And just remenber: it was Bush's CONSERVATIVE judges who made that call.

Nice one, Supreme Court!

And just remenber: it was Bush's CONSERVATIVE judges who made that call.

Nice one, Supreme Court!

Teenage liberal wrote: "it was Bush's conservative judges who made that call" -- that's nonsense, did you bother to check the vote before you typed? This is most cetainly a travesty but beyond that, it's a blatantly stupid, leftist decision. Above all, it is a sad day for the Republic.

Teenage liberal wrote: "it was Bush's conservative judges who made that call". That's nonsense, did you bother to check the vote before you typed? This is most cetainly a travesty but beyond that, it's a blatantly stupid, leftist decision. Above all, it is a sad day for the Republic.

Doesn't anyone want to fight the war on terroristic jihad any more?

rplat--thanks for pointing out the obvious to TL. Time for Stevens and Souter to head for the pasture.

What a travesty. Maybe this will light a fire under conservatives and get them to the polls this fall.. If they don't come - this insanity will continue. Fight the GWOT and continue to get the SCOTUS back to its senses - Vote for Republicans in the fall..

You should have filed your headline under Media Bias, Matt.

"Al Qaeda Granted Geneva Convention Protections By Supreme Court"

Could read:

"Court rules President Bush overstepped legal authority....."

Vile as they are, when you sign a treaty, you stick to that treaty.

I argue it is a great day for our Republic, it shows no matter how horrible and slimy these f*cks wanna be, we aren't going to side-step our national morals, even for wastes of flesh like them, WE HAVE WON THIS BATTLE!

You don't change your principles based on who your enemies are. Great decision.

So much for unchecked/unlimited Presidential powers.

More evidence that Republicans MUST retain the Senate. If one of the liberal justices retires or dies Bush could have one more chance to get another conservative on the court. Stop complaining about borders and spending. Vote Republican.

Confusion reigns. Apparently the decision says they cannot be tried under tribunals but that they can be held indefinitely. So liberals, you like that better?

Hey, teenie,

You missed it again.

"The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's LIBERAL MEMBERS in ruling against the Bush administration."

"Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the lead the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan."

Add Roberts to the vote and you get a 5-4 decision -- another example of judicial engineering and construing the Constitution to mean something it did not mean.

Anytime that we have a 5-4, 6-3, or even a 7-2 split decision, that means the judges are basing the decision on their own views and not what the Constitution meant.

That means we have yet ANOTHER example of, by A SINGLE vote, JUDGES AMENDING the Constitution.

If the decision is 9-0, then we can reasonably conclude -- in most cases -- that the judges made the proper decision and that it was actually based on the intent of the Constitution and not their "personal desires" and "personal beliefs" of what it "should mean" or what they would "like it to mean"!

ONE MORE LIBERAL JUDGES GOES and we can get back to the REAL MEANING of our CONSTITUTION.

CONSERVATIVE JUDGE: "A conservative judge is someone who applies the law and doesn't make the law. He is like a umpire who simply applies existing rules and doesn't make new ones. Doing anything else would be legislating from the bench which a judge is not supposed to do. ...The purpose of the judicial branch of government is to apply the rules written in the constitution, the laws, and government regulations (in that order of precedence), not to create new rules to avoid injustice, etc."
ORIGINALIST JUDGE: "Originalism is a legal philosophy that says the Constitution means the same thing today as it did when it was drafted in the summer of 1787, making no allowances for societal changes. It also says the Constitution's meaning can only be changed by amendment, a difficult process that requires two-thirds approval by each house of Congress and three-fourths of the states. ...interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people."

STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST JUDGE: "Similar to an originalist, a strict constructionist is one who sticks to the meaning of the words in the Constitution as they were used at the time of its drafting without reading too much into them. ...[judges] who look at the words of the Constitution for what they are ...[judges] who will not legislate from the bench."

JUDICIAL RESTRAINT: "Legal concept that says a judge's role is not to make policy or create legal rights, but to interpret the law as written in the Constitution or passed by Congress or the states. ...Judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited. ...[judges] do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law."

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: "Describes judges who create rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution or overturn laws based on their feeling that a statute is unfair or bad policy."

