If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] A More Reasonable Interpretation of POTUS vs. SCOTUS
ArtKramr wrote:
In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his trashing of the Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope he so well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him Arthur Kramer Art - You should know better than to accept this silly partisian interpretation of what happened. Our Founding Fathers deliberately designed the US Government to have three independent branches as a check and balance. The three brances are supposed to be in conflict with each other; the US has a long and productive history of such conflicts, starting with Andrew Jackson & the Supreme Court. This is no different. There is no "slippery slope" issue here. There are just the three branches doing their usual power plays back and forth. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:38:37 -0500, Stop SPAM
wrote: ArtKramr wrote: In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his trashing of the Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope he so well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him Arthur Kramer Art - You should know better than to accept this silly partisian interpretation of what happened. Our Founding Fathers deliberately designed the US Government to have three independent branches as a check and balance. The three brances are supposed to be in conflict with each other; the US has a long and productive history of such conflicts, starting with Andrew Jackson & the Supreme Court. This is no different. There is no "slippery slope" issue here. There are just the three branches doing their usual power plays back and forth. Actually, the Wall Street Journal had a great editorial about the decision and its implications on Tuesday. Headline readers tend to miss a lot. But, then again they aren't disturbed in their ideology. Only read this if you are willing to read this: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005283 Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:38:37 -0500, Stop SPAM wrote: ArtKramr wrote: In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his trashing of the Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope he so well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him Arthur Kramer Art - You should know better than to accept this silly partisian interpretation of what happened. Our Founding Fathers deliberately designed the US Government to have three independent branches as a check and balance. The three brances are supposed to be in conflict with each other; the US has a long and productive history of such conflicts, starting with Andrew Jackson & the Supreme Court. This is no different. There is no "slippery slope" issue here. There are just the three branches doing their usual power plays back and forth. Actually, the Wall Street Journal had a great editorial about the decision and its implications on Tuesday. Headline readers tend to miss a lot. But, then again they aren't disturbed in their ideology. Only read this if you are willing to read this: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005283 Ed Rasimus Ed - Thanks for the link. I think it's a great editorial and, IMHO, just reinforces my point - the decisions, and the issues from whence they arise, are just business as usual between the three branches, not some great US-threatening plot by the executive branch. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Stop SPAM" wrote in message ... Ed Rasimus wrote: On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:38:37 -0500, Stop SPAM wrote: ArtKramr wrote: In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his trashing of the Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope he so well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him Arthur Kramer Art - You should know better than to accept this silly partisian interpretation of what happened. Our Founding Fathers deliberately designed the US Government to have three independent branches as a check and balance. The three brances are supposed to be in conflict with each other; the US has a long and productive history of such conflicts, starting with Andrew Jackson & the Supreme Court. This is no different. There is no "slippery slope" issue here. There are just the three branches doing their usual power plays back and forth. Actually, the Wall Street Journal had a great editorial about the decision and its implications on Tuesday. Headline readers tend to miss a lot. But, then again they aren't disturbed in their ideology. Only read this if you are willing to read this: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005283 Ed Rasimus Ed - Thanks for the link. I think it's a great editorial and, IMHO, just reinforces my point - the decisions, and the issues from whence they arise, are just business as usual between the three branches, not some great US-threatening plot by the executive branch. I seem to recall Abraham Lincoln (arguably one of our best presidents if not the best) also had a run in with the USSC over habis Corpus... I have not ever witnessed any serious historical fallout concerning his legacy... Jim |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I seem to recall Abraham Lincoln (arguably one of our best presidents if not
the best) also had a run in with the USSC over habis Corpus... I have not ever witnessed any serious historical fallout concerning his legacy... This was quite a contentious issue in Lincoln's time. The prevailing opinion is that the executive may suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The "executive" doesn't even have to be president. Andrew Jackson suspended the Writ at New Orleans in 1814. Of course with no easy access to Washington and the British literally at the gates, he had to act. Lincoln did suspend the Writ. He was never challenged by the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice did write an Ex Parte decision in his role as circuit judge excoriating the president, but the matter of whether the president may suspend the writ has not been authoritatively answered even now. The Chief Justice, Taney, had said he favored a dissolution of the Union if it meant that slavery was threatened, so he was not very objective. This was the same Taney that ruled in the "Dred Scott" ruling that blacks had no rights that whites were obligated to acknowledge, despite the fact that blacks could vote in 5 states. The question is why Bush has not just suspended the Writ, instead of suggesting he is above the law, which is the clear implication of the actions he's taken so far. Walt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|