Reagan-appointed judge has words for Ashcroft

Seattle Post-Intelligencier ^ | JOEL CONNELLY

[count me in]

"In my view, the Democratic Party has a responsibility to speak up on these issues," he said. "It isn't happening. Why aren't they speaking out? I don't understand it."

Not words of a liberal.

[First_Salute]

VIP.

[mrsmith]

Interesting that the author couldn't find any quotes from the judge to support the author's view- yet pretends he did.

Coughenour: "Padilla... is before a military tribunal"
No he isn't.

[Illbay]

"Mr. Padilla is an American citizen," Coughenour said. "He is before a military tribunal. This is unprecedented."

Mr. Padilla is a foreign agent of influence. Mr. Padilla is a threat to national security. Mr. Padilla foreswore his "rights" as soon as he decided that a leader of a radical form of Islam located in another country was his man.

I have no sympathy, none whatsoever. This ain't a carjacking, you judicial idiot.

[count me in]

Somenone should also investigate the Reagan presidency. Why would he appoint somenone with such obvious Al-Quaeda ties?

If you are not with Ashcroft, you are with the terrorists!

[AmishDude]

Jose Padilla

Who? There is nobody by that name. There are some Islamic names that I've heard that are attached to a terrorist who lived in Florida, but this Padilla person ceased to exist some time ago.

[Phantom Lord]

I like what Boortz calls him... Osama Bin Lopez

[Darth Sidious]

If the Republicans are the ones *#&@-ing the Constitution, then the Democrats do have a moral obligation to call them on it... just as the Republicans would (we hope) take the Dems to task on it if the tables were turned. That's what a robust, engaged democracy with two major parties should be about.

Unfortunately, it's now very clear that we do not have a robust, engaged democracy. Our politics have become stagnant and listless, as both parties are now hellbent on giving more power to the federal government, rather than existing to keep the feds in continual check.

Fact of the matter is, we've now had two presidential administrations back-to-back that don't give a flying rat's butt about the Constitution, and very few people of our elected officials really mind that it's happening. The judge is right: the Constitution means what it says, to hell with "expert" interpretation.

[AmishDude]

First of all, the Ashcroft reference tipped me off. The liberals hate Ashcroft. He is their lightning rod, their focus of evil. The military tribunal stuff is in the pervue of the DoD, not DoJ. Second, there are very few actual quotes from the judge himself -- and none about Ashcroft -- but the author goes off on his own tangents.

You know, I'm going to do a search on this judge. Reagan-appointed or not, I suspect that his affinity for the Democratic party is not newly-minted.

[mattdono]

Quick Question to the Judge:

If "[t]he Constitution of the United States says what it means and means what it says", then why is it under constant assault by judicial activists?

Why is the Second Amendment treated differently than the First?

How is it that the "law" has seen fit to allow a mother to kill her unborn child for any reason, just cause she "chooses" to? What about the rights of the child? The law sees fit that the unborn child has a claim that can be made against the father? But, the unborn child doesn't have a right to live? If the constitutions has granted that a mother has a right to choice, doesn't the father too?

Where is this judge and his retort when it comes to these issues?

If the Constitution says what it means and means what it says, why aren't you out fighting the liberals who are actively (EVERY FRIGGIN' DAY) seeking the destruction of it? You know, if you are going to critcize the AG, why not criticize some other cupable people...Clinton, Dasshole, Gephardt, and the other socialist who have enabled our enemies to attack us? Just think, Mr. Wizard, if these A-HOLES would have done their job, instead of lined their pockets, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion!

[mrsmith]

Well, the judge might be a corrupted Dem who thinks he can rewrite the Founders' Constitution to put the Judiciary Branch in charge of unlawful combatants.

However it's more likely that he gave a speech defending the role of the Judiciary in times of crisis and the author picked out a very few excerpts that he could twist to make the judge sound that way.

The big clue, to me, is the paucity of actual quotes.