FOUR MORE LIBERAL JUDGES to REPLACE and we will hear what the Constitution REALLY MEANS.

Got to get those courts repaired -- PERMANENTLY!

Cheer for those terrorists though. They Got [liberal-progressive] Rights -- just like "height challenged" child molesters!

That's alright though. We'll keep working to REPAIR THE DAMAGE caused by 50 years of LIBERALISM! Just one more thing to add to the list.

It just means we need to make sure we have some "representatives" from another work with us and actually "capture" the terrorists. We'll herd them up into a group, but the other country's "representatives" can make the actual "capture". Then it's off to a location of that country's choosing and "interrogation" and "trials" of their choosing!

Then again, perhaps our troops won't try so hard to "capture" them or "permit" them to surrender at all!

Another alternative would be to put them in jails in the towns of their liberal-progressive supporters. Let them take care of them.

Another alternative will be to force their "native" countries to take them back. That should be interesting... I wonder if they will have ACLU lawyers to represent them. Oh, well, they won't be our problem.

And then there's that "adopt a terrorist" program I mentioned before. If all good liberal-progressives will adopt a terrorist, we can take care of the problem -- one way or another. Perhaps the terrorist will reform and all is well. Perhaps the terrorist will never reform... and we know what that means to those around them who turn their backs! Either way... problem solved!

Sounds like some good solutions to me.

Yep... there are other "solutions" to the problems created by you "liberal-progressives"!!!

AAR

One has to laugh to see these far left wing fanatical kooks rooting openly for al Qaeda. No matter how reprehensible this ruling was it's a HUGE win for Bush and Republicans come November!

The Supreme Court is giving Geneva Convention rights to vile creatures who don't deserve them according to the Geneva Convention. My understanding is this, the Geneva Convention rights apply to people of an enemy state. The prisoners are not former solders who fought for Saddam. Also our Constitution should only apply to Americans. We should only give these prisoners the rights we give to foreigners at best. I think we should consider them enemy combatants and give them a military trail and be done with it. If they are innocent then set them free. If guilty give them the appropriate sentence

Amazing, this week the democrats have embraced the terrorists. Not only giving them the protection they need to kill us in cold blood but also telling them how we are coming after them.

I wonder who the real enemy of this country is? The Islam Extremeist or Liberal Democrats.

This will end up helping the GOP as now congress will take this up. perfect! see what asshat Democrat votes for the terrorist

BRING IT ON !

please re-read.

the GITMO CO says this will NOT effect his ops.

the decision will remand the defendents to a court-martial rather than a tribunal.

no biggie...they'll get their day in court...before we hang 'em.

comprende muhammed?

Now, the president must negate the leftist faction of the Supreme Court by going directly to congress for a change in law and policy. Remember, the Supreme Court doesn't make laws, they simply interpret them. This skirmish isn't over yet.

Like I've said before, we have 4 liberal judges on the bench now, and apparently 1 other who just doesn't give a damn about his country.

AAR,

"Anytime that we have a 5-4, 6-3, or even a 7-2 split decision, that means the judges are basing the decision on their own views and not what the Constitution meant"

--You have officially made the dumbest statement of the day.

We have an odd number of justices because the founding fathers knew there would be dissent on decisions.

For instance, take Everson v. Board of Education; this was a HUGE case in regards to the Establishment Clause.

What about Dred Scott?
Wabash v. Illinois?

Heck, I think the dumbest decision the court had made, was a unanimous one, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., which ok'd income tax using the 16th amendment.

Remember, the Supreme Court doesn't make laws, they simply interpret them.

rplat, (sigh) if only that were true.

Any chance the dems had to pick up either house is now over. The two choices in November are, vote for those who will protect America or vote for those who will protect al Qaeda's rights.

This is gonna be fun!

Rplat,
One key point of the decision was related to the “Detainee Treatment Act (DTA)” enacted by Congress in 2005. The Act states no court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Scalia wrote, “[n]otwithstanding this plain directive, the Court today concludes that [] ’every court, justice or judge’ before whom such a habeas application was pending on December 30 has jurisdiction to hear, consider and render judgment on it.” As of that date no court had jurisdiction to “hear or consider” the merits of petitioner’s habeas application. Scalia went on to explain how Stevens reversed several other opinions he (Stevens) wrote on this very subject.

