Supreme Court Decisions - 3 good & 1 bad - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 20 (permalink) Old Jun 29th, 2006, 04:18 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,406
                     
Supreme Court Decisions - 3 good & 1 bad

Texas redistricting case. Good decision, largely
a big win for the Delay redistricting matter. GOP
wins.

Foreign suspect case & evidence gathered & need
to contact consulate. Good decision.

Death penalty case. Good decision.

Campaign finance case: Good decision.


Military tribunals. Bad decision. But, the Court
ruled, and I respect that. They'll end
up going back on it again when it is brought up
in some other form. They seem to say if the
Congress approves military tribunals, this would
be okay? I don't get that, but, I guess that is
what we'll see coming up then: a bill proposed.


Big blow to Bush and Rummy. A big cheer for
our enemies and the combatants. I think it
is a bad outcome. However, the detainees will
get a different type of trial, and will stay detained.
No one goes free as a result of this. Still, the
Court said Bush overstepped his legal boundaries.

5-3 decision. Souter & Kennedy ruled with the
liberals on the court, which included Stevens. Three
GOP Presidential nominees. So much for that big
bad GOP. More often than not, the GOP nominees
are a complete toss up. The need to get a nominee
that passes, instead of a conservative has too often
ended up like this: Souter. He was so bland, so boring,
so easy to pass, Papa Bush picked him.
samsung101 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 20 (permalink) Old Jun 29th, 2006, 04:51 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,406
                     
Most conservative hosts and writers so far are extremely
unhappy w/the tribunal ruling.

However, they also point out that the Court via Kennedy
specifically asserts Congress can set the tribunal guidelines
or directives, and the President can go from there. Which
is something it shouldn't have done. Just rule, don't give
a mapbook one way or the other please.

On the other hand, did the Court just rule Al Queda deserves Geneva Convention status? If so, bad ruling
again. A group w/o a national base, a group that does
not wear uniforms, a group that uses women and children
to hide its terrorists (willing and unwillingly), is given
Geneva status? Sad ruling.


Court held it is legal to hold the detainees (we're talking
about 10 detainees in all on this one issue after all this
time)....and legal to keep them indefinitely...but, not
legal to have them face a special military tribunal when
their case is held. Osama's driver is the guy in question,
and his side won on the trial issue.

Thank you Justice Kennedy. If it had gone 4-4 (Roberts
excused himself, as he ruled in the lower court himself),
it would have held, and Bush would have been proven
right.



Back to Congress. That ought to be entertaining if nothing
else.

Justice Ginsberg and Justice Stevens, retire already. Give
Bush one more Justice appointment. Soon.
samsung101 is offline  
post #3 of 20 (permalink) Old Jun 29th, 2006, 06:21 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,406
                     
Most conservative sites are unhappy w/this ruling,
well, all them are. It is a rebuke to Bush only on
the one area: military tribunals.

But, they point out the court ruled the detainees can
be held indefinitely by America. That was not overturned
at all. Good. As was the idea they will be held and can
be held until the war is over...which is likely not for
decades.

But, it is sad to think the fact the Geneva conventions
states non-uniform combatants, not from a specific
nation, were not to be held to the same standard as
those from a specific nation in uniform...has been
construed now to include Al Queda rats. Oh well...

It's up to Congress now to do exactly what the justices
clearly outlined for them to do....to allow for such trials
to go forth...all 10 of them as of this day.
samsung101 is offline  
post #4 of 20 (permalink) Old Jun 29th, 2006, 06:46 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,406
                     
Kyl and Graham already working on the
Congressional legislation to correct what the
Court (wrongly in my view) points is missing.

Stevens and Ginsberg....doesn't a retirement
in the sun on the beach in Florida or California
sound good, or how about the French Riviera?

America appreciates your service, but, in any
other business, you two would have been given
a golden handshake by now.
samsung101 is offline  
post #5 of 20 (permalink) Old Jun 29th, 2006, 11:34 PM
Senior Member
 
John A Roark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 1st Sgt, S.D. Barracks
Posts: 1,931
                     
Yes, please give Dubya a chance to appoint one (or two) right-leaning justices to the court to counteract the sure swing to the left that our next president will demonstrate.
John A Roark is offline  
post #6 of 20 (permalink) Old Jun 30th, 2006, 03:09 AM
country flag RVD
Senior Member
 
RVD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 31,470
                     
Honestly, this is the only decision the Supreme Court could render.
The alternative would lead to the complete dismantling of all common basic rights under the Constitution. In other words, it's a 'no-brainer' ruling.

What this administration has been doing for years has been to disregard Constitutional law, and thumb it's nose at it's framers. I'm surprised, however, that more Senators and House Reps aren't more 'up-in-arms' what with the sheer number of laws this heinous administration has broken. But oh well, November is right around the corner.

Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. - Malcolm X
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything. - Malcolm X
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Confucius
The greatest scholars are not usually the wisest people. - Geoffrey Chaucer
RVD is offline  
post #7 of 20 (permalink) Old Jun 30th, 2006, 03:29 AM
Senior Member
 
John A Roark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 1st Sgt, S.D. Barracks
Posts: 1,931
                     
He's baaaaaaaack!
ReeVee! ReeVee! (The crowd goes wild!)

Anyway, to the topic:
The rights guaranteed in the United States Constititution were never assumed to be applicable to foreigners...
John A Roark is offline  
post #8 of 20 (permalink) Old Jun 30th, 2006, 07:57 AM
country flag RVD
Senior Member
 
RVD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 31,470
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by John A Roark
He's baaaaaaaack!
ReeVee! ReeVee! (The crowd goes wild!)
ReeVee tosses roses to the crowd...
Quote:
Originally Posted by John A Roark
Anyway, to the topic:
The rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution were never assumed to be applicable to foreigners...
I've always found this to be a point of contentious logic in that, if we want all people worldwide to embrace American 'democracy', why not demonstrate a more merciful and 'equal-rights-and-representation-for-all-men-under-the-law' side. Who knows...we may actually develop friendships and allies where only enemies presently exist.

Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. - Malcolm X
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything. - Malcolm X
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Confucius
The greatest scholars are not usually the wisest people. - Geoffrey Chaucer
RVD is offline  
post #9 of 20 (permalink) Old Jun 30th, 2006, 04:11 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,406
                     
It's almost laughable, the sheer glee on the faces of
some of the pundits: I thought Chris Matthews was going
to start jumping up and down. Calm down....

Thank you Nancy Pelosi for telling OBL and his band
of headcutters that they will be given their Miranda
rights and get religious prescribed meals and the
'rule' of law will be followed.

How about we just kill them instead of arresting or
detaining them.I'm for that rule of law.

The Court didn't say it was unconstitutional to hold
military tribunals, it said it was illegal. There is a difference. They threw it back to Congress. Which
makes me wonder why it ruled on that part of this
at all - isn't the Supreme Court supposed to determine
if a law or case is constitutional, only?

Anyway....

Gitmo stays open. Found to be legal and okay.
Gitmo detainees can be kept indefinitely, found to
be legal and okay.
Gitmo detainees cannot, as the procedure was set up,
be tried in the military tribunals Bush and Rummy
prescribed, told to do it the same as a military court
martial or new method.

Which is stupid, but, better than saying nothing goes
at all.

Why would we treat detainees who do not wear a uniform
of a nation or region, do not belong to a national or regional
military group, and who do not follow any rules of war or
conduct (see heads being sliced off as evidence of this),
the same as we do a U.S. Marine or Navy Sailor in a court
martial? Insanity.

Oh well....Kyl and others will get on this ASAP.

Overall, I think this was a bad decision. Stevens and Kennedy and Souter - 3 GOP nominees, 3 guys who
swayed the court and decision the wrong way too many
times. Stevens, isn'the like 99 by now...give it up already.
Ginsberg falls asleep during oral arguments. Retire.
samsung101 is offline  
post #10 of 20 (permalink) Old Jun 30th, 2006, 04:31 PM
Senior Member
 
SelesFan70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 11,030
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReeVeeDynasty
if we want all people worldwide to embrace American 'democracy', why not demonstrate a more merciful and 'equal-rights-and-representation-for-all-men-under-the-law' side. Who knows...we may actually develop friendships and allies where only enemies presently exist.
OMG...it's soo scary that you actually believe that. The Constitution applies only to citizens of The United States of America. Why are y'all on the left always worried about America's "image" in the world? Sersiously, it's beyond me. You really think if we're nice to terrorists they'll be nice to us!?!?!?!?

But actually, the Supremes may have handed the democrats a flaming bag of poo to step in. When Congress debates on whether or not to give the Executive Branch the authority to hold terrorists, captured on the battlefield mind you, for military tribunals and you have the democrats running around saying these scum are equal to citizens and deserve civil trials reserved soley for American citizens the majority of Americans will not go for that. People on the left seem to think these guys were randomly picked up for no reason and shipped to Gitmo and the Bush is the evil dictator making life so hard for them.

That legislation will pass easily, by the way, despite Miss America Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid. He's still talking about troop withdrawel when both bills failed..miserably.

Tammy Bruce RightSideOfTheRainbow

Liberals: Hard on the unborn, soft on terrorists

Man-made climate change is a LIE

COUNTDOWN!

Last edited by SelesFan70; Jun 30th, 2006 at 04:39 PM.
SelesFan70 is offline  
post #11 of 20 (permalink) Old Jun 30th, 2006, 04:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Helen Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for Shirley
Posts: 19,063
                     
The rulings rarely effect my daily life or career. I'm glad they threw some dough to Anne Nicole, though.

