I'm not sure what good it would do us to elect Democrats to congress or even capture the presidency in 2008 if Alito is confirmed. All the right wing would have to do if a piece of legislation or an investigation was going against them, is sue, and the Supreme Court would rule in favor of them.
Posted by Katherine at December 27, 2005 11:35 AMThe SC is inherently weaker than the other two branches since their power is reactive in nature, which would make it much more difficult for them to be so blatant.
But stopping scalito would certainly help things in the long run. Don't think this guy is a shoo-in, the nuclear option is still out there, and with a weak, weak, weak, frist trying to run the Senate goppers, not a sure thing by any stretch.
In fact that could be the end of it for the right if frist pulls the trigger and a white flag pops outta the gun barrel that says "bang"
Posted by Duckman GR at December 27, 2005 11:58 AM... if a piece of legislation or an investigation was going against them, is sue, and the Supreme Court would rule in favor of them.
And these good Republicans would rise up and complain about activist judges, wouldn't they?
SURE they would - NOT!
Posted by pessimist at December 27, 2005 12:09 PMI agree with the work I did.
Is that like when Bush said "I'm not going to argue with myself." ?
Why is it the dumbest guys never have a doubt?
Posted by Flamethrower at December 27, 2005 12:17 PMIsn't absolute certainty a sign of ignorance?
Posted by Duckman GR at December 27, 2005 12:22 PMSo just who is the master of the NSA? I hear Bush authorizes, Cheney tells Bolton to have NSA tap Powell/Richardson on the N. Korea backdoor conversations, Rice authorizes NSA to tap UN during run up to UN vote on Iraq...does everyone in the damn administration have that kind of access? Cause I gotta think that a conversation between Powell & Richardson better not fit a terrorist profile. And I doubt they waited for one of them to go off continent to fit the memo's authority.
Posted by mainsailset at December 27, 2005 02:35 PMOn September 9, 2005, The Fourth Circuit, Judge Luttig writing, had issued a decision in the case. The key holding:
The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.
We conclude that the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/padilla/padhnft90905opn4th.pdf
Posted by peter at December 27, 2005 04:56 PMFuck Yoo! (sorry, it had to be said.)
Posted by benjoya at December 27, 2005 06:26 PMDo tell, peter, the relevence to yoo and scalito, of the Padilla case, please, I'm all ears.
Posted by Duckman GR at December 27, 2005 07:07 PMpeter forgets it was Luttig that just slammed Bush for the way they are handling the Padilla case. As Luttig said, the Bush credibility was at grave risk because when they first presented the case, it was Padilla is such an extremely dangerous terrorist that we can't ever even let him see a judge or a lawyer, to the case this fall that he is just a petty criminal, and the Bush policy shouldn't be scrutinized for any of Bush's power to hold real enemy combatants. Luttig realized that a bit of oversight is probably necessary in order to prevent total miscarriages of justice.
Posted by Mary at December 27, 2005 10:49 PMSo conceivably some terrorists could go free due to Bush's spying. Way to go Bush.
Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
Published: December 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 - Defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.
The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html
Posted by Judith at December 28, 2005 07:17 AM
It does show some sort of integrity on Yoo's part that he is willing to publically say that he actually AGREES with the disgusting legal positions he espoused to Nero Jr.
But that is going to hurt him in his confirmation hearings when he is nominated for a federal appellate judgeship. The clever reactionaries, like Alito and Roberts, have learned not to take personal responsibility for the "conservative" legal positions they vehemently advanced as lawyers for the Justice Dept.
Substantively, Yoo is just full of shit. He argues that the Founders actually intended to create a president with unlimited powers to commence and prosecute wars.
This, five years after the nation had had a revolution principally fueled by opposition to the unlimited executive powers of a monarch, King George III. The war making powers of the country are shared under our Constitution between Congress and President, with the Congress frankly given most of the authority, intentionally so by the Founders. The actual history is indisputable.
So Yoo's "originalist" position is baseless, perverse and against the overwhelming weight of historical evidence. But it did have the benefit of being exactly what Nero Jr. himself wanted to hear---that the Emperor could do whatever he wanted.
Posted by euzoius at December 28, 2005 08:18 AMCould the UN demand an investigation into wiretapping?
Posted by Judith at December 28, 2005 08:46 AM