In other words, Congress had already passed legislation on the issue, and the Court didn’t decide on the merits of the Act, but relied on discussions within the Senate prior to passing DTA for their interpretation. Judicial activism at it's finest.

CJ,

Most of the justices who came down on the majority decision, were appointed by Republicans.

LOL!

Hey AAR,

Wasn't Bush v. Gore a 5-4 decision? I guess that makes that one of your political decisions, huh? Damn activist judges!!!

So what's your point?

It must really suck to be forced to root for terrorists to try and get back into power! It must suck even more to know that any hope now is gone!

LOL

TEO,
What a keen grasp of the obvious; considering only two Justices were nominated by a democrat a majority opinion will always include a majority nominated by a Republican. And a majority of dim-ocrats will always side with America’s enemies; how proud you must be.

Bane,

So what are you complaining about, why aren't you demonizing republicans for their stupid choices of Justices, these are all from your own flock, not ours, yet somehow it's all our fault that they decide things in certain ways.

CJ,

Watch out for a Ross Perot in your midst, its going to be fun to watch the republican vote splintered, it is going to be even funnier when the impeachment hearings start; I may not have taken a month off for the world Cup, but i'll take one off for that. LOL

CSPAN's ratings would be through the roof!

how much longer until you all realize that the republicans are wrong (with the exception of Ron Paul) and the democrats are stupid. your so worried about loyalty to your precious parties that you have all forgotten principle, and if i do say, that is exactly what they want. so...by all means keep the rhetoric war going and watch as both parties erode the our most beloved rights

It will never cease to amaze me how energized the left gets over CRIMINAL'S rights. Why do they have such passion for defending the most disgusting sub-human vermin among us: terrorists, child molesters, cop killers, Tookie Williams. Is it simply a matter of moral superiority with these bleeding hearts? Why are they so apprehensive to judge our ENEMIES but jump at every chance to impugn our soldier's honor? Why do these Al Queda animals deserve thorough trials while Jack Murtha, John Kerry, Dick Durbin and every lefitist outfit regularly convicts our soldiers of the most heinous crimes with no conclusive evidence what so ever? Then they get upset when you question their loyalties.

Oh man, I completely agree! An impeachment hearing would guarantee a Republican majority for generations!!! WOOHOO!!! Bring it on!

I do find it rather odd that you admit the only way you can possibly win is for a third candidate to emerge. At least you're coherent enough to know that your policies have been completely rejected by the American people.

TEO,
And just whom from your side did I demonize?
Yet another pathetic straw man.

"Vile as they are, when you sign a treaty, you stick to that treaty..." oozes the Eye.

yeah, 'cpet the Geneva Convention clearly lays out who is and who is not covered. Read it, Eye. Don't just parrot the talking points. Learn for yourself that it covers uniformed soldiers fighting for a signatory country, in a declared war.

So, Eye, which country are they fighting for, what is their uniform, when and where did that country (or those countries) declare war with the United States, and when did that or those countries sign the Convention?

Or is this another one of those Liberal games where only one side has rules, and the other one can make them up as it goes along? You know, like redefining terms, reinventing definitions, cherry-picking rules, etc.?

And stevie, the decision on the Florida recount was an excellent example of the efforts of judicial activism. First the Florida Supreme Court ruled politically instead of constitutionally, and that caused the matter to go to the national Supreme Court, in which four members did the same thing. These disgraces ruled according to who they wanted to be President, not according to the actual constitution each court was supposed to be defending.

Remember, the Bush/Gore decision was merely on the constituionality of treating some votes different that others---not on who won the election. I know you feebs have a hard time with that---guess Aunty Ranty didn't explain that very well.

Alimiranta,
“Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.”
I know the left likes to pretend it was 5-4, but that was on the remedy, not the constitutionality of the recounts; on that the SC was clearly 7-2 against Gore and SCFla.

TEO, the Oh So Paranoid Eye, NO ONE is blaming Dems for the actions of Liberal justices who were appointed by Republicans. Don't worry---there is plenty to blame you for. But this is not one of them.

