View Full Version : The Kourt get's it wrong, AGAIN!
The Klown Kourt today made a horrendous error when it extended the right of habeous corpus to enemy combatants. They have equated the act of terrorism to the level of Hookie the Bookie. Sad day when 5 insane traitors get to define the enemy. And yes, hcap - the 5 that voted in favor are insane traitors and deserve to be deported. Or worse.
This ruling makes it clear - from now on, we kill everyone we capture or stash them away somewhere unreported. 5 insane traitors do not have the right to support terrorism, which these clearly do. They should be sent to Gitmo and tortured. For the fun of it.
This is a foreshadow of what we can expect if the Quitocrat cowards win in November.
well the best way to defeat a terrorist maybe to become one but I don't think I want to go there.
there are other ways.
delayjf
06-12-2008, 11:56 AM
If I were President Bush, I'd turn them over to the Afgans, I'm sure they'd know what to do with them.
Today's ruling would have defeated us in WWII vs Japan.
Clearly, we were not terrorists there.
Nor are we at Gitmo.
We did far worse to the Japs than we have done to any terrorist....far worse.
DJofSD
06-12-2008, 12:09 PM
I believe this document (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf) is the ruling for the haebus corpus case.
those were mainly on a battlefield.
if you wish the whole world to be treated as a battlefield in the first instance, no questions asked or allowed ,then you have that choice.
I don't think you would like the results.
“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court...
“To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say ‘what the law is,’ ” Justice Kennedy wrote, citing language in the 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison, in which the Supreme Court articulated its power to review acts of Congress.
Joining Justice Kennedy’s opinion were Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. Writing separately, Justice Souter said the dissenters did not sufficiently appreciate “the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years.”
The dissenters were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, generally considered the conservative wing on the high court.
However, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Kourt authority
over this situation. Al Qeda now has more rights than many US citizens and certainly more than anyone caught up in an immigration sweep. But I know hcap saw the words "Bush handed a defeat today..." and that was that.
Justice Kennedy will forever join the ranks of Bennedict Arnold - a TRAITOR to this nation and the scum of the earth. I hope the next time Al Qeda strike, he is at ground zero so he can recieve his karma.
Wrong, they do not have equal rights and shouldn't as either of the groups you mentioned.
The problem is demonstrated by the rate of release without formal charge or trial of the detainees (the ones we know about anyway).
Last I heard we had released around 400-500 of the 800-900 or so from Gitmo.
Since we are not at war with any country , you just can't say we are going to play war forever and then complain when someone wants to try to show they should not be held.
Don't be afraid to grant others a bit more rights than you think you should.
It is what draws people to us everywhere in the world.
We can handle this through the court review with no problems at all.
Between this decision and a terrorist attack,farfetched
though the reasoning maybe, I would take the attack to preserve the right.
One just has to be stronger than the crying over this would imply.
Between this decision and a terrorist attack,farfetched
though the reasoning maybe, I would take the attack to preserve the right.
Wow. That is just plain sick. You would prefer to so-called rights of those plucked off a battlefied to American lives? And who says those scum balls have any rights? They are not citizens.
I am saving this post so I can bring it back when the next attack comes, to thank you for your support of Al Qeda, as an enabler.
Lose The Juice
06-13-2008, 10:23 AM
In effect, the ruling applies only to Gitmo, so the end result will be that Gitmo will be closed and the suspects held somewhere else offshore.
That said, it's still an appalling decision.
sorry , most were not plucked from a battlefield.
unless the battlefield is now anywhere,anytime we say it is.
You will not have to save it to repost, I will repost it right after the next one, if there is a next.
Some of us attempt to stand for reasoned beliefs informed by this nation's historical rights and law history, not distort and rant out of some undefined/distorted fear of "something".
Some people these days make me wonder if they deserve the protections won by others on the battlefields no matter where one thinks they are.
Read the doc behind the link DJ posted, then argue your case here.
I won't run off.
Lose The Juice
06-13-2008, 11:57 AM
Do you ever say anything with even an iota of specificity? What in god's name are you trying to say?
Light
06-13-2008, 12:17 PM
I'm sure you would condemn other countries who would hold our soldiers for 6 years without due process. This is not what this country is about.This is a Democracy,not a Totalitarian state. Apparently Busheads have no understanding of the term "with liberty and justice for all"
DJofSD
06-13-2008, 12:23 PM
unless the battlefield is now anywhere,anytime we say it is.
Do you think we're still fighting the British who are marching in ranks wearing red coats?
Lose The Juice
06-13-2008, 12:28 PM
I'm sure you would condemn other countries who would hold our soldiers for 6 years without due process.
