Comments on: Bush Doesn’t Know What The Supreme Court Does

By: ekunin

ekunin — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:55:14 +0000

Sometimes the appointing president is surprised. Eisenhower regretted appointing Warren who he considered too liberal. GHW Bush regretted appointing Souter. I guess he remains glad he appointed Thomas. Looks like Roberts and Alito will not disappoint GW Bush. Way back in the days of “Archie and Mehitabel” (the spelling doesn’t look right) the typewriting cockroach who typed out “The Supreme Court follows the election returns”, the court was political more than legal. Courts follow precedent unless they don’t. We wouldn’t have the arguments we have over who’s to be judge, if the judge’s worldview didn’t matter.

By: isit2009yet

isit2009yet — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:01:18 +0000

Isn’t he scared of horses??

By: osage

osage — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:23:49 +0000

This was not a political decision, it was a legal one. Seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican conservative presidents. Of the five who upheld the habeus corpus right, Ginsberg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton, Kennedy by Reagan, Stevens by Ford and Souter by George H.W. Bush. Undeniably, Reagan, Ford and George H.W. Bush cannot be classified as liberal presidents, but I know for a fact that the presidents who appointed dissenters Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito were all Republican conservative presidents. If the claim of politics has any merit, the only proof of legitimacy is that the four dissenters were all appointed by Republican conservative presidents.

By: ekunin

ekunin — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:34:21 +0000

The Constitution says that anyone in American control is entitled to habeus corpus. Clearly Guantanamo is under American control even if it is in Cuba. Bush and his legal authorities made a mistake when they thought they could sell the Guantanamo is in Cuba distinction. Had Bush put these people under Iraqi, Afghanastani, or other non-American control, our Constitution would not follow them, but you can’t have it both ways. If you want an American in charge, you must abide by American law. You will find that helpful if they ever come for you.

By: JamesJoyce

JamesJoyce — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:41:12 +0000

This should have been a 9-0 vote not 5-4. By one vote reason and logic trumped fascism…….. Scalia is a dysfunctional!

By: Robt

Robt — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:16:17 +0000

It seems Bush and I have something in common. I to have been dissappointed with supreme court decisions and strongly agreed witht he dessenters.

Matter of fact, I have had serious doubts of some of the Justices that got nominated and appointed to begin with.

By: Beerfart Liberal

Beerfart Liberal — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:58:27 +0000

dumber than his own dog shit.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 03:53:03 +0000

It’s a paraphase of Justice Robert Jackson’s dissenting opinion in a case in which he would have restricted hate-speech to even willing audiences (his exact reference was to the Bill of Rights). It’s been used subsequently, but almost always as a contrast to the decision ultimately being made…illuistrating that the Constitution can protect individual rights while the government CAN protect its citizens without stripping them of their Constitutional protections.

It’s become a catch-phrase of Neo-Cons though, it seems.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/c.....tcher.html

By: SunnyNobility

SunnyNobility — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:37:52 +0000

George W. Bush’s ignorance still has the ability to shock me:

Just doing his job - pushing the propaganda. Legal analysis is for lesser mortals.

By: yonodeler

yonodeler — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:28:54 +0000

I posted that comment to the wrong thread, but hey, that’s one of the marvelous things tabbed browsing makes possible.