The point here, which you so typiclaly missed, is that former Republican presidents have made some grave errors in their nominations---mostly due to efforts to appease Libs and find so-called "moderates" who would be acceptable to Dems. What we have learned is that this leads only to disaster, as the "moderates" the Dems can approve of are really just lily-livered middle-of-the-roaders without much dedication to anything. And this is why we have some justices who speak one way and vote another.

No Republican has ever denied that our party put these people on the Court. It is merely pointed out that we need to stop trying to appease the Left, because they will never meet us halfway---they will accept whatever we offer and never reciprocate. So we need to simply ignore them, concentrate on our own values and ideas, fight for them, and count on the wisdom of the populace to see their wisdom.

Ah, this blog was so much less cluttered before we had to start explaining everything all the time.

And this glee over every misfortune, even ones which are only anticipated (such as impeachment hearings) is really kind of sad. I can't imagine what it would be like to only experience something close to happiness when something bad is happening to someone else---or your own country. Eeeewwww.

Thank you, Bane. I used to look up and cite specifics for these morons, but as they so steadfastly ignore all facts in preference for their own agenda-driven fantasies, I just don't bother any more.

Look at the teen aged loony---he doesn't even know that Bush has only appointed two justices, both of which were dissenters in this latest vote. These "Don't Confuse Me With The Facts" people just irk me. It takes a huge amount of energy and dedication to be that relentlessly stupid.

Bush's conservative judges all voted against it.

You have to wonder if teenage liberal gets enough sleep at night or if mommy needs to up his bed time a bit.

No steve, Bush vs Gore was 7-2 to stop the recounts.

The later decision on the remedy was 5-4

Point of order, "The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."

"Bush's conservative judges all voted against it."

Since when is one plural?.

It was a 5-3 vote Blarney. With one recusal who had already voted for it in the lower court.

I wasn't the one that said "BUSH's CONSERVATIVE JUDGES MADE THE CALL"...that would have been your pal Teenage Liberal.

Guess what, I'm actually for the decision. This will force Congress, once again, to go on record to pass a law about military tribunals. I want every Democrat Senator and Congressperson on the record on how they want to treat terrorists.

Congress is already talking about bringing this up for a vote in the next month and that I find that wonderful!

Since when is one plural? It's not

Alito voted for it. Roberts voted for it in a lower court. That would be TWO. That's plural.

By the way, the other two conservative judges also voted for it.

If the vote would have ended in a tie at 4-4, the law is upheld. Basically it came down to Kennedy's swing vote.

By the way, rumor has it that another SCOTUS retirment is imminent. LOL

War

And Justice Stevens, the most liberal member of the court, is 86 years old. I can't wait to see the left implode when he retires during Bush's term.

I'm writing a book right now how the Supreme Court has 6 conservative judges during a liberal Democratic Executive branch. The liberals are so pissed they actually assasinate three of the conservative judges in order to move their ideas forward.

"Al Qaeda Granted Geneva Convention Protections By Supreme Court"

An absolute travesty...-Posted by Matt

Couldn't have said it better, Matt.

This Supreme Court decision now ensures that terrorists will be killed on the battlefield rather than taken prisioner. This war just got a lot bloodier.

So, the reign of King George is over?

All we are saying is, give peace a chance, I mean follow the law.

TEO,

Anytime you think my statements are "dumb or stupid," feel free to ignore them. Don't worry about what I say, no one will pay any attention anyway, right? I won't get offended that you didn't reply to what I said!

Let's see, what part of split decision do you not understand. If 5 justices think the Constitution or law means one thing and 4 think it means another, it's fairly obvious that one group doesn't understand the Constitution -- maybe both. If the judges all knew what the Constitution meant, we would have a unanimous 9-0 or at worst case 8-1 decisions. If the judges all understood what the Constitution (or law meant), everyone would agree and we wouldn't have 300,000,000 people being forced to live under decisions based on the opinion of ONE or TWO judges!!!

Now, since the two groups obviously disagree, they must be basing their decision on something. Could that "something" be their own personal beliefs and opinions? Could it be "judicial activism"? Could it be those liberal-progressive judges who are "amending" the Constitution by their rulings? Yep... I think that just might be the case!