Whitney Houston and her receipts:

http://www.tennisforum.com/showthrea...17447&page=324
Helen Lawson is offline  
post #12 of 20 (permalink) Old Jul 1st, 2006, 05:57 AM
country flag RVD
Senior Member
 
RVD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 31,470
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by SelesFan70
OMG...it's soo scary that you actually believe that. The Constitution applies only to citizens of The United States of America. Why are y'all on the left always worried about America's "image" in the world? Sersiously, it's beyond me. You really think if we're nice to terrorists they'll be nice to us!?!?!?!?
Believe what? That we should treat others in the same way that we ourselves would like to be treated? Or was it my point that we should put our best democratic foot forward. Honestly, you should re-read the Provisions set forth in the Geneva Convention.
I suppose that you're right though. I shouldn't expect this administration to care what the world thinks of the #1 superpower, or how we should act as a world-leader, morally or ethically. I'm amazed we actually found something that we both agree on Selesfan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SelesFan70
But actually, the Supremes may have handed the democrats a flaming bag of poo to step in. When Congress debates on whether or not to give the Executive Branch the authority to hold terrorists, captured on the battlefield mind you, for military tribunals and you have the democrats running around saying these scum are equal to citizens and deserve civil trials reserved soley for American citizens the majority of Americans will not go for that. People on the left seem to think these guys were randomly picked up for no reason and shipped to Gitmo and the Bush is the evil dictator making life so hard for them.
Selesfan, do you actually believe that this is what Americans opposed to the handling of Gitmo are saying. At issue is the Bush Admin's abuse of human rights issues [a la Geneva Convention]. But what you seem to be saying is that we should capture and hold hairdressers, clothiers, cooks, and dentists of our enemies without allowing them legal representation. Is this what you are saying?

Normally Id include links to illustrate my points, but I doubt youd take the time to read em.

And unfortunately, you seem to be developing quite a pattern for overlooking the obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SelesFan70
That legislation will pass easily, by the way, despite Miss America Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid. He's still talking about troop withdrawel when both bills failed..miserably.
What gives you the impression that this legislation will pass 'easily' when it's already been addressed and voted on by a Republican run and controlled Congress? Even some Republicans voted in opposition.

Dude, it is time to wake up!

Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. - Malcolm X
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything. - Malcolm X
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Confucius
The greatest scholars are not usually the wisest people. - Geoffrey Chaucer
RVD is offline  
post #13 of 20 (permalink) Old Jul 1st, 2006, 06:05 AM
country flag RVD
Senior Member
 
RVD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 31,470
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helen Lawson
The rulings rarely effect my daily life or career. I'm glad they threw some dough to Anne Nicole, though.
That certainly was a surprisingly generous move on the part of the justices.
Or maybe it was more of a move to protect their own personal self interests?

Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. - Malcolm X
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything. - Malcolm X
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Confucius
The greatest scholars are not usually the wisest people. - Geoffrey Chaucer
RVD is offline  
post #14 of 20 (permalink) Old Jul 1st, 2006, 01:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,353
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReeVeeDynasty
Believe what? That we should treat others in the same way that we ourselves would like to be treated? Or was it my point that we should put our best democratic foot forward. Honestly, you should re-read the Provisions set forth in the Geneva Convention.
I suppose that you're right though. I shouldn't expect this administration to care what the world thinks of the #1 superpower, or how we should act as a world-leader, morally or ethically. I'm amazed we actually found something that we both agree on Selesfan?
Selesfan, do you actually believe that this is what Americans opposed to the handling of Gitmo are saying. At issue is the Bush Admin's abuse of human rights issues [a la Geneva Convention]. But what you seem to be saying is that we should capture and hold hairdressers, clothiers, cooks, and dentists of our enemies without allowing them legal representation. Is this what you are saying?

Normally Id include links to illustrate my points, but I doubt youd take the time to read em.

And unfortunately, you seem to be developing quite a pattern for overlooking the obvious.
What gives you the impression that this legislation will pass 'easily' when it's already been addressed and voted on by a Republican run and controlled Congress? Even some Republicans voted in opposition.

Dude, it is time to wake up!
The terrorists don't respect the Geneva convention so why should the Americans? I always believed in an 'eye for an eye' theory. Americans are human beings and not god like people. They have the right to act harshly against their enemies just like those people do too.

As for Gunatanamo, the camp is needed otherwise prominent lawyers would win freedom for many of the accused until trial gets them convicted. Many evidence and vital info could then be lost. Fortunately the American government is coming to its senses. Recently the Supreme Court thanks to Roberts and the other con judges allowed policement to barge into someone's home without first announcing themselves. Imagine if Police first knocked on the door. The accused if guilty could easily destroy evidence such as on their hard drive.

I also don'yt hink that a democrat administration would be too different form a republican one in terma of security. Democrats have intelligent people too like Liberman and yes Hilary Clinton. The radical dems like that screaming guy who almost won the nomination, Howard Dean will thankfully only be a minority.
Lord Nelson is offline  
post #15 of 20 (permalink) Old Jul 1st, 2006, 02:48 PM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
wta_zuperfann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,068
                     
The rights guaranteed in the United States Constititution were never assumed to be applicable to foreigners...


I suggest that you read the Constitution and its provisions for the government's obligations under treaties.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.



Abraham Lincoln
wta_zuperfann is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome