Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Great Day for American Ideals

What a great day! The U.S. Supreme Court knocked down President Bush’s anti-American approach to civil liberties by ruling that special military courts for Guantanamo Bay prisoners are illegal. Law experts say that the ruling also makes torture illegal and undermines the government’s case for warrantless wiretapping. The Supreme Court restored America back to its great ideals of civil liberties!

What does Bush care abut civil liberties? He is running around the country smearing Democrats and all those who oppose his Iraq policies. In a recent speech he accused them of:

"waving the white flag of surrender."

Nobody is waving a white flag. But this does not stop Bush from

WAVING A BLACK FLAG OF UN-AMERICANISM.

When Bush started the whole Guantanamo Bay program for placing in storage all the people he labeled enemy combatants, not charging them with any crime, and not allowing any judicial proceedings to determine whether they were innocent or guilty, he struck a blow against the American ideal of justice. Later he compounded this atrocity by condoning torture and by spying without a warrant on Americans.

Today, in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court made Americans proud, as Times on Line reports:

"The US Supreme Court today blocked the trial of Guantanamo Bay prisoners in special military courts, ruling that the process drawn up by the Bush Administration broke both American law and the Geneva Conventions.

"Today's decision was the second time the Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush Administration on a Guantanamo Bay case. Two years ago, the court rejected the White House's claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers."

The Court said that we must conform to the Geneva Convention, as well. Therefore, since Article 3 of Geneva:

"provides that detained persons ’shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,’ and that ‘[t]o this end,’ certain specified acts ‘are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever’—including ‘cruel treatment and torture,’ and ‘outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.’"

Torture is out. We must stop torture.

Also warrantless wiretapping. The administration claims that since Congress authorized it to “use all necessary and appropriate force," it gave the administration permission to tap phones without warrant in order to preserve national security. But the Court said that this force authorization means nothing of the sort.

Warrantless wiretapping of Americans is out. We must stop it.

Normally, you would expect the president to say, "OK, I'll follow the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court." But not this president, who hemmed and hawed:

"If Congress can draft a law that will enable military tribunals to handle detainees in a way that conforms with the court ruling, Bush said, he will be open to that. 'If that's the case, we'll work with them,'' the president said. 'To the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so..... But some of these people need to be tried in our courts."

Why all this talk about Congress? Why all this beating around the Bush? Why can't Bush just say he will follow the law of the land that just came down from this extremely conservative court?

Never mind that. We do have the ruling, one of the most important of our age. And we, all of us, can rejoice that America once again stands for justice for all.

Posted by Paul Siegel at June 29, 2006 2:48 PM
Comments
Comment #163271

That the Conservative-heavy Supreme Court came up with this is particular reason for relief and encouragement.

Posted by: dana at June 29, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #163277

It’s just a matter of time before another Scalia gets put on the bench. Celebrate while you still can. The window for rational debate is closing.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 29, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #163284

Schwamp,

Just another reason to vote the Repugs out of Congress this year. Then there’s no change for the Chimp to put another religious fanatic fascist into the Supreme Court. Vote them out of the White House in ‘08 and we can get back on the right path.

Posted by: Dave1 at June 29, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #163291
Why all this talk about Congress? Why all this beating around the Bush? Why can’t Bush just say he will follow the law of the land that just came down from this extremely conservative court?

Because, Paul, that is the remedy that the decision calls for.

Cmdr. Charles Swift, the Navy lawyer assigned by the military to represent Mr. Hamdan, said at a televised news conference held outside the Supreme Court that the logical next step would be for Mr. Hamdan to be tried either by a traditional military court martial, as provided for under the Geneva Convention, or by a federal court.

Also, this decision has nothing to do with the wire-tapping issue you bring up. All it has done is ruled the congress’ attempt to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees and that ‘military tribunals’ are invalid.

It’s amazing what can be read into things…

I do think it’s a great decision though, the attempt by Congress to eliminate the checks and balances of the Constitution are laughable and rightfully thrown out.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 29, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #163292

I’m with Schwamp—rulings like this will be rare as hen’s teeth in the future. And the ruling two years ago about denial of judicial process to terrorist suspects—has that been honored?

George probably just ordered Harriet to make more copies of his signing statement forms, in keeping with his fuzzy thinking on Constitutional matters.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 29, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #163293

Paul, this is very good news!!!
Schwamp, you’re so right.
Dave, you too.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 29, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #163295

Paul:

I find it interesting that some people applaud the Supreme Court as the highest arbiter of the law in our country, but only when the Supreme Court rules FOR them. There are many in WB who call the Supreme Court illegal or immoral, etc. There are many who say the USOC acted illegally in their role in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Whenever the USOC rules in their favor, they talk about how great the Court is. Personally, I think the USOC is great all the time—-its one of the institutions that makes our country great. I disagree with some of their decisions (Kelo comes to mind), but I nonetheless support their right to make such decisions. That right is held in the Constitution.

