Nonetheless, since Bush declined to pardon the men, they remain convicted felons.
Is this a vidication of the much-maligned Johnny Sutton (and the trial judge, and the Fifth Circuit justices, all of whom some have suggested were involved, along with the Bush Administration, in some Oliver Stone-like conspiracy) or an indication that SCOTUS is satisfied the men are now free?
Legally speaking, of course, it upholds the government’s case.
PINGING the INFIDELS..............
Bush should have given them a pardon. They are free, but they lost their jobs for doing their jobs. Hopefully there are people Texas who will help them out.
PINGING the COMRADES
Exactly...Bush should have shown some cahones and issued a full pardon.
Actually, SCOTUS is saying that proper procedure has been followed. Really, that's the purpose of SCOTUS, to act as head administrator of the court system. As long as courts aren't overstepping their bounds or making up law, they don't see a need to get involved.
I hope the American people stand by these guys and are quick to offer jobs or what ever they need to live a normal life. They deserve more than the turn coats that locked them up!!!
Our SCOTUS will allow a person to remain in the office of POTUS without making him prove that he’s even Constitutionally eligible.
What has hell happened to my country?
He must live with this now. Of course his ranch is protected by SS and far from the border.....
Well! That Sux!
Ping
Huh? SCOTUS heard the case brought by Anna Nicole Smith but won’t hear Ramos and Compean? (shaking my head)
The Supreme Court isn’t there to overturn the factual judgment of juries — it is there to correct improper legal procedure or legal interpretations.
In this case, there was no procedural impropriety or erroneous interpretations for the Court to correct — there was simply the poor judgment of a jury. Correcting poor jury judgment is not the purpose of the Supreme Court.
The Court acted as it should have in this case.
SnakeDoc
>> Our SCOTUS will allow a person to remain in the office of POTUS without making him prove that he’s even Constitutionally eligible.
What would you have them do? They do not have the Constitutional authority to remove a sitting President.
SnakeDoc
Have them write an expose book. I, along with millions of others will buy it. We know how to make sure our heros are cared for!
I guess now they’ll have plenty of time to consider the constitutionality of TARP and the 90% tax aimed at the AIG execs won’t they? Geez.
“They do not have the Constitutional authority to remove a sitting President.”
They do have the authority to say if the President has been proved eligible according to Constitutional requirements.
It seems that the SCOTUS acted appropriately. After reading up on the case, I believe Bush did, too.
We like these two because we don’t like illegals. That doesn’t mean they were pure as snow, or did nothing wrong. I refer not so much to the shooting but to their actions afterwards.
Bush did the right thing—these two are not above the law just because we don’t like illegals. They don’t deserve to spend anymore time in prison for their comparatively minor offenses, but they weren’t innocent, either.
Lets hope and work that Palin, Jindal (or other dedicated conservative) take over so the communtations become pardons!!!!
sw
blam
The court system in this country certainly does have the authority to hear the many cases brought forth so far. They (SCOTUS) denied even hearing the case.
They may be listed as Convicted Felons but...they are NOT. I hope and pray they both do well financially and that the people of the country stand up for them as the heroes they are. God bless them both and their families.
“Bush should have given them a pardon”
Yeah, he wanted it both ways. I’ll pardon them, but not really. Amidst the Obama madness, I do not miss such “leadership”.
>> They do have the authority to say if the President has been proved eligible according to Constitutional requirements.
Perhaps — but only prior to him taking office. He has won an electoral majority (thus been elected), been seated by electors, and taken office. So, even if the Court rules him ineligible, a House impeachment and Senate conviction would be required to remove him.
The Supreme Court is powerless to remove Obama after he’s been seated.
SnakeDoc
They can hear any cases they please — but they are powerless to remove Obama.
SnakeDoc
“What would you have them do? They do not have the Constitutional authority to remove a sitting President.”
They don’t have the Constitutional authority to nullify laws or force school busing, either. They could adopt one of their beloved implied powers if they really wanted.
not true. There are many patriots in texas who would be proud to have them, I am sure. Texas is just like that. I think they deserve more than that, and that is to be able to tell their story, in full now, and open up the eyes of the blind on this issue in their 15 minutes....IMO anyway.
Nah, he was busy trying to pardon 20 million illegals.
>> They don’t have the Constitutional authority to nullify laws or force school busing, either. They could adopt one of their beloved implied powers if they really wanted.
Perhaps. But, they would be usurping a power explicitly granted solely to another branch. I hope most on this board would not support such a Court usurpation — as we will certainly reap what we sow.
SnakeDoc
This whole mess is very relevent. We live down here along the border and see the boys and girls in green everyday. They wage a constant battle against all manner of lawlessness with a degree of courage and for the most part humility. But I dare say that, all of this will give them much food for thought when they are faced with a difficult split second decision. “ Will I be sent to prison for my decision? “ What is the long term effect on our law enforcement people when the government uses them for scapegoats?
So, who enforces the 20th Amendment?