Gee, other countries (cough LEBANON HIZB'ALLAH cough) did shit like grabbing our CIA station chief off the street in Beirut and, erm, torturing him to death.
Are you perhaps familiar with a gentleman named Abraham Lincoln? The Merryman case, perhaps? Lincoln shut down hundreds of opposition presses and suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, yet civil liberties survived the brief infringement.
As Justice Robert Jackson said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
DJofSD
06-13-2008, 12:42 PM
As Justice Robert Jackson said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Excellent! This is the first time I've heard this quotation. Thanks.
Tommy, would you call these Israelis traitors too?
( Not to mention 5 justices? )
Ah the "T" word, not just for dissenting views on an off topic horse racing board any more. Also nuking everyone who disagrees with your tight ass, would get a bit messy. Don'tchathink?
(PDF),
http://www.mayerbrownrowe.com/public_docs/probono_Specialists_Israeli_Military.pdf
Was sent in by seven Israeli law professors, one of whom has done his military reserve service as a military judge since 1994, and another who was previously President of the IDF's tribunal for the Southern (Gaza) Command.
If you go to p.17 of the PDF file of the Israeli lawyers' amicus brief (p.2 of the original doc), you can read the summary of the argument they make. It says:
"Judicial review of executive and military detention, the indispensable core of habeas corpus, need not be sacrificed to protect public safety and national security, even in the face of an unremitting terrorist threat. Israel has demonstrated that security detainees and prisoners of war, including alleged unlawful combatants, can and should be afforded the opportunity for prompt, independent judicial review of the factual basis for their confinement. Israeli experience demonstrates unambiguously that providing such review to Guantánamo detainees would not be “impracticable and anomalous.”
... The safeguards provided under Israeli law, though denied to Guantánamo detainees, are not only workable but also are essential components of the rule of law. No process that lacks these core features can be considered an adequate substitute for time-honored forms of judicial review, such as the traditional writ of habeas corpus. Israeli authorities, executive as well as judicial, support these rights as necessary elements of the response to terrorism in a resilient democratic society governed by law.
I'm sure you would condemn other countries who would hold our soldiers for 6 years without due process. This is not what this country is about.This is a Democracy,not a Totalitarian state. Apparently Busheads have no understanding of the term "with liberty and justice for all"
Yes, I would, but I would not mind them holing non-soliers for committing acts of terror intheor countries. We are holding no soldiers at all. the only ones in Gitmo who have any rights at all, IMHO, are US citizens. This is not at all about us being a democracy - it about foreigners who have no standing here. We have already seen those released from GMO back committing terrorist accts, and prven terrorists released by thier own countries.
Bottom line, these scumbags chose to attack us or other civilian, whatever they get they deserve.
Since the Klown Kourt is so concerned about non-citizens having rights here, then it's time we levied taxes across the whole middle east - they want to participate in our country's laws, let them particiapate in our country's taxes as well.
JustRalph
06-14-2008, 11:27 AM
order some extra bullets. This decision makes it easier to shoot them.............
Lefty
06-14-2008, 12:03 PM
This just points out the need of the importance of the election. MCain says he will appoint people like Scalia and Roberts. We know that Obama will appoint liberals. The next Pres might get to appont 3 new judges. So this stupid ruling that endangers our troops, can be eventually overturned. The choice is ours.
Another traitor. So many disloyal sc**mb*gs, so little time to kill 'em all.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/14/9618/
Conservatism vs. Authoritarianism: The British vs. The US Right
by Glenn Greenwald
In Britain, the Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is attempting to enact legislation empowering the Government to detain terrorist suspects for 42 days without bothering to charge them with any crime (as a result of post-9/11 legislation, the British Government may do so now for 28 days). Much of the opposition to this expansion of the Government’s detention power comes from the British Right, which sees it as an intolerable expansion of unchecked government power and a severe erosion of core Western liberties. Factions within the British Left are opposed to the legislation for the same reason.
The official position of the British Conservative Party is to oppose the legislation, and former Tory Prime Minister John Major — who himself was the target of a 1991 bombing-assassination plot by the IRA — wrote an Op-Ed in the Times Online emphatically opposing these increased detention powers and also opposing new DNA and other domestic surveillance programs. Headlined “42-day detention: the threat to our liberty — The Government’s plan is simply part of an assault on our ancient rights,” the conservative former Prime Minister wrote:
[T]he case for war was embellished by linking the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks on New York — for which there is not one shred of evidence. As we moved towards war, that misinformation was compounded by the implication that Saddam’s Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom, which plainly it was not.
