Reagan-appointed judge has words for Ashcroft

Seattle Post-Intelligencier ^ | JOEL CONNELLY

[AmishDude]

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.

Not according to your posts, oh dissenting one.

The ACLU is a liberal organization, at the very least by virtue of the cases that they choose, regardless of the high-mindedness of their mission statement. Other than getting Klan march permits, very little of the ACLU's work does not aid and abet liberal causes.

[mrsmith]

I wondered if someone would be so desperate to criticize the Constitutionality of the Congress's use of it's war Powers that they would try to get away with saying that padilla's Habeas Corpus rights had been suspended-
even though Padilla's habeas corpus petition is before a court at this very minute!

The liberal desire to reinterpret the Constitution to give the Judicial Branch the power to try combatants- like all liberal schemes to write new rights into it (for our own good of of course)- disgusts me.

If you don't like what the Founders did you should try to amend the Constitution.
And you can pass that on to your ACLU buddies.

[CWRWinger]

This ain't a carjacking, you judicial idiot.

Please take you index finger and point it at this reply I am posting. Notice there are three fingers pointing back at yourself?

BTW, have you ever been a Federal judge?

[habaes corpussel]

"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."

The point is that Judge Coughenour rulings are based on a solid foundation of law and the case as presented. Nothing you presented shows me where Judge Coughenour has ruled based on a liberal political point of view. Besides what is the problem with a Judge with a conscience? It’s refreshing at least.

[freeeee]

If you don't like what the Founders did you should try to amend the Constitution.

You should take your own advice:

Article III Section. 3.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted (CONVICTED, AS IN TRIAL) of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court" (COURT, AS IN THE PLACE TRIALS ARE HELD).

"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

The Constitution is crystal clear in these matters. Americans who levy war against their own country are considered treasonous, by definition. Americans accused of treason are constitutionally guaranteed a trial.

[AmishDude]

The point is that Judge Coughenour rulings are based on a solid foundation of law and the case as presented.

Really? In every single case? How remarkable. Does the "solid foundation of law" include sending "a clear message". And what about the extra-judicial quotes attributed to him? Do they bear any weight?

Perhaps conscience doesn't convey I was expressing. How about "guilty conscience"?

[AmishDude]

BTW, have you ever been a Federal judge?

Nope. Too smart. Law degree is a step waaaaaaaay down.

[mrsmith]

You think he is on trial for treason???????

No wonder this case bothers you- you have it confused with some other case- one that probably doesn't exist in this universe.

[mrsmith]

"detention without due process"

What due process do you think Padilla has been denied? Please tell me!

I remind you: His habeas corpus petition is before a court right now.

Honestly, if someone would state a specific complaint about the Constitutionality of the handling of this case, I'd be very interested.

[jackbill]

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

Last time I looked, unprecedented meant "never happened before".

Perhaps Judge Coughenour should read a little history. In 1942, a U.S. military tribunal tried eight Nazi saboteurs. Two of them were U.S. citizens. One of the two citizens was executed on the day after the verdict was read. The second received a prison sentence.

[Marysecretary]

Just because he's a Reagan appointee, doesn't mean he's right. Remember Souter! Oh, I wish we could jusr forget that lost cause.

[freeeee]

You think he is on trial for treason???????

Um, no. I think he is being held indefinitely without being charged or having a trial. That's the source of the controversy concerning this case, remember? Please try to keep up.

No wonder this case bothers you

Yah, when the Constitution is brazenly and openly violated it bothers me. Imagine that.

[Viva Le Dissention]

While admittedly the ACLU is somewhat hesitant to prosecute gun cases, it is a fault that can be forgiven, since we have the NRA to do *some* of the work on that one.

Other than that, I have no problem with the caseload the ACLU chooses. I don't think many of their cases advance "liberal" causes, mostly because they are suing the government for acting beyond the scope of its constitutional powers. The only really traditionally liberal causes it champions are gay rights, but as a true conservative, I recognize the government has no business regulating the sexual activities of its citizens.

We don't pick and choose when we want to enforce our constitution--that is for "liberal" or "conservative" causes--free speech is free speech, be it for porn on the Internet or Illinois Nazis or "traditional" political speech on a soapbox--all of which the ACLU has fought the government for the right to do.

Or, like this term, we have the unconstitutional and warantless searches by government. And, no matter your politics, (unless your name is Scalia!) I think you would agree that chaining a prisoner to a hitching post all day in 100+ degree heat without food or water would constitute as cruel and unusual punishment. The ACLU took those cases, too.

Now, while the ACLU is traditionally made up of left-leaning people, you have to look at the end result and not the people that get that result.

[jwalsh07]

Honestly, if someone would state a specific complaint about the Constitutionality of the handling of this case, I'd be very interested.

I hope you've got plenty of time.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Not prosecute--I meant hesitant to take gun cases. sorry.

[CWRWinger]

Law degree is a step waaaaaaaay down.

Yes, morally and ethically. What lawyers really learn in school, is how to 'legally' plunder the system.

[mrsmith]

You think he is on trial for treason???????
Um, no.

Wow, you learned something already! I'm impressed.

So your new claim is that the Constitution should be changed to give the Judicial Branch exactly what new power so they can do more than hold a habeas corpus hearing for an accused citizen combatant?

[Viva Le Dissention]

Note: it's been a month this the petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been requested.

The judge has said he doesn't know if or when he'll rule on it.

Sounds like it's being denied to me.

Speaking of re-interpreting the Constitution, I wasn't aware that the government had the right to pick and choose to whom it extended the "right" of a jury trial. Apparently that was in the second printing.

[habaes corpussel]

"What due process do you think Padilla has been denied? Please tell me!"

You answered your own question."I remind you: His habeas corpus petition is before a court right now." If there was no violation of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment there would be no standing for a writ of Habaes Corpus in this case. You cannot detain a US Citizen arrested on US Soil for an indefinite period without charged and without representation because you fell like it or label someone something. This is the basic foundation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Now what is the problem you are having with this?

[mrsmith]

"I hope you've got plenty of time. "

No takers- no one ever wants to admit they're advocating new powers for the Judiciary.

I don't mind those who are wrining their hands over this conflict between the laws of war and the Constitution- that's a good thing to do, we should all be very concerned.
But I turn to the Founders for guidance in how to handle it and those who ignore the balancing of powers and rights the Founders attained in the Constitution are foolish IMHO.

Congressional authorization for the president's use of military force and Habeas Corpus to object to it's use against citizens- that's a commendable process that is being followed.