Supreme Court Overrules Bush on Guantanamo

[jillian]

Checks and balances occur between branches of governments, not between political parties.

Theoretically, that's true...ecept when one group controls all three branches of government. Since the Republican Congress clearly won't act as watchdog over the executive, it falls to the Democrats to act as a check on limitless power. In this particular case, the Republican Court DID check it's own and, as you can see from the comments on this thread, those Republicans are being called "liberals" and are being roundly chastized.

I say "good on Kennedy and Souter!". They've got a lifetime appointment and didn't let politics get in the way of good law.

 

[OCA]

And the mantra of the right is "waaaaaaaaaaah.... the bad people won't let us do whatever we want, so they must love terrorists and hate the president".

The, predominantly republican Court, apparently, isn't going to allow the Constitution to be ignored, despite Bush's protestations that it's "just a ... piece of paper".

So when the Dems controlled congress for 40 plus years do you think they checked Johnson, Carter and Bubba's authority? Hell no!

 

[F41]

It is kind of amusing though, to watch Republicans like Souter and Kennedy get called "liberals" because they aren't going to allow unchecked executive power.

You can be in Republican clothing and still be liberal, What we need on the court is more Federalist who can make decisions based on the Constitution and not on on there own political views. The detainees have no rights under our Consitution so the courts decision was infact Un-Constitutional.

 

[Annie]

Lol guess the Bush appointees aren't so conservative after all. This decision certainly weakens America because it gives credence to all the whacko theories being spread by the LMM about Gitmo.............oh hell this is America, what was I thinking? We are not supposed to imprison PRISONERS OF WAR.

Roberts had to recuse himself. Alito was with the minority.

 

[Annie]

What ever gave you the idea that they are POWs? I believe the actual title the administration used was enemy combatant.

The term enemy combatants comes from the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Annie]

Well POWs are protected from torture and abuse under the Geneva Conventions and ensures that signatories treat prisoners ethically. Enemy combatants are given none of these protections. But why quibble...


Yes, it's always the liberals fault. Liberals like John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy. That's what truthiness tells us.

Stevens' opinion is the one that is going to be used in a number of ways.

 

[Annie]

Yeah...checks and balances make republicans cranky.

*Edit* It is kind of amusing though, to watch Republicans like Souter and Kennedy get called "liberals" because they aren't going to allow unchecked executive power.

Read Stevens' opinion, the 'unchecked power' was a result of legislature trying to give power to the president. That can be rectified.

 

[jillian]

Read Stevens' opinion, the 'unchecked power' was a result of legislature trying to give power to the president. That can be rectified.

I'm not sure what you mean. But if it's that Congress didn't give authority to the president, then that's correct.

The Court isn't going to allow the executive branch a blank check. I thought it was a fair decision.

Slapped Bush pretty good, though.

 

[jillian]

So when the Dems controlled congress for 40 plus years do you think they checked Johnson, Carter and Bubba's authority? Hell no!

Clinton only had a Democratic Congress for half of his first term. And Dems don't march in lockstep the way Republicans do.

It's like Roy Rogers said, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat". Some things never change.

 

[jillian]

Stevens' opinion is the one that is going to be used in a number of ways.

Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court. It's the only one that has precedential value. The others, while they can be used for guidence, have no authority and are just dicta.

 

[Annie]

I'm not sure what you mean. But if it's that Congress didn't give authority to the president, then that's correct.

The Court isn't going to allow the executive branch a blank check. I thought it was a fair decision.

Slapped Bush pretty good, though.

Congress tried to push the responsibility onto GW. Both Stevens and Breyer agree with that.

 

[OCA]

And Dems don't march in lockstep the way Republicans do.

Hence one reason you constantly lose elections............ that and people don't support your social agenda.

 

[Gunny]

Well POWs are protected from torture and abuse under the Geneva Conventions and ensures that signatories treat prisoners ethically. Enemy combatants are given none of these protections. But why quibble...

PROVE they are being tortured.

Yes, it's always the liberals fault. Liberals like John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy. That's what truthiness tells us.

In this case, obviously it is. Anything to thwart Bush and/or his Administration and make combatting terrorism more impossible than it already is.

 

[Gunny]

And the mantra of the right is "waaaaaaaaaaah.... the bad people won't let us do whatever we want, so they must love terrorists and hate the president".

The, predominantly republican Court, apparently, isn't going to allow the Constitution to be ignored, despite Bush's protestations that it's "just a ... piece of paper".

I see your true colors are starting to show. You're just yet another wannabe intellectual leftwingnut hurling insults.

Your argument concerning unchecked power is just bullshit, leftist propaganda. Something you appear to dispense with quite freely as of late.

Moderate my ass.

 

[Gunny]

Clinton only had a Democratic Congress for half of his first term. And Dems don't march in lockstep the way Republicans do.

It's like Roy Rogers said, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat". Some things never change.

The Lemming-ocrats don't march in lockstep? Puh-lease. I've never seen a bigger herd of sheep in my life than the liberals in this Nation, collectively. Just one big voice demanding handouts from cradle to grave, in between the latest "Bush lied" grasping at straws.

 

[jillian]

I see your true colors are starting to show. You're just yet another wannabe intellectual leftwingnut hurling insults.

Your argument concerning unchecked power is just bullshit, leftist propaganda. Something you appear to dispense with quite freely as of late.

Moderate my ass.

In other words you have no response except for "waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!! the bad dems won't let Bush do what he wants!"

good argument. Reinforces my opinion of extremists.

 

[Annie]

The Lemming-ocrats don't march in lockstep? Puh-lease. I've never seen a bigger herd of sheep in my life than the liberals in this Nation, collectively. Just one big voice demanding handouts from cradle to grave, in between the latest "Bush lied" grasping at straws.

Kos was counting on it...

 

[5stringJeff]

Theoretically, that's true...ecept when one group controls all three branches of government. Since the Republican Congress clearly won't act as watchdog over the executive, it falls to the Democrats to act as a check on limitless power. In this particular case, the Republican Court DID check it's own and, as you can see from the comments on this thread, those Republicans are being called "liberals" and are being roundly chastized.

Your concept of checks and balances is incorrect. The Founders didn't write checks and balances into the Constitution to keep one political party from dominating the government; they wrote them in to keep one branch of government from dominating the other two, and thus coming back to the tyranny that they revoted against.

 

[Annie]

Your concept of checks and balances is incorrect. The Founders didn't write checks and balances into the Constitution to keep one political party from dominating the government; they wrote them in to keep one branch of government from dominating the other two, and thus coming back to the tyranny that they revoted against.

The Founders feared interest groups, which they correctly assumed political parties to be.

 

[Gunny]

In other words you have no response except for "waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!! the bad dems won't let Bush do what he wants!"

good argument. Reinforces my opinion of extremists.

Sorry, no such luck on your part. While you may think poking at people can make them squeal, it just makes me think you're a troll. Either way, I don't fall for it.

And if I'm an extremist according to you, that's fine with me since you seem to get more and more left as each day passes. At the rate you're travelling, you'll be Psychoblue's best buddy by next week.

The SCOTUS ruling is wrong. Simple as that. And YOU are proof positive that they just sent a message that emboldens your baseless, left-wingnut accusations and heartens even the most desperate terrorists -- there's no punishment for taking up arms against the US.

Guess y'all dumbass libs will be doing it next.