These actions damaged our reputation overseas. And, at home — on the back of the threat of terror and two serious incidents in London — they foreshadowed a political climate in which civil liberties are slowly being sacrificed.
We now know that, despite repeated denials, our Government was complicit in rendition, or — to put it in plain terms — the transfer of suspects out of civilised jurisdiction to a place where they could be held without charge for a lengthy period.
Although the intention was presumably to garner information, such action is hardly in the spirit of the nation that gave the world Magna Carta, or the Parliament that gave it habeas corpus.
I don’t believe that sacrifice of due process can be justified. If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to. . . .
The Government has introduced measures to protect against terrorism. These go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular — and no less violent — assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering. . . .
The Government has been saying, in a catchy, misleading piece of spin: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” This is a demagogue’s trick. We do have something to fear — the total loss of privacy to an intrusive state with authoritarian tendencies. . .
So is a society in which the right to personal privacy is downgraded. These days a police superintendent can authorise bugging in public places. A chief constable can authorise bugging our homes or cars.
The Home Secretary can approve telephone tapping and the interception of our letters and e-mails. All of this is legal under an Act passed by the Labour Government. None of this requires — as it should — the sanction of a High Court Judge. . .
No one can rule out the possibility of another atrocity — but a free and open society is worth a certain amount of risk. A siege society is alien to our core instincts and — once in place - will be difficult to dismantle. It is a road down which we should not go.
Lefty
06-14-2008, 08:32 PM
Just a boatload of crap. riht let us taxpayers provide courts and judges for terrorists. A real nutty idea from the left which has brght us so many.
Just a boatload of crap. riht let us taxpayers provide courts and judges for terrorists. A real nutty idea from the left which has brght us so many.
The majority of the Supreme court justices. Respected Israeli jurists (who are surrounded by terrorists), John Major conservative brit Prime Minister, myriad conservative and liberal civil rights lawyers are all not far left pinkos Lefty.
Nor traitors Tommy.
Lefty
06-14-2008, 08:54 PM
They are certainly act like farleft pinkos. We are at war and we are not supposed to be giving our enemies civil trials. Besides the danger to our soldiers, more taxpayer money out the window. We need more justices that respect the Constitution, not sidestep it.
Lefty
06-14-2008, 08:59 PM
JR, here's somethoing else that pisses me off. A church I pass on the way to JN gives away free food for the needy on Sat morning. It's amazing how much food i see littering the sidewalk in the afternoon. These idiots throw away everything that doesn't suit their fancy. Outrageous. And it's surprising how many of these so called needy i see going there with cellphones. They can pay a cellphone bill but can't buy food?
JustRalph
06-14-2008, 10:10 PM
I saw a survey somewhere online that said that 65% of welfare recipients had Cable TV and 21% of them had HD Televisions...........our poor are the richest in the world........... :lol: :bang:
JR, here's somethoing else that pisses me off. A church I pass on the way to JN gives away free food for the needy on Sat morning. It's amazing how much food i see littering the sidewalk in the afternoon. These idiots throw away everything that doesn't suit their fancy. Outrageous. And it's surprising how many of these so called needy i see going there with cellphones. They can pay a cellphone bill but can't buy food?
They use those cell phones to "fry" thier bacon. Saw that in another thread.
Yeah, scrap all programs that help the poor and lower middle because of waste and fraud. Like
1-Corporate welfare
2-The Military
3-and the Winer......
The Iraq War.
Do the math, 10,000,000 times the waste of food stamps.
Then there are the moral implications that youse guys love to ignore.
Sorry you guys can't get it.
You are just the flip-side of the Taliban-terrorist system of justice.
Arrest 'em all and throw away the key forever , no matter the facts of the situation, let "your" God sort it out.
I am sure that's not what most of the people defending this country thought our ideals to be.
We have picked up people because we couldn't understand the spelling of names,people were turned in for bounties(not ours), people were turned in for blood fueds or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We have released hundreds of them and some may have committed violent acts on return.
But, those were not released because of habeus hearings?
to paraphrase...
Anyone can give law to his friends. It's the essence of law to give it to your enemies.
You exhibit the kind of howlings from the dark that would have formed us as a Taliban replica had the founders been Islamic.
Your weakness and "race to the bottom" morality dishonors those who fight for your rights today.
pathetic shells of what we used to be.
i saw a survey once that said 100% of people who "saw something once somewhere" believe the moon is made of green cheese.