But what can you expect. Even lawyers and judges -- especially lawyers and judges -- attended liberal colleges and universities. They probably didn't even learn any "real" history. Some liberal-progressive professor probably wrote the text book used to teach the class -- and made money selling the text book to the students to boot!

AAR

My reaction to all this is this: Are the Terrorists going to follow the Geneva Convention now?

I'm pretty sure we all know and realize that's a big no.

Okay, so we start treating all of our prisoners under the treaty and the terrorists will still maim, torture, and kill our soldiers. At what point does this idea help us?

Seriously, I want to know. Sure it shows we're on the up and up but does it help us in any way?

TEO... how ignorant you are about the runnings on of the Supreme Court. Read the Constitution and you'll discover it's up to the Congress and President on how many justices there are on the Supreme Court... It started at 7, it's been 8, it's been 9, they tried to make it 12 and 13 once. So bone up on your history dude.

Secondly, the Court WAS NOT CREATED TO HAVE A VOTE on the Constitutionality of laws...
Judicial Review was not around when the Court was created...in FACT, there wasn't even a "decision." Each justice read their opinions seriatim. So you don't need to find a dictionary, it's Latin for one after another.

So now that your take of history has been clarified... perhaps you can tell us again what our Founders.

And before you consider me a crackpot... I have a degree in Constitutional Law and am in law school now...

FYI... if you hate income tax, how on God's Green (correction for separation of church and state)...how on Green Earth would one hundredth of the programs you like and advocate be paid for? Tariffs? Clearly your grasp on economics ain't that great either.

The old saying goes...

The Executive has the Power of the Sword...
The Legislative has the Power of the Purse...
The Judiciary has the Power of its Persuasion.

As happened during the Depression...what would happen if the Supreme Court made a decision and no one showed up to hear it? What real power do they have beyond the persuasion to convince the President to do something and to persuade Congress to make sure the President does it...

Hmmm...

Exactly, Gozer. (See ... I read your posts! :-) I'm sure AQ is laughing their arses off.

Exactly, Gozer. (See ... I read your posts! :-) I'm sure AQ is laughing their arses off.

Almiranta,

You obviously have been buying into the BS this administration THINKS passes as international law.

First off, A person either falls into one of two categories, Prisinor of War, or Civilian; Period.
We cannot use "unlawful combatant" as an excuse to remove people from ANY sort of understood law or convention.

These guys are either POWs or criminal civilians, and they need to be tried that way. Now I think its pretty obvious we aren't going to call them POWs, so that leaves criminal civilians, which means that we still have established laws and lines of thought which we must follow.

"Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva: 1958) to mean that:

there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war ... he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of [the Fourth Convention], provided that its article 4 requirements [defining a protected person] are satisfied"

The tribunals that were setup are a farce, most of the people didn't have lawyers, they can't rebut government witnesses or evidence, and can't challenge their status.

Infact, the lawyer for the tribunals, James Chrisfield, said that the tribunals aren't setup to decide whether these guys are POWs, but only to determine "enemy combatant" designation, that is contrary to the whole purpose of a "competant tribunal", which is setup to decide POW status.

Basically, whether a country or group is signed up to the Geneva Convention or not is moot, we are, so therefore we are required to uphold its laws, and there is no "enemy combatant" status in those laws, so they are afforded either POW or civilian status, one way or the other. We can't go making up a special status for people so we can side-step the laws of our land.

Either charge these guys with something, or let them friggin go, we have already seen more than a few people taken illegally, and wrongfully, so it is just common sense we get this crap out in the open, and stop pretending like we are above the law.

Article 5 of the third Geneva Convention

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal"

"Any chance the dems had to pick up either house is now over. The two choices in November are, vote for those who will protect America or vote for those who will protect al Qaeda's rights.

This is gonna be fun!" -Posted by: CJ

You nailed it. Now, November will be all about national security...and how weak Democrats are on it.

TEO,

"Either charge these guys with something, or let them friggin go..."-TEO

Clinton did this with Osama bin Laden. He couldn't find enough legal evidence to arrest him. The result was 9/11. This is a victory for Al Qaeda.

It started at 7, it's been 8, it's been 9, they tried to make it 12 and 13 once.

