PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Decisions - 3 good & 1 bad


samsung101
Jun 29th, 2006, 03:18 PM
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
Jun 29th, 2006, 03:51 PM
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
Jun 29th, 2006, 05:21 PM
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
Jun 29th, 2006, 05:46 PM
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.

John A Roark
Jun 29th, 2006, 10:34 PM
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.

RVD
Jun 30th, 2006, 02:09 AM
Honestly, this is the only decision the Supreme Court could render. :shrug:
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. :cool:

John A Roark
Jun 30th, 2006, 02:29 AM
He's baaaaaaaack!
:worship: 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...

RVD
Jun 30th, 2006, 06:57 AM
He's baaaaaaaack!
:worship: ReeVee! ReeVee! (The crowd goes wild!) :wavey: ReeVee tosses roses to the crowd... :lol:
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. :angel:

samsung101
Jun 30th, 2006, 03:11 PM
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.

SelesFan70
Jun 30th, 2006, 03:31 PM
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. :angel:

OMG...it's soo scary that you actually believe that. :scared: 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!?!?!?!? :help:

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. :tape: He's still talking about troop withdrawel when both bills failed..miserably. :lol:

Helen Lawson
Jun 30th, 2006, 03:54 PM
The rulings rarely effect my daily life or career. I'm glad they threw some dough to Anne Nicole, though.

RVD
Jul 1st, 2006, 04:57 AM
OMG...it's soo scary that you actually believe that. :scared: 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!?!?!?!? :help:Believe what? That we should treat others in the same way that we ourselves would like to be treated? :shrug: 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. :eek:
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? :tape: :lol:
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.:haha: 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 I’d include links to illustrate my points, but I doubt you’d take the time to read em. :shrug:

And unfortunately, you seem to be developing quite a pattern for overlooking the obvious.
That legislation will pass easily, by the way, despite Miss America Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid. :tape: He's still talking about troop withdrawel when both bills failed..miserably. :lol: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! :lol:

RVD
Jul 1st, 2006, 05:05 AM
The rulings rarely effect my daily life or career. I'm glad they threw some dough to Anne Nicole, though.:lol: That certainly was a surprisingly generous move on the part of the justices. :D
Or maybe it was more of a move to protect their own personal self interests? :hehehe: :kiss:

Lord Nelson
Jul 1st, 2006, 12:56 PM
Believe what? That we should treat others in the same way that we ourselves would like to be treated? :shrug: 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. :eek:
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? :tape: :lol:
:haha: 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 I’d include links to illustrate my points, but I doubt you’d take the time to read em. :shrug:

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! :lol:
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.

wta_zuperfann
Jul 1st, 2006, 01:48 PM
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.

wta_zuperfann
Jul 1st, 2006, 01:58 PM
Many evidence and vital info could then be lost.


Please read the court's decision -- it is authorizing the government to actually present that evidence (if any) to a court of law so that guilt (if any) can be proven.

So far, the government has sat on that purported evidence for 4 years and has presented absolutely nothing to a court of law. In fact, the majority of detainees at Abu Ghraib were released without charge because the government never produced even a shred of evidnece to justify further detention.

You must understand that it is not sufficient for the government to merely claim that its actions adhere to the rule of law. It must actually demonstrate such conformance by presenting evidence so as to justify its actions. The USSCT has ruled that the government has failed to do so here. But at the same time it has given it the go ahead to present its case in court. Thus, the Bush administration has no complaint -- if it has evidence, present it. If not, then dismiss the cases just as was done at Abu Ghraib.

The cause of justice can ask for no less.

wta_zuperfann
Jul 1st, 2006, 02:01 PM
I'm glad they threw some dough to Anne Nicole, though.


She deserves every bit of it under California's and Texas' historic community property statutes.

John A Roark
Jul 1st, 2006, 11:43 PM
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.
You know damned well we have no operating treaties with any entity empowered to conduct diplomatic relations in the name of the prisoners.
Besides, the idea here was 'original intent,' a concept many of the 'fools who praise with enthusiastic tone' are woefully unfamiliar with...

RVD
Jul 2nd, 2006, 09:46 AM
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.You may be correct in that the terrorists do not respect the provisions set forth in the Geneva Convention. However, Bush himself has (from day one) also deemed this fight a non-war effort [while at times 'calling' it a war against terrorism]. Talk about your defined non-definition. Terrorism is a whole different animal when it comes to the elimination of such a threat. The problem has to do with the nature of terrorism itself. I guarantee that the Western world will never sit across the table from its terrorist enemy and discuss compromises, because there are just too darn many 'heads' on this [terrorist] animal. Even if Bush were able to strike an agreement with one head of the animal, the others would be snapping at him from all other sides. I mean let's look at this supposed war for what it is...
A failed endeavor to defeat a multi-headed-religious-fundamentalist-multi-armed-beast. These guys are borne out of poverty and ignorance. You don't defeat terrorism with 'might'. You defeat it with jobs, education, and the promise of shared power. In short, promise their kids and relatives a future of comfortable livelihoods. Show them that their lives are equally valued as ours. Do this and you eventually cut the legs out from under the beast. People need a reason to hate, and thus to fight. Eliminate the threat to their future and you take away their angry heart.

It's time that folks used another approach, because this 3-year war is clearly being won by the terrorists. And if you don't think that they have an unlimited supply of up-an-coming fighters, then you haven't been paying attention to your history lessons.
In short, stop thinking like the terrorists, and start thinking more like actual liberators. Isn't that what Bush said he was? :hehehe:
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.LN, you are much smarter than this. As wta_zuperfann has mostly pointed out, the problem with Gitmo has to do with its sheer disregard for the Geneva Convention, or more specifically, its policy in regards to the treatment of prisoners of war. First the Bush administration refuses to call this conflict a 'war' because in not doing so, they are free to mis-treat anyone for anything they deem a threat against Western freedom(s). Furthermore, the West and its allies are doing exactly what the terrorists are doing...

Picking up anyone who even looks like a threat.
Abducting and torturing detainees.
Disregarding the most basic of Geneva Convention provisions.
Never charging them with crimes in order to hold these prisoners for an unspecified length of time.

And let's not forget, this is all being done to American citizens as well, BY AMERICANS!!. :mad:
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.Who really knows. :shrug: At this point it's pure speculation at best. However, I'm just as certain that the Dems would have never covertly spied on its own citizens, nor taken away or threatened its peoples’ individual rights. And I believe this solely because the Republicans would never have allowed it. ;)
And as far as Joe Lieberman and Hilary Clinton are concerned...
There is a perfectly solid reason why neither will ever become President...
.
.
.
You just can't TRUST 'em. :kiss:
Waffles are good for eating, but they make terrible Presidents. :lol: :wavey:

RVD
Jul 2nd, 2006, 10:13 AM
You know damned well we have no operating treaties with any entity empowered to conduct diplomatic relations in the name of the prisoners.True, but there's a good reason why it's called 'basic human rights' I suppose. And also why I stated above [paraphrasing] the need for the U.S., as a world power and leader, to lead by example. :shrug: I realize that it's a very difficult thing to do [demonstrating mercy to a hateful and vile enemy]. But it can be quite effective. And isn't this at least partially the principle behind the Geneva Convention? The desire to wage a civilized war?
Personally, to be frank, the whole Geneva Convention thang is a journey in irony. I mean the very idea of a civilized war..? :shrug:

Besides, the idea here was 'original intent,' a concept many of the 'fools who praise with enthusiastic tone' are woefully unfamiliar with...Thus, the thrust of a previous question I posed.
Why detain a cook, chauffeur, or tailor of an enemy? The best they can offer is non-essential and dispensable information.

I might be missing the point of premise of your post John.
If so, I apologize.
I had a good amount of Brandy tonight in order to force myself to sleep. :lol:
Cursed sleep apnea and insomnia!