Patriot Act Revisited

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dilloduck, Apr 6, 2005.

  1. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    There has been what I would term a rather "hysterical" outcry against executive and congressional interference with the constitution in the Schiavo matter yet where is the outcry form these same people over elements in the Patriot Act that make this last bit of "interference" look like a gnat on the sun? Having the FBI searching your home without a warrant is OK ? If you HAVE been searched you cannot even tell you own lawyer ?
     
  2. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    wheres that part of the act at?
     
  3. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    Especially when the warrants can be issued right from the FBI, circumventing the approval of a judge who should be the one to issue the warrant. This gives the police too much power, however, given the state of our judiciary today, one could say the judiciary could also get in the way of justice.
     
  4. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    whats the state of our judiciary?
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I'd say they are a bit prone to make decisions based on thier politics instead of the law in cases they are questionable. Too many loose constructionists---9th circuit comes to mind
     
  6. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    aren't we responsible for that? letting presidents and senators pick judges by their political bent? Isn't the 9th circuit reviewed by the appeals courts and the USSC?
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Ultimately we're responsible for the whole 9 yards---too bad we don't have the bucks to back up our responsibilty
     
  8. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    Anti-constitutional. Even from the judiciary in the Supreme Court. Ruth Bad-girl Ginsberg comes immediately to mind. Oh, and then of course there's Stevens.

    These are judges on high who like to consult international law for their activist rulings instead of our very own Constitutional law. God knows what liberal judges in the lower courts are doing...

    Yes, we are responsible for these bad judges. That is why I support Tom DeLay in weeding out the bad ones. Why are the Democrats so against DeLay for wanting to do that?
     
  9. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616

    The 9th Circuit has been overturned more often than any other court by the SCOTUS. They are reactionary and often judge from political perspective rather than Constitutional certainty, but they cannot be removed from office except and unless they commit a crime. Therefore any effect unforeseen or approved of before they begin reactionary and politically motivated decisions make them virtually unimpeachable. The SCOTUS cannot remove them from their positions, they can only keep themselves busy overturning their scurilous decisions and remain ever vigilant.
     
  10. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Heres the problem with doing things the way that Delay is putting forth.

    say we let congress review decisions by the courts and initiate some sort of impeachment proceedings because of a decision that congress feels is not 'constitutional': which could be interpreted<---hate that word now: in any number of ways but is going to end up being defined as a decision that the congress/senate doesn't agree with.

    now, with congressional elections every two years, along with 1/3 of the senate every two years, we now could possibly end up with different interpretations of the constitution every two years. You think we have a constitutional crisis now, wait and see what would happen if delays plan is implemented.
     

Share This Page