JR, here's somethoing else that pisses me off. A church I pass on the way to JN gives away free food for the needy on Sat morning. It's amazing how much food i see littering the sidewalk in the afternoon. These idiots throw away everything that doesn't suit their fancy. Outrageous. And it's surprising how many of these so called needy i see going there with cellphones. They can pay a cellphone bill but can't buy food?
So, you do what about it?
Or are you happier being pissed than doing something?
Think I know that one already.
Post a pic,maybe you could give it to the church and thus they could give that food to those that would appreciate it.
They are certainly act like farleft pinkos. We are at war and we are not supposed to be giving our enemies civil trials. Besides the danger to our soldiers, more taxpayer money out the window. We need more justices that respect the Constitution, not sidestep it.
You know nothing of what you speak here.
nothing.
Just a boatload of crap. riht let us taxpayers provide courts and judges for terrorists. A real nutty idea from the left which has brght us so many.
unknown to you, the habeus they are talking about is not to convict a terrorist, it's to see that you are going to bring charges against or just hold the correct person.
You do want to know you have the terrorist and not the sheep minder in jail, right?
No better truth is found than in adversarial proceeding.
order some extra bullets. This decision makes it easier to shoot them.............
Lucky for us , the vast majority of our soldiers these days look to better your low ideals.
Lefty
06-15-2008, 11:41 AM
Charities are supposed to help the poor, not the govt.
Corporate welfare is a liberal myth. Corporations and small businesses provide jobs, not the poor. I've seen too many of these so called poor at my local racebook. Most you couldn't run fast enough to give a job.
No dog, it's people like you that don't get it. We're not supposed to provide civil courts and lawyers for enemies in a war.
How about the poor start helping themselves?
I have no problem with offering a helping hand to thsoe down on thier luck, but after a year, it is no longer down of your luck, it is down on you arse.
How about those bimbos buying beer in front of me were spending money that could have gone to help truly poor people with no hope of ever working or getting out from under? How about that?
Lefty
06-15-2008, 12:36 PM
Tom, they won't and when you suggest it the libs get all upset. Bk in the 90's the R's tried to pass a bill that people live in subsidized housing help with the upkeep, painting, grass mowing etc. Who was that blk lady a yr or two ago that made such a hubbub about showing her credentials and was later voted out? Any, I think it was she that said the bill reminded her of theold Soviet Union.
ddog, like i say, i don't care what happens in charities, but yes, I spk to the Deacon regularly and he just grins and says it happens. Point is, I want this crap taken out of govt. The money is just wasted. I remember the days when people down on their luck went and got some govt cheese and beans. I'd rather go bk to that than hand out food stamps to be sold or used to buy steak.
ddog, it was a 5-4 vote. I guess those judges that voted against it don't know what they're talking about either, eh what?
There is one common theme whenever you see subsidized housing......you can guess what it is. (Hint - pig styies). Why? answer me that.
Light
06-15-2008, 04:28 PM
it was a 5-4 vote. I guess those judges that voted against it don't know what they're talking about either, eh what?
What about the other 5? I could understand denying full rights to enemy combatants if we were A) in a war of necessity and B) If you actually intended to try your prisoners as opposed to watching them rot.This policy accomplishes nothing but shame for our so called "great" country,in line with Abu Graibe.
JustRalph
06-15-2008, 06:19 PM
There is one common theme whenever you see subsidized housing......you can guess what it is. (Hint - pig styies). Why? answer me that.
may I remind you of the 3rd and now 4th Generation that has never left the subsidized housing............
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/MN1PQ0EG4.DTL
Lefty
06-15-2008, 06:39 PM
light, as usual you're a terrist sympathizer. Just no other way to put it. Abu Graibe was overblown by the Pravda press. What happened there was not much more than pranks by a very few. By the time the Pravda press got hold of it, it was already being dealt with, yet the NYT's saw fit to do over 50 frontpage stories. These libs just hate everything that's right about this country and never hesitate to overblw every minor incident.
GOD BLESS AMERICA and screw everybody that disagrees with that statement. You all make me sick.
Lefty
06-15-2008, 06:41 PM
Tom, easy answer to your q. People do not respect anything they don't have to earn, even in some small way, like minor maintenance.
Abu Grab....$200 around here. :lol:
Light
06-15-2008, 06:58 PM
Lefty
The problem with righties like you is that you are unbelievably insecure and paranoid. Because someone points out a flaw or a wrong with this government does not mean they are subversive. It is not only a constitutional right but a duty of its citizens and the 3 branches of government to keep abuses from ruining the principles this country is supposed to uphold. Saying this or that is wrong is healthy. Trying to dismiss it as sympathy for the Devil is demonic and leads to corruption.
