Comments on: McCain Doesn’t Care What The American People Think About Iraq

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:51:19 +0000

Patience ‘is’.

There is a good deal of info yet ‘missing’ and I would not celebrate too soon, might have cause for regret later.

Why did the ‘three’ not climb aboard when the good ship lolly-pop Roberts’
set sail?

Landlubbers or seasick? Or just plain craven nay-sayers?

Avast there matey! Get them sea legs under ya a’fore the yardarm sweeps ya overboard …

We all may end up in the drink, me thinks, it doth bode an ill-wind and not a rum-doo.

Sorry for reacting to all this in such an nautical fashion, but I’m hard-pressed to understand the euphoria … a wee dram of caution I urge.

A hogshead, perhaps.

By: jayt

jayt — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:34:20 +0000

sorry - looong phone call.

the Roberts court seems
willing to sail into uncharted waters on several topics this term,…

I disagree - Roberts, at his confirmation hearing and since, has made clear that he views The Court as having very *little* to do with anything, and will only step in, at the greatest reluctance, to deal with any any question put before them.

Which leaves me still agog and amazed that they weighed in on this at all.

I cannot help but fear, however, that somehow we’ve been “taken”, in a way in which I do not yet understand, by this decision, if for no other reason than by noting those Justices voting in the affirmative.

I’m missing something.

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:31:25 +0000

Hmmm, another of them little ‘problems’.

Are you worried about the ‘tack’ the court is taking?

‘Starboard’, perhaps, clear sailin’ that way fer sure.

Don’t think its to ‘port’, does you?

By: merkwurdiglieber

merkwurdiglieber — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:24:01 +0000

This self executing vs non self executing question is an area where
the court can inject itself depending on factors that all the definitions
I find via google search refer to as “complex”… the Roberts court seems
willing to sail into uncharted waters on several topics this term, not a
good sign. Too much latitude for the court to make law itself.

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:20:52 +0000

‘Problems’?

You betcha! More than a few.

Until thangs are a lot more clear we should prolly temper our enthusiasm, even if them ‘three’ are no more than just obstructionistical twits.

That little ‘fact’ is the hippopotomus in the oinkment.

By: Praedor

Praedor — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:20:05 +0000

It is very very hard being the Decider.

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:15:07 +0000

Wow, an international ’signing-statement’.

Simple as that.

Amazing, so W says, ‘Condi, um, take a note, tell them pricks their boat don’t float, get it right off, and then, if Congress asks, tell ‘em to stick it! That’s muh gurl.’

Yeppers, I learn sumthin new evra day.

I don’t think so. But I’ve seen so much over the last seven-plus years that I didn’t ‘believe’ so, or So? maybe you’re right and no other Prez was smart enough ta figure it out.

Guess we’re in a whole new world of hurt these days.

Besides, Congress ratifies Treaties just for the heck of it so of course they don’t mean anything.

Why didn’t Bush just ‘unilaterally’ simply abrogate all Treaties and rescind all laws he didn’t like?

Damn! That’s what happened to gravity. Newton, ya bum, get over it, move along. George at ‘work’!

By: BobbyG

BobbyG — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:11:30 +0000

“According to the Roberts ruling, that would mean the treaty is meaningless and that the states, if they so choose, can totally ignore it”
______

Yeah. Absent specific enabling legislation. Dunno. Is that too much to ask? In terms of subordinating U.S. laws to the terms of a treaty? I don’t read Roberts et al as saying U.S. laws always trump treaties.

Dunno.

By: Praedor

Praedor — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:07:59 +0000

But here’s a potential problem (there’s lots of them). Let’s say the next Prez signs on to the Kyoto Protocols (almost too late for that one) or the follow on to the Kyoto Protocols. According to the Roberts ruling, that would mean the treaty is meaningless and that the states, if they so choose, can totally ignore it (and any other treaty too).

NO WAY! NO WAY! NO WAY!

By: BobbyG

BobbyG — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:02:59 +0000

I have yet to find any constitutional language explicitly requiring Congress to enact treaty-enabling legislation.

Interesting, this whole deal.

But, for me, any restraint on Bu’ush’s self-declared Unitary Power has to be a good thing, irrespective of the otherwise utilitarian particulars at play here.