Actually it started with six. It didn't become seven until 1807. And FDR wanted to make it 15.

in FACT, there wasn't even a "decision." Each justice read their opinions seriatim.

Semantic quibbling. There may not have been an "opinion of the court", but the court still arrived at a decision. Just like today there isn't always one opinion signed by a majority of the justices (e.g. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Planned Parenthood v. Casey) but there is still a decision.

wawilliyo,

Wait until you try to talk to axis about activist judges. He actually thinks judges SHOULD make the law and the people should be forced to try and overturn them through the Amendment process.

Any thoughts on my "definitions" on the types of judges I posted earlier?

I want to see judges who interpret the Constitution and law the way they were intended until amended by a formal amendment.

AAR

There is one simple, very simple answer to the question of new prisoners. Don't take any. Use overwhelming force on every stronghold. Blast every cave. Heavily bomb every house you take fire from. No more prisoners. No need for Gitmo.

Would not a STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST JUDGE beleive in slavery, since most of our founding fathers owned slaves at the time the Constitution was written?

AAR,

How are the judges NOT interpreting the laws correctly, it's pretty straigth foward, they are either POWs or civilian criminals, one way or the other, they have to be tried in a manner consistent with the Geneva convention, which we are a signatory of.

Read the 6th amendment, if we signed it, then we have to follow the law, I argue the guys who didn't interpret it correctly where the ones not reading the constitution.

TEO,

I'm talking about ALL of the liberal activist "law-giver" judge rulings, not just this one!

I'm sure you have read enough of my comments to understand what I mean.

As far as this case, obviously some very smart legal minds do not agree -- including 4 current members of the Supreme Court. Another decision by a ONE JUDGE MAJORITY. That tells me that the decision is questionable in any case. Now if it had been an 8-0 decision, then I might have to concede that it really was what the Constitution intended.

Who knows, maybe something will happen to change one of those before we have to free the terrorists. Maybe we can get that decision reversed before too long!

If you have been listening to Fox News, you would know some of the facts, issues, and opposing views other than those from the liberal-progressive pro-terrorist Democrat left!

RE wawilliyo's comment: "As happened during the Depression...what would happen if the Supreme Court made a decision and no one showed up to hear it? What real power do they have beyond the persuasion to convince the President to do something and to persuade Congress to make sure the President does it... "

Hmmmm....

RE wawilliyo's comment: "...it's up to the Congress and President on how many justices there are on the Supreme Court..."

Maybe we should cut back on the number of judges. How about we let President Bush fire two of them!

Terrorists are not uniformed combatants from a legitimate army, but that doesn't matter to you left wing liberal-progressives. You are "citizens of the world"! You just "reside" in the United States. The terrorists are from countries all over the world, so to the liberal-progressives, that makes them an "army of the world", right? As to uniforms, to you the rags that many wear "are" uniforms which represent the poor that American's have created around the world.

Why don't you and your left wing liberal-progressives work up a TERRORIST BILL OF RIGHTS and make that a formal part of your Democratic platform. I'm sure your ultra-left kooks would agree. Introduce it into Congress too -- about mid-October!

Better still, why don't all of you left-wing liberal-progressives go visit axis in Canada -- permanently -- so we can repair the 50 years of damage done to America by your social engineering and liberal agenda!

I'm sure you will agree with and fully support all of the Court decisions if there are no liberal activist judges on the court. Right? The left wing liberal-progressive agenda lives by the courts... and, hopefully, it will die by the courts! That's what happens when you rely on activist judges as your "law-givers"!

AAR

TEO,

Read "Retired Spook's" first post under the thread "Open Thread: 4th of July Weekend", including the link to American Thinker!

RE: “Justice Stevens has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”

Hmmmm....

Perhaps it IS TIME we start treating the Court's rulings as "opinions"!

Courts DO NOT MAKE OUR LAWS. It's time they get that message!

AAR

AAR writes "Better still, why don't all of you left-wing liberal-progressives go visit axis in Canada -- permanently -- so we can repair the 50 years of damage done to America by your social engineering and liberal agenda!"

I woild love AAR to describe the America he envisions were his wish .. ie. all liberals move to Canada" to come to pass.