Lefty
06-15-2008, 07:52 PM
light, all i know is that all your posts have been anti-America and pro terrorist. That goes way beyond mere criticism in my book.
Lefty
06-15-2008, 07:57 PM
light, oops, I must amend my prev statement: EXCEPT FOR YOU ANTI_ISRAEL POSTS. There ya go.
riskman
06-15-2008, 11:10 PM
I have never met any American, who choose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.
What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political ideas disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.
The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.
Lefty
06-16-2008, 12:13 AM
Riskman, the libs view of the current admin has gone way beyond criticism and no matter if it's the media or libs on this board it has been downright vitriolic. You had ALGORE shouting that Bush had betrayed this country. You have had Moveon take out a full page ad saying Pettraus Betrayus.
You had cbs before the last pres election try to sway the election with falser documents.
Then you have the libs on this board. You have zilly constantly mocking the Pres. You have hcap wallowing in polls, you have light, that if he has ever posted one damn word in praise of this country, i must have missed it.
Criticism? Hatred, not criticism.
PaceAdvantage
06-16-2008, 12:37 AM
Can someone please explain to me how this Supreme Court ruling in 1950 does not establish precedent for 2008?
http://supreme.justia.com/us/339/763/
Main point in the 1950 ruling:
1. A nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime. Pp. 339 U. S. 768 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/339/763/case.html#768)-777.
George Kennan's Telegram from the American Embassy in Moscow to the State Department in 1946 defined the authoritarian bestiality of the Soviet system and its aim to break "the international authority of our state." It was perhaps the most important American diplomatic communication of the last century. In closing, Kennan spoke for us all and for all time:
The greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping.
PA, what the dems cannot steal at the ballot box, they get through the courts. This court is an embarrassment to our country. I say, every terrorist that comes here for a trial be assinged a justice as his sole "handler" dirnig his stay here.
Lose The Juice
06-16-2008, 09:26 AM
PA asks a good question, and SCOTUS provides an extremely unsatisfactory answer:
"But the petitioners in Eisentrager did not contest, it seems, the Court’s assertion that they were “enemy alien[s].” Ibid. In the instant cases, by contrast, the detainees deny they are enemy combatants. They have been afforded some process in CSRT proceedings to determine their status; but, unlike in Eisentrager, supra, at 766, there has been no trial by military commission for violations of the laws of war."
This smacks of result-oriented jurisprudence; reach the decision first, then scramble around for the (any!) justifications for that decision. It is an appalling and shameful decision, but it may lead to a greater good; the holding facility at Gitmo will presumably be shut down, the detainees will be transferred elsewhere, (presumably to a place with no air conditioners, loud or otherwise) and the 'murrican Loony Left will have to find other non-issues about which to shriek.
OK. Gitmo closes....now where do they go?
You want these guys in local prisons here?
Many of their own countries will not take them, and some will release them (we have already re-caught some that were set free only kill some of our troops).
I say put them in airplanse, fly them home, and when we land, tell everyone they must have escaped! :eek:
Bottom line, the constitutio was just ignored and new laws eneacted by 5 unelected mental deficients with no accountablility to anyone.
The Kourt has to go.
Lose The Juice
06-16-2008, 10:37 AM
This one isn't even in their Top Ten Worsterestest Of All Time. What about Dred Scott v. Sandford? Buck v. Bell? Fletcher v. Peck?
Light
06-16-2008, 01:11 PM
Lefty
The Supreme court ruled and you lost. If I am a terrorist sympathyzer because I agree with the ruling,then you're a clown.
boxcar
06-16-2008, 01:20 PM
Lefty
The Supreme court ruled and you lost. If I am a terrorist sympathyzer because I agree with the ruling,then you're a clown.
No, it doesn't. It still makes you the bottom feeder you are because most Libs (including those on the high court) tend to sympathize with criminals and terrorists. For example, why do you suppose NoBama is well liked and supported by so many of our enemies? You know -- birdies of a feather and all that good stuff...
Boxcar
46zilzal
06-16-2008, 01:41 PM
No, it doesn't. It still makes you the bottom feeder you are because most Libs (including those on the high court) tend to sympathize with criminals and terrorists.
In case you haven't looked lately, conservatives outnumber the liberal voices on the Supreme Court.
http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/45757.htm
Now THIS is REALLY wrong Kourt, Would you rather they just shoot em and bury in a hole or ship overseas?
No reason to drive these people out of business.
Foolish dolts.
This country is truely populated by weak-kneed Pollyannas.
In case you haven't looked lately, conservatives outnumber the liberal voices on the Supreme Court.
Once they get on it, they need not have poltical affiliations anymore - they have no accountablility, serve lifetime terms, so no re-election worries.
In this case, Kennedy, like McCain, was a turncoat.
Bottom line, here, and it should be a concern of both left and right, we have 9 people, unaccountable to anyone, with no provisions to remove them when they get senile, legislating from the bench, far exceeding thier constitutional authority. The checks and balances have been stimied.
I don't want them making decsions that I personally favor either, because it is not thier job to do that. As pathetic as they are, that is Congress's domain, with the executive branch as a check. The idea that we have to be concerned with a nominee's political persuasion flies in the face of the needed neutrality of justices. There is no place on the court for polticial, personal, religious, or any other viewpoints - only the interetation of the constitution.
boxcar
06-16-2008, 02:05 PM
In case you haven't looked lately, conservatives outnumber the liberal voices on the Supreme Court.
Only by your definition of "conservative" and your twisted sense of what it means to be conservative.
Boxcar
46zilzal
06-16-2008, 02:09 PM
Only by your definition of "conservative" and your twisted sense of what it means to be conservative.
Boxcar
Seems to me that only TWO were appointed by anyone other than Little Ronnie, Ford or a Bush.
Congree can pass/refine laws to restrict the courts reach, if they had the balls.
They , in the past several years do not.
They are cowering behind the "world has changed meme".
Pitifull to see what the place has become.
boxcar
06-16-2008, 03:13 PM
Seems to me that only TWO were appointed by anyone other than Little Ronnie, Ford or a Bush.
I won't even ask you to try to connect the dots on the above statement because your foolish assumption is that "Little Ronnie, Ford or a Bush" were all genuine conservatives. Therefore, there's no substance to your premise, ie. no dots to be connected. :rolleyes:
Boxcar
46zilzal
06-16-2008, 03:18 PM
I won't even ask you to try to connect the dots on the above statement because your foolish assumption is that "Little Ronnie, Ford or a Bush" were all genuine conservatives. Therefore, there's no substance to your premise, ie. no dots to be connected.
Oh NOT FAR ENOUGH RIGHT? Reactionaries are your thing, I see now Bible slappin,' gun carrying BACKWARDS looking representation.
Lefty
06-16-2008, 05:39 PM
Just because they were appointed by Bush or Ford doesn't mean they're gonna vote conservative.
Light, taken all your posts and all my posts together, you are more of a terrorist sympathizer than i'm a clown. I defend this country and the likes of you and zilly and some others do nothing but side with the enemy. Look in the mirror, is that facepaint? Hmmm...
Lose The Juice
06-16-2008, 05:45 PM
Lefties Brennan and Warren were appointed to SCOTUS by Eisenhower, and Ike was very much a right-winger.
Lefty
06-16-2008, 05:51 PM
Like I said, no gurantee which way the assholes will flop. And they have broken precedent with this ruling as PA showed.
46zilzal
06-16-2008, 06:27 PM
Lefties Brennan and Warren were appointed to SCOTUS by Eisenhower, and Ike was very much a right-winger.
Eisenhower cared about his country more than who's ass he kissed too.
By today's standards he was almost a middle of the road politico.
PaceAdvantage
06-16-2008, 07:20 PM
http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/45757.htm
Now THIS is REALLY wrong Kourt, Would you rather they just shoot em and bury in a hole or ship overseas?
No reason to drive these people out of business.
Foolish dolts.
This country is truely populated by weak-kneed Pollyannas.There is no hard evidence that promotes the notion that horses would be better off WITHOUT the "services" slaughter houses provide. In fact, the TRF has documented that there has been no noticable increase in abuse or neglect despite the fact that the number of horses slaughtered in the US has dropped from something like 300,000 to next to zero as of late. Although, there has been some anecdotal evidence written on this board that the number of abused/neglected horses has been on the rise with the slowing economy.
Horses are not raised as livestock here in the US, and they aren't served on the dinner plate, so why should they be allowed to be slaughtered for such on US soil?
They eat dog in Korea, but you don't see us slaughtering our dogs and cats here and shipping them off, do you?
Light
06-16-2008, 11:48 PM
Light, taken all your posts and all my posts together, you are more of a terrorist sympathizer than i'm a clown. I defend this country and the likes of you and zilly and some others do nothing but side with the enemy.
I thought calling you a clown would be appropriate because some of your posts are so off the wall they really make me laugh. Dont take that as a compliment.
There is no hard evidence that promotes the notion that horses would be better off WITHOUT the "services" slaughter houses provide. In fact, the TRF has documented that there has been no noticable increase in abuse or neglect despite the fact that the number of horses slaughtered in the US has dropped from something like 300,000 to next to zero as of late. Although, there has been some anecdotal evidence written on this board that the number of abused/neglected horses has been on the rise with the slowing economy.