Which proves they didn’t shoot an unarmed man. :-)
“Bush did the right thing—these two are not above the law just because we don’t like illegals. They don’t deserve to spend anymore time in prison for their comparatively minor offenses, but they weren’t innocent, either.”
What a ridiculous rationalization. First of all, pardons are part of the president’s legal authority. Therefore, when you pardon someone, you’re not putting them “above the law”.
Secondly, you and Bush are arguing that they’re not above the law when it comes to the verdict, but they are when it comes to the sentence? Was the sentence really that unjust, or was it controversial simply because we don’t like the fact that they were found guilty in the first place? I think the latter.
Bush wanted credit for saving them, but also wanted to avoid as much criticism as possible. It’s as simple as that.
From the 03.23.09 Order List:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/032309zor.pdf
CERTIORARI DENIED
08-755 )RAMOS, IGNACIO V. UNITED STATES
08-756 )COMPEAN, JOSE A. V. UNITED STATES
“The Supreme Court is powerless to remove Obama after he’s been seated.”
The court has usurped much more than that. I suspect they could make the ruling and see what happens.
Heck, I'd help them WRITE it.
You're confused. I didn't say pardoning someone was putting them "above the law."
Bush wanted credit for saving them, but also wanted to avoid as much criticism as possible. It’s as simple as that.
Only to you. What Bush did was not controversial or placing people "above the law" at all--which is why I didn't claim it or a pardon would be doing that. He did the right thing. A pardon wouldn't have been placing them above the law, but it wouldn't have been deserved.
“Perhaps. But, they would be usurping a power explicitly granted solely to another branch. I hope most on this board would not support such a Court usurpation — as we will certainly reap what we sow.”
That’s not as clear as you make it out to be. One could make the argument that he was never president in the first place, that in fact the office has been vacant since Bush’s term was up. Biden would then ascend to the presidency, since Obama’s status could not affect his validity.
In fact, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that an invalid election can possibly lead to a valid president who must be removed by valid proceedure. Just because we all went along with his inauguration does not necessarily make him de jure president. However, this is all academic, and I’m not a legal scholar. Plus, I don’t particularly care about the BC issue.
I am not convinced that these men acted properly at all times and, in fact, I believe their convictions may have been proper under the law.
Undoubtedly preserving and protecting our borders is dangerous work, and the criminal a-hole who was shot is a very unsympathetic "victim", but that doe snot excuse improper conduct.
I am glad that Bush took action; I do not think he should have pardoned them.
PING!
RAMOS/COMPEAN Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list.
>> The court has usurped much more than that.
They have usurped, certainly — though, not necessarily to this extent (but, perhaps). Conservatives, however, did not support those judicial seizures of authority — why would we support this one?
>> I suspect they could make the ruling and see what happens.
I’ll tell you what will happen — the Court will have the power to determine what is a “high crime and misdemeanor”, and seize the authority to eject a President — by declaring him “unqualified”.
Every single conservative President from now until judgment day will be required to undergo periodic Supreme Court removal proceedings. Every two-bit liberal attorney and ACLU hack will initiate random “removal” proceedings for trumped up charges (War crimes, domestic surveillance, complicity in 9-11, torture, cannibalism, blah, blah, blah ...).
And, instead of impeachment being limited to 435 elected officials with two-year terms ... the authority will now rest in NINE unelected unaccountable Judges.
This would be a LOUSY precedent to set.
SnakeDoc
I would hire these two guys in a spilt second and most anyone else for example that’s been with the government need not apply.
"Of course, it's not a ruling on the merits and expresses no opinion on the underlying issues. Statistically, it is very difficult to get into the Supreme Court. But we'll be going back into federal district court down the road on a motion to vacate and raising a host of issues. So it certainly is not over."
What amazes me is that the Soviet Union sentenced Gary Powers to less time in prison for piloting a U-2 spy plane than the US sentenced these two border patrol agents for not filing proper paperwork. Where is the tyranny now?
HAH! There was a whole slew! And the SCOTUS not hearing the case does not mean they found nothing wrong -- it means they chose not to hear it!
>> One could make the argument that he was never president in the first place, that in fact the office has been vacant since Bush’s term was up.
One could make any argument one wanted. But, given that he had a substantial electoral majority, was seated by electors, was sworn in, and has been acting with Presidential authority for two months (including making a State of the Union address, signing legislation, nominating officials, and making executive orders) — it seems to me that argument wouldn’t hold up.
>> In fact, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that an invalid election can possibly lead to a valid president who must be removed by valid proceedure.
I am not convinced that he is unqualified. But, an unqualified individual can be legally seated (i.e. seated according to all procedural requirements) — thus requiring him to be legally unseated according to the procedural requirements of removing an individual properly seated.
Regardless of his BC status — he was seated according to the Constitutional requirements of seating a President. He must be removed Constitutionally.
SnakeDoc
Weren’t they convicted basically for not filling out the appropriate paperwork.
The admininstrative count[s] were set aside/overturned by the Appeals Court if I remember correctly. Someone will correct if I”m wrong as they should.
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.