Decision here. More later.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
B-HO We Hardly Know Ye
Baghdad Time
We Can Do It
Contributors
VICTORIA TAFT
Links
- Victoria Taft Will Speak Before Your Group! Contact her at victoria@victoriataft.com
- Victoria's Favorite Shoes, Oregon Home Grown Oh!Shoes
- Victoria's Favorite Day Spa: The Waldorf Center
- Victoria's Dentist: Dr. Laura Matin
- Victoria's Jeweler: Judith Arnell
- Victoria's Environmental Air Quality, Air Conditioning and Heating Specialists! Her Guys at AAA Heating and Cooling
- Victoria's Favorite Restaurant Selection Ciao Vito's
- Oregon's Conservative Majority Project
- The Portland Motor Vehicle Alliance!
- CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS HERE
- IRAQ WAR MYTHS
- LEXIS-NEXIS
- Buy Your AWESOME NEW OREGON FLAG Paraphenalia here
- Ted Knew
- Debunking Portland
- Victoria Taft's TransFat Offset Business
- When Will Bill Bradbury Leave? The Watch has Started
- The Oregon Catalyst
- Oregon Watchdog
- Orbusmax
- Junk Science
- Multnomah County Republican Party
- Sound Politics
- Oregonians for Immigration Reform
- Numbers USA
- Daniel is Right
- Allen of Salem
- Northwest Republican
- Rob Kremer
- Rino Watch
- Drudgereport
- Michelle Malkin
- Politico
- Freedom Works Oregon
- Cascade Policy Institute A Free Market Think Tank in Portland
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation of Washington State
- War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World
- Michael Tanji
- Thomas Joscelyn
- American Congress for Truth
- US Central Command
- Blogs of War
- AMERICA SUPPORTS TROOPS
- Democracy in Iraq
- Global Terrorism Map
- US Government Spending
- Walter Reed Blog
27 comments:
Imagine that. Bush being smacked down by the rule of law. What a shocking development.
I don't know about you, but I'm waiting to see old man slew's rambling post about this.......
We're waiting slew......oh, nothing to say? How surprising.......
It's a 185 page document. It takes awhile to get through kids.
Did it take a while for the ice man to read through so he could explain it to you Victoria?
I, for one, am really happy that the supremes have sided with the terrorists. This presents opportunities for liberals everywhere to step up and offer housing and jobs to the detainees, once bail has been granted......what, no takers? How about the Hollywood crowd? Maybe the good Democrats in NYC? How about the Democratic leadership in Congress? Wait!! Certainly the gentlemen and ladies of the press will provide rooms. khaldun, loyalidiot, kaelri, nimlo, and ALL the lefty bloggers will surely put their money (and lives) where their big mouths are, and shout a large "come to my house, jihadists, we know you only hate Bush, just like us liberals."
This stupid liberal decision to create "rights" for butchers is one more step toward our own "Boston Tea Party." Keep gloating, boys, but please tell us all.....what's next? What're gonna do when they come for you? Don't call me.
Khaldunce, I'm so happy to pay attention. Now, try reading with both eyes open, son.
With your elation that today's decision smacks down Bush, imagine what will be the result later on. Terrorists are empowered, by the left, as usual. All of you that so love our troops and were so upset earlier that the Iraqi government was mulling over a thought of amnesty, are now elated that terrorists have won.
Another point you all miss. Just a few months ago the left was all up in arms because of 2 new appointees to the SCOTUS, stating things like stacking the court, rubber stamp and all that malarkey (thanks Todd). As bad as I think the decision is, it just goes to show how wrong the left was over the appointments of Roberts and Alito.
You all sure are wrong a lot.
Republicans are just silly.
President Bush himself said this prison is hurting the US, a week ago, two weeks after he said it was crucial to our defense.
It's another in the long line of Bush blunders.
It's hurt us. The only reason it remained open, and the ridiculous "trials" were allowed to continue is because a change in direction would hurt Bush politically.
He needn't have worried. Republicans seem to have a thirty second attention span.
They "forgot" the President himself flip flopped on this a week ago.
He's quietly releasing 40% of the Afghanis captured and detained. These are the very same people he told us a month ago wanted to kill Americans.
Give me a break. This Bush devotion defies all reason.
Court TV will be wall to wall with these Terrorist Court Proceedings. Congratulations Democrats on your Victory today. Socialists are dancing in the streets right now.
Ps Ya I agree Democrats "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" just not American Troops
Get a grip all. This is the check and balance system in action; merely to point out that the separation of powers is still intact in this country and hopefully will remain that way. The Pres extended his authority wrongfully and now he and his cronies have to reconsider how GITMO will be handled accordingly. At least J. Stevens (moderate) had the decency to conduct a thoughtful review along with the liberal judges.
This does put "egg" on the face of our fearless leader... too bad. :)
John Paul Stevens, moderate, thoughtful, review......wow!! A whole string of oxymorons....well done, there!
slew, tired today? Your post was only sub-par slew worthy...
Checks and balances, Thelfeld? Please show me where the constitution allows the cou7rts to decide how a President may wage a war.
Then, explain why it was okay for a Democrat to use Military Tribunals.
btw slew, you might want to revisit how the votes went down before dismissing a "stacked court.." (duh)
So what does this change? Bush was willing to ignore laws enacted by congress. Why would he bother to follow laws outlined by the supreme court?
khaldunce, the way the vote went down is exactly my point.After all the cries of "stacking the courts" and words to the effect of a "rubber stamp court," it was Roberts, one of those the Dems didn't want that recused himself since he was involved in the priginal case and allowed the vote to go the way it did.
That's called integrity, something the left knows little about. It also shows how far the left was willing to go to try to force the President to keep a libbie court for them.
Fizzi, list laws Bush ignored. Then explain why military tribunals were acceptable when they were set up by a Democrat President during wartime.
Congratulations on supporting the terrorists more than you do our own Marines.
Conservatives have the House, the Senate, the Oval Office, and essentially the Supreme Court.
They control everything, not the liberals (not yet, anyway).
Stop complaining.
Somehow, I find the notion that holding people indefinitely, without charges, without the presentation of evidence except perhaps in secret hearings in which there is no right of the accused to know the evidence, let along offer confrontation or rebuttal, is something less than the "conduct of war." These people are in prison. The degree of threat that they propose to us is strained at best. They are classified as "enemy combatants" by the very government that refuses to allow any court to review the evidence of that status with anything approaching rudimentary due process. It is very much the place of the Supreme Court to step in and demand that the United States do better.
Sorry Lew, but I don't have the stamina or the space to list them allBush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
As far as military tribunals under Democratic administrations, they were done with the approval and cooperation of Congress. Bush did not go to Congress and that is one reason he was slapped by the Supreme Court.
More evidence why Ginsberg, Souter and the rest of the aging libs on the court can't retire soon enough. For all the high-fiving from the left, the truth is this ruling will have little impact on the detainees at Gitmo. And, the court left open the possibility for the Congress to give the President exactly the powers he wants for military tribunals. Sorry to burst your bubble.
It is really quite funny to read all the anti-Bush, pro-terrorist rhetoric posted by the liberal left. They are yelling about "the rule of law should apply to the President, etc., etc." But remember a few weeks ago when William Jefferson was in the spotlight (or was it the headlights?) for taking bribes that were caught on camera by the FBI? The liberal left was howling about how his rights were being violated and that he hadn't done anything wrong. They didn't seem to think, then, that Jefferson had to have "the rule of law" apply to him. It is just another case of the left adhering to the "rule of double-standard". One standard that absolutely must definitely apply to the conservatives, but not necessarily apply to the liberals who want it not just both ways, but in every way they can get away with.
This liberal double-standard, kids, is hypocrisy at its finest.
The next thing will be for the liberal-left and it's wacky leader, How-wierd Dean, and, of course, Kerry, Kennedrunk, Pelosi, Reid, et al, to scream about how the NYT is being picked on and should not be investigated and it's editors and publishers and their invloved reporters not sent to jail for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Fizzi, I don't know which libbie rant you copy and pasted the copy and paste from, but once again, the libbie disingenunous shines through for all to see. You posted;Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office..
The actual article, appearing in such notable drive-by leftstream sources as the Boston Globe (where I belive it originated, but not sure), Washington Times and others, under the headline, "Bush CHALLENGES hundreds of laws" contains many more paragraphs ignored by libbies.
Among them;
"Many of the challenges involved longstanding legal ambiguities and points of conflict between the president and Congress…"
"Throughout the past two decades, for example, each president -- including the current one -- has objected to provisions requiring him to get permission from a congressional committee before taking action. The Supreme Court made clear in 1983 that only the full Congress can direct the executive branch to do things, but lawmakers have continued writing laws giving congressional committees such a role."
I'll grant you that Bush has not used the veto pen, as he should have many times, an area I disagree with him. But, the implication that is actively and intentionally "breaking" laws just doesn't wash, not even in the quoted article.
Another point from the same article;
"Since the early 19th century, American presidents have occasionally signed a large bill while declaring that they would not enforce a specific provision they believed was unconstitutional. On rare occasions, historians say, presidents also issued signing statements interpreting a law and explaining any concerns about it."
"Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it.
''Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. ''They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations."
Obviously you shouldn't be attempting to convince me but the Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON POST 6/28/06
A bipartisan group of senators and scholars denounced President Bush Tuesday for using scores of so-called "signing statements" to reserve the right to ignore or reinterpret provisions of legislation that he has signed into law.
Bush's statements have challenged a congressional ban on torture, a request for data on the administration of the USA Patriot Act, even a legislative demand for suggestions on the digital mapping of coastal resources.
Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing marked the latest effort by committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and panel Democrats to try to reclaim authority they say the president has usurped as he has expanded the power of the executive branch.
Other presidents have used signing statements to clarify their interpretation of laws, but no president has used such statements instead of using the veto authority spelled out in the Constitution, according to Harvard University law professor Charles Ogletree Jr., who is serving on a newly formed American Bar Association task force examining Bush's signing statements. Bush has never vetoed a bill.
WashingtonComPost June 30 2006
A bipartisan group of senators and scholars denounced President Bush Tuesday
Bwahahahaha!!!! Bi-partisan means Democrats and RINOs like McPain, Chafee and others. That's the only time anything is considered "bi-partisan." Otherwise, it's the usual "us against them" attitudes.
Not every Republican is a conservative as well as not every Democrat is a liberal.
The only thing that has changed is how the detainee's will be tried.
Good article
An Outrage
Post a Comment