Horses are not raised as livestock here in the US, and they aren't served on the dinner plate, so why should they be allowed to be slaughtered for such on US soil?
They eat dog in Korea, but you don't see us slaughtering our dogs and cats here and shipping them off, do you?
I ask why not?
Once dead , believe me they do not know the diff.
Have you ever tried them?
You sure 'bout that?
Why should I be bound by your views on this subject which seem bizarre?
Just because they seem cuddly, as opposed to what , a duck?
I ask again, why should the Kourt drive them out of business because it affends the "cuddly" factor , but not in the markets they wish to serve?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602041.html
So obvious that those that harp about this and that in relation to this ruling cast doubts on their understanding of what a conservative really is all about.
Likely to be the main reason why the DIMS take power.
When you leave behind conservative ideals, both in this area and fiscally, to hold onto power you will be left with neither.
If the last 7 years have proved anything , it's that.
Can someone please explain to me how this Supreme Court ruling in 1950 does not establish precedent for 2008?
http://supreme.justia.com/us/339/763/
Main point in the 1950 ruling:
1. A nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime. Pp. 339 U. S. 768 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/339/763/case.html#768)-777.
two things,
you can't say with a straight face that Gitmo is not under our control and essentially OUR territory.
declare war on Iraq and AFG and you can do as you will.
Last declaration I can find was 1945.
For those of you who would do away with the Kourt, you would end up with the following.
How many troops does Congress have anyway?
You wish for impeachment to be the only way for Congress to hold the ex accountable?
If the ex can "sign away" any statue he deems too troubling , then do you not have a monarchy?
Think twice, you don't want to be there.
If you like that form of gvt there are places like China or Cuba or Pakistan that would welcome you.
Amazing when you look around the world how many countries would love to have our checks and balances which many here it seems would wish away.
Once they get on it, they need not have poltical affiliations anymore - they have no accountablility, serve lifetime terms, so no re-election worries.
In this case, Kennedy, like McCain, was a turncoat.
Bottom line, here, and it should be a concern of both left and right, we have 9 people, unaccountable to anyone, with no provisions to remove them when they get senile, legislating from the bench, far exceeding thier constitutional authority. The checks and balances have been stimied.
I don't want them making decsions that I personally favor either, because it is not thier job to do that. As pathetic as they are, that is Congress's domain, with the executive branch as a check. The idea that we have to be concerned with a nominee's political persuasion flies in the face of the needed neutrality of justices. There is no place on the court for polticial, personal, religious, or any other viewpoints - only the interetation of the constitution.
there are and never will be any perfect human beings.
come down out of the clouds.
all of life's decisions are informed by what you would deny.
And, yes , there sould be no political test to get on the Kourt.
If the nominee shows the ability to think and stand tough against "the mob" then they are ok with me.
What path is there for a senile Prez, we had one in the not too distant past. We survived. That's a reason for seperation, no one entity can crash the ambulance.
PaceAdvantage
06-18-2008, 01:41 AM
I ask why not?
Once dead , believe me they do not know the diff.
Have you ever tried them?
You sure 'bout that?
Why should I be bound by your views on this subject which seem bizarre?
Just because they seem cuddly, as opposed to what , a duck?
I ask again, why should the Kourt drive them out of business because it affends the "cuddly" factor , but not in the markets they wish to serve?So then you would be OK with someone setting up a slaughterhouse for dogs to be sent to places where people eat such animals?
Interesting.
PaceAdvantage
06-18-2008, 01:47 AM
Amazing when you look around the world how many countries would love to have our checks and balances which many here it seems would wish away.Is the Supreme Court creating a law (Congress' job) with this decision, and if so, isn't that something that is supposed to be "checked" and "balanced?"
No, it doesn't. It still makes you the bottom feeder you are because most Libs (including those on the high court) tend to sympathize with criminals and terrorists..........
BoxcarI guess the the International Committee of the Red Cross is also sympathizing with da terrists and da criminals. Damn libs.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41394.html
Documents confirm U.S. hid detainees from Red Cross
More on this Story
By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The U.S. military hid the locations of suspected terrorist detainees and concealed harsh treatment to avoid the scrutiny of the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to documents that a Senate committee released Tuesday.
boxcar
06-18-2008, 01:30 PM
I guess the the International Committee of the Red Cross is also sympathizing with da terrists and da criminals. Damn libs.