We should support the USOC always, even when we disagree with their specific decisions. Too many out there support them only when they are in agreement.

Dave1:

Just another reason to vote the Repugs out of Congress this year. Then there’s no change for the Chimp to put another religious fanatic fascist into the Supreme Court.

Thanks for neatly giving an example of my comments to Paul. It was nice of you to be so timely.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 29, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #163299

This decision means nothing to the guy’s in US custody. The admin will find another reason to hold them, or they will close Gitmo and transfer these guy’s to a prision we know nothing about, including the location.
Funny how no matter what decision would have come from the Court, many would have been unhappy. This time the court went with the anti war side. Next time it might not.
Things are never quite as bad as they seem, however, things are never quite as good as they seem either.

Posted by: rusty at June 29, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #163300

Rusty,

Of course it means nothing, this ruling was not about whether we can hold them or not. It was about whether or not the military tribunals that they were being put through were constitutional as opposed to a federal court or military court martial.

It has NOTHING to do with being ‘anti-war’…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 29, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #163301

Not so fast Paul… although, for most Americans this is a very good thing; it shows that our judicial branch is as much a part of our democracy as our legislative and executive branches.

However i wouldn’t start the pool-parties just yet… It was just last week that Bush said: laws no longer apply to him. (link). So, if we’ve learned anything at all in the past five years, it is: never underestimate the willingness of this administration to do whatever it wants regardless of its legality.

Posted by: john trevisani at June 29, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #163303

Cheers!

If Roberts had voted it probably would have been very close, but its great to see a small majority of the bench have some semblence of respect for their office.

Posted by: Max at June 29, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #163306

It will be interesting to see how many convictions arise from this. I suspect if the administration had good cases against these people there would have been less resistance to trials. We should still expect cloaks of secrecy to hide much of what goes on even though after all these years any claim to vital secrets is dubious. So now they have to prove quilt and cannot say they are in prison because we really,really,really think they should be.

Posted by: BillS at June 29, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #163308

jbod,

You’re most welcome. When the courts and congress become toady tools of a unitary president king-wannabe it is time to stand up. Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito need to be marginalized until they retire by a majority of judges with a concience. Their standards of the law are of convenience only. Did you even hear Thomas’ dissent? His argument was straight from the wingnut press, praphrase:”this decision takes tools away the President to defend us”. It has nothing to do with LAW, and that is what they’re supposed to decide on. PERIOD. And that is what makes them not just wrong, but dangerous to our freedoms.


Rhienhold,

‘military tribunals’ are invalid
Is not strictly accurate. the decision said that the rules for Military Tribunals can not be arbitrary but must be established by law. If the rules for the trials had been issued by Congress, then the trials would have been held valid. But instead, Bush is insisting that he alone can set the rules for each trial, even individually by defendent. E.g. Bush has decided that testimony from a defendent made under duress (read ‘torture’) is admissible. Normal rules say that evidence from torture is inadmissible.

Posted by: Dave1 at June 29, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #163309
Why all this talk about Congress?

My (non-lawyer) reading of the decision found that the SCOTUS stated several times that Congress didn’t explicitly give the power to “The Government” to hold the commissions as Bush wanted to hold them. (Basically Bush wants trials without providing historically adequate defense for the accused.)

The implication of the SOCTUS decision is that Congress can give that power to Bush if it so desires. That’s why there were several Republicans lining up to say they will craft such a commission (tribunal) law for the Bush administration to use.

I hope there is a large outcry against giving this administration more keys to unrestrained power.

Posted by: John at June 29, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #163310

You Libs are al alike. You trear this war as if it were a board game. Once again shows that you libs dont know how to prosecute a war. That is why the American people know that you cannot have a Democrat in office during a time of war. Let me asks you die hearts hollywood liberals how many civil liberties do you believe you would have if we fall to the islamic radicals. Like the talibal im sure NOW would love them running the country. Lewinskies would not be available any more. What would happen to Bubba Clinton?

Posted by: Thomas at June 29, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #163313

“I do think it’s a great decision though, the attempt by Congress to eliminate the checks and balances of the Constitution are laughable and rightfully thrown out.”

Thank god we have a few rational (read: liberal) judges left.
You did notice the conservative boot lickers all went the wrong way? thomas’s “opinion”, however impassioned, had NOTHING to do with his job of intpreting existing law. How that mediocre imbecile got on the court, I can’t fathom.
Makes ‘08 election even more vital!

Posted by: Observer at June 29, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #163315

Thomas-

Here’s the issue: no matter who is in power, be it Gen. Patton or the Grateful Dead, we will never fall to Islamic radicals. The fact that you see this as an actual threat shows how far out of touch you are with reality.

We are not fighting to protect the existence of the USA. The existence of the USA is not in danger. However, the ideals we hold dear are. Among those ideals are fair treatment for all under the rule of law. As soon as we ignore that for any reason, we are lowering the value of what our soldiers are fighting and dying for.

Posted by: David S at June 29, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #163321

This is not a simple Dem-Rep issue. There are a number of GOP Senators who have been very concerned about the excesses of the executive branch under Bush.

That will include all senators who consider themselves true republicans and those with libertarian leanings.

Don’t expect such a tribunal to be constituted all that easily.

And don’t expect it before November. Too many senators afraid of being seen as rubber stamps for Bush.

Posted by: CPAdams at June 29, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #163322

What Bush says is 100% moot. It’s what he does that shows the true character of Mr. Bush. He does not care about the Law, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or FAIR AND HONEST ELECTIONS…because all of the above reveals the truth of the eunuch he is.

Posted by: Peter at June 29, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #163328

“That is why the American people know that you cannot have a Democrat in office during a time of war.”

You mean like WWI and WWII?
Yeah, we really screwed those up.
Congrats on that Grenada victory though. That was a tough one.

Posted by: Observer at June 29, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #163335

Observer, thanks for the smile…

(and validation of my 4:15 post)

Posted by: Dave1 at June 29, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #163350

Paul:

How does the left criticize the Supreme Court for being “republican”, and rejoice when decisions go your way at the same time?? After all this is the Court the “stole” the election from Al Gore.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 29, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #163359

Finnally some sanity, from on high. The Bush croud is out of control. Bush is too high and mighty, don’t care about laws that does not suit his purposes. who the hell is advising him? I feel he is too ignorant to think of all this crap alone. I don’t know if he is the the most ignorant of all Presidents but it is clear to me that he is the most arrogant. his election was a huge error. He is trying to make our idea of demoracy fit his silly ideas.

Posted by: Calvin Gray at June 29, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #163364
Thank god we have a few rational (read: liberal) judges left.

Liberal judges are the rational ones? LOL, aren’t they the ones who came up with the Imminent Domain nonsense last year?

I sometimes wonder about the rationality of everyone on the current court, though they seem much more reasonable than the courts of 1930s that caved in to the threats of FDR, basically rewriting the constitution from the bench…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 29, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #163376

Dave

Have you forgotten about the twin towers? Who would have thought that they could have come to the USA and kill 3000 of our civilians. Why are you so confident that we are so secure, when all you Libs say we are not ie port security. What would you have us do with the prisoners at Gitmo?

Posted by: Thomas at June 29, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #163377

“Ann Coulter in ‘08, who’s with me?”

(crickets chirping)

Posted by: Observer at June 29, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #163381

When is the court going to rule on illeagal use of nsa wthout court over sight. All you here from the administration is just trust us. I trust the gov. about as far asI can throw my truck. The last time AN ADMIN. WAS SO SECRTIVE THE INVESTIGATION LED TO IMPEACHMENT AND resignation of a Prez. When is this congress going to start doing their job of oversite into illeagal actions. Looks like we need to at least make one house the oppostion. A Moderate

Posted by: Earl at June 29, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #163386

This ruling is just a distraction. The Bush Administration has no doubt already had plans (just in case) to move to another secret location.

While you were all distracted, did anyone notice that the FED raised the interest rates another 1/4 percent, I don’t know, for the 17th time in 2 1/2 years. What you will see in the very near future is a dramatic rise in unemployment.

Posted by: Pat at June 29, 2006 7:23 PM
Comment #163395

Pat, can anyone say hidden tax? Print more money fast!!!! We aren’t spending it fast enough to make our supporters billionaires before the end of my term. Tax and spend, indeed.

Posted by: gergle at June 29, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #163400
The ideals we hold dear ARE the USA. Don’t you get it, pal? Posted by: coonyjay at June 29, 2006 06:37 PM
No, I don’t get it. What does that mean?
aHave you forgotten about the twin towers? bWho would have thought that they could have come to the USA and kill 3000 of our civilians. Why are you so confident that we are so secure, when all you Libs say we are not ie port securitycWhat would you have us do with the prisoners at Gitmo? Posted by: Thomas at June 29, 2006 06:51 PM
a) I remember b) The threat to our liberties are greater from a power hungry executive than the threat to our lives and property from islamicists. c) I would treat and try them according to the law. Posted by: Dave1 at June 29, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #163412

I hear you coonyjay. TRUTH to a liberal is like light to a vampire. I never had sex with that women. The dems are the party of yes but. Its good but. Its OK but. You get peace through strength not weakness. I like the Israeles approach.

Posted by: Thomas at June 29, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #163414

coonjay: We remember the towers well. That was when that that idiot Bush let 3ooo Americans be killed because he did not want to be bothered reading all those danged reports. If you want to keep kissing his butt feel free. Most of the rest of us real Americans have had enough. If you want to define “utopia” as having a commander -in- chief that does not have his head up his ass then I stand convicted.