AAR,

To usurp the power that is granted to the Supreme Court, would be treason, unconstitutional, and on the verge of civil war, do you advocate armed conflict between states and citizens?

TEO,

Contrary to what you liberal-progressive Democrats may think, the courts are not the nation's "law-givers".

Conservatives only want to restore to Congress and the President the "power" activist liberal judges have UNCONSTITUTIONALLY usurped from them during the past 50, 60 or so years!

We are working on fixing that little misunderstanding!

Four more judges to go... and then it's time to re-look some of those wrong decisions!

AAR

OhioGolfer,

A better place!

AAR

TEO,
As I referenced before, from Scalia’s dissent; Congress has revoked appellate authority in the past. The Constitution also states that Congress can decide the scope of jurisdiction which the SC (or any court) can exercise. The DTA already stated that the SC cannot consider habeas applications of the Guantanamo detainees, yet that’s exactly what they did. Because the Court assumed powers designated to the Executive Branch in Article II; I believe Congress has an obligation to remove the issue from the SC’s jurisdiction. (Article III §2.2 “…In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make”)

To all you wingnuts:
Giving to the terrorists Geneva Conventions protections is not a travesty. As a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, we are obligated to abide by the terms outlined therein. The Conventions are a set of humanitarian laws that were laid out at the end of World War II by several European nations - as well as the United States - intended to prevent the atrocities committed during the war from ever happening again. I will write it in crayon for you: we agreed to it, and we are bound by it no matter how barbaric or unworthy of being called human our enemies are. The supreme court judges made the right decision - when objectively interpreted, we are bound by the Geneva Conventions to treat our captured enemies humanely. Besides, torturing prisoners (I'm not talking about approved interrogation techniques - I'm talking about the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib) is not the way to go about winning hearts and minds - it just makes Al Qaeda's recruiting that much easier. Breaking the rules also alienates our allies, whose wholehearted support we need, whether we like it or not. It's generally a bad idea to weaken diplomatic ties between us and other Western nations when we are all fighting a war with the East.

To all you wingnuts:
Giving to the terrorists Geneva Conventions protections is not a travesty. As a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, we are obligated to abide by the terms outlined therein. The Conventions are a set of humanitarian laws that were laid out at the end of World War II by several European nations - as well as the United States - intended to prevent the atrocities committed during the war from ever happening again. I will write it in crayon for you: we agreed to it, and we are bound by it no matter how barbaric or unworthy of being called human our enemies are. The supreme court judges made the right decision - when objectively interpreted, we are bound by the Geneva Conventions to treat our captured enemies humanely. Besides, torturing prisoners (I'm not talking about approved interrogation techniques - I'm talking about the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib) is not the way to go about winning hearts and minds - it just makes Al Qaeda's recruiting that much easier. Breaking the rules also alienates our allies, whose wholehearted support we need, whether we like it or not. It's generally a bad idea to weaken diplomatic ties between us and other Western nations when we are all fighting a war with the East.

To all you wingnuts:
Giving to the terrorists Geneva Conventions protections is not a travesty. As a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, we are obligated to abide by the terms outlined therein. The Conventions are a set of humanitarian laws that were laid out at the end of World War II by several European nations - as well as the United States - intended to prevent the atrocities committed during the war from ever happening again. I will write it in crayon for you: we agreed to it, and we are bound by it no matter how barbaric or unworthy of being called human our enemies are. The supreme court judges made the right decision - when objectively interpreted, we are bound by the Geneva Conventions to treat our captured enemies humanely. Besides, torturing prisoners (I'm not talking about approved interrogation techniques - I'm talking about the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib) is not the way to go about winning hearts and minds - it just makes Al Qaeda's recruiting that much easier. Breaking the rules also alienates our allies, whose wholehearted support we need, whether we like it or not. It's generally a bad idea to weaken diplomatic ties between us and other Western nations when we are all fighting a war with the East.

Bong,

Under the Geneva Convention, we could just shoot the captured terrorists out of hand...do you really want us to rigorously apply the Convention?

You see, there is in the Convention just how to deal with irregular forces....they don't get a free ride.

TEO,

I left a couple of questions for you under the "Open Thread: 4th of July Weekend" about interrogating terrorists.

Let's see how you answer them!

AAR