You bet! Libs are Libs, no matter their profession. And the above organization gives new meaning to what's meant by "bleeding hearts". This outfit just may be the biggest bunch of commie-sympathizers around.
Boxcar
46zilzal
06-18-2008, 01:33 PM
You bet! Libs are Libs, no matter their profession. And the above organization gives new meaning to what's meant by "bleeding hearts". This outfit just may be the biggest bunch of commie-sympathizers around.
Come on now COMMIE? Once you latch onto a descriptive word it requires updating, oh forgot you don't do that as it is all back and white as your avatar promotes.
Lose The Juice
06-18-2008, 01:37 PM
Yep... no Commies out there any more.
Ever hear of North Korea? Cuba?
46zilzal
06-18-2008, 01:38 PM
Yep... no Commies out there any more.
Ever hear of North Korea? Cuba?
Both isolated societies that have done nothing to the outside world except posture in the case of Kim Jon Il.
Lose The Juice
06-18-2008, 01:43 PM
Well, Communists killed 95 million people during the 20th century, but, yeah, I guess it doesn't make them bad people or anything. :eek:
46zilzal
06-18-2008, 01:45 PM
Well, Communists killed 95 million people during the 20th century, but, yeah, I guess it doesn't make them bad people or anything.
I see McCathyism is alive and well despite all evidence to the contrary.
Overwhleming evidence that Stalin - a commie - killed/murdered more people than Hitler.
You bet! Libs are Libs, no matter their profession. And the above organization gives new meaning to what's meant by "bleeding hearts". This outfit just may be the biggest bunch of commie-sympathizers around.
BoxcarRed Cross = Commies?
Hey Box, you used to be wrong, but rationally wrong. You could spin the damnedest clever arguments. Utterly off the wall, but intelligent.
Wha' happened? I miss the intellect behind the rants.
Lose The Juice
06-18-2008, 03:18 PM
"McCathyism"? What the hell is that? "I hold here in a my hand a list of 205 female comic strip characters in the State Department"?
Btw, Hiss and Harry Dexter White were innocent. Pure as the driven snow,
(cough VENONA DECRYPTS cough).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/18/BL2008061801546.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
General Accuses WH of War Crimes
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, June 18, 2008; 12:44 PM
The two-star general who led an Army investigation into the horrific detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of war crimes and is calling for accountability.
In his 2004 report on Abu Ghraib, then-Major General Anthony Taguba concluded that "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees." He called the abuse "systemic and illegal." And, as Seymour M. Hersh reported in the New Yorker, he was rewarded for his honesty by being forced into retirement.
Is the Supreme Court creating a law (Congress' job) with this decision, and if so, isn't that something that is supposed to be "checked" and "balanced?"
As Scalia said in his opinion, a hero to you I suppose, NO, in short , they created no law.
The balance to anything from the Kourt is the Congress.
So then you would be OK with someone setting up a slaughterhouse for dogs to be sent to places where people eat such animals?
Interesting.
Not especially interesting if you travel anywhere.
That SOUNDS like the free market to me, doesn't to you.
We send plenty of stuff around the world that I may have an issue with.
I don't go to Kourt to stop the free exercise of the market.
For every demand there will be a supply no matter how abhorrent it may be to some.
I don't know of any Biblical injunction that sets dogs aside or horses for that matter.
If , I don't know, 100,00 dogs, probably low are put to "sleep" in pounds all over the country, then why not send overseas.
hell, if they were raised as are cows , with the express intent , I wouldn't shed a tear over that either.
You ever see how beef is put on your table?
Maybe not, but it ain't purty.
The Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush was not about giving habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants. It was about giving prisoners habeas corpus rights to settle the question of whether they're enemy combatants in the first place.
Richard Epstein a conservative law professor:
"Enemy prisoners of war are never granted [habeas], either in the United States or abroad. What matters is whether a prisoner is or is not an enemy combatant. The defendants in Eisentrager, German war criminals, admitted being enemy combatants. The six plaintiffs in Boumediene, accused of plotting an attack on the American Embassy in Bosnia, claim they are not. They should be entitled to challenge both the government’s definition of an enemy combatant and the factual basis of their arrest. And they should be able to do so, as the court stressed, under standard habeas corpus procedures that allow them to present evidence and confront witnesses, and not under the paltry procedures outlined by the 2006 Military Commissions Act."
Lefty
06-23-2008, 11:21 AM
h'cap, right and you don't think it will lead to actual habeus Corpus? Think again.
What happens when capture Bin Laden?
If the 9th Circius Court in California gets the case, he will freed OHOR or the charges will be dropped!
Our justice system has no legitiate role in this.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.