Here's a Real Audio of the speech, I couldn't find a transcript: HERE

[steve50]

Our whole system depends on what a $1000 an hour lawyer can convince a lifetime appointed lawyer/judge our Constitution means. It's much easier than passing laws to ammend that once honored document. Looks pretty bleak to me.

[habaes corpussel]

""The Constitution is absolute.""

Bravo Judge Coughenour. If any of you think that Judge Coughenour is a liberal then you don't understand what a Conservative is. The point the Judge is making with regards to the Democrats is valid. The Republicans are not going to voice objection. Even the most strident Republican Attorney’s are having a problem defending this policy of detention without due process. But very few are focused on the Constitutional implications. That alone should alarm everyone. Again this is easily solved. Allow the Military to try both Foreigners and Americans with regards to these cases.

[ReadMyMind]

With Representative forms of government, the people usually wind up with the government they deserve.

For anyone interested, here's another link describing this judge:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/judge12.shtml

For what it's worth, I agree with the judge. Padilla or Mustafa or whatever he's called should be tried in a US Court. If the evidence won't stand up in front of a jury, then it sure doesn't justify tearing down the bill of rights.

[Viva Le Dissention]

What kills me is the attitude of so many people.

The government has taken an American citizen--not a naturalized citizen, as if that would make a difference, but a guy born in Brooklyn, and locked him up. They have done this without filing a charge by suspending habeas corpus, they have denied him an attorney, and have made it clear they have no intentions of ever bringing charges against him--in essence, they have imprisoned him for life without the benefits of a trial. Moreover, we don't have any evidence this man is guilty of anything, except more than a government say-so, which obviously has a conflict of interest.

And you just nod and smile, and say, "yeah, that's about right."

But when a judge (or anyone else) actually objects to the practice of ignoring the fundamental judical concepts on which our country was founded, you proclaim that he must be a Democrat in disguise, or, worse yet--a traitor to the United States! What the government is doing is wrong--both legally and morally. People have got to speak up, and it's nice to see another judge finally free himself from that wretched threat by Ashcroft--"you're either with us or against us." Given the actions of the government, I sure don't want to be with them.

[AmishDude]

About the judge in question:

1. Ruled with the ACLU in a solicitations permit case.
2. Ruled against Microsoft on a copyright case.
3. Ruled with the ACLU keeping a school from suspending a student based on his web site.
4. After an armed standoff, the judge sentenced the Freemen to stiff sentences, one to 22.5 years to send "a loud and clear message". Interesting contrast to the last case.
5. Ordered the EPA to be MORE strict on pesticides.
6. But my favorite: "The Seattle judge has been an outspoken critic of federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums that have eroded the discretion judges have in punishing offenders, particularly in drug cases."

In fact, the only "conservative" case I can find is where he ruled TCI cablevision can censor things that are placed on its cable system.

Here's a great quote: Coughenour was appointed to the federal bench by conservative president Ronald Reagan in 1981. But he hold's some decidedly liberal views for an American judge. He's perturbed by "the insanity of our gun laws." He is an admirer of Canada's rehabilitative justice system.

Fact is, any fair judge is likely to come out on the left side of an issue once in a while and based on cursory reading, I'd agree with 1-4. But this guy is a 100% liberal who has some problems with his own conscience, IMHO.

[AmishDude]

This is interesting:
District Judge John Coughenour had ruled testimony of a Ressam-bin Laden link inadmissible because of its "potential prejudice to jurors."

The date of the article: July 18, 2001

[Viva Le Dissention]

By the way, the ACLU isn't a "liberal" organization. I'm a member of the ACLU, and I'm about as conservative as a person gets.

The ACLU exists solely to sue the government when it interferes with the freedom of its citizens. If that isn't the rallying cry of conservatives--smaller government!--I don't know what is.

Here's the link to an interesting book, written by George Bush supporter and former executive director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. It is entitled, "What's a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU?"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573921432/cyberhaven00/104-2097918-1997564

[SiliconValleyGuy]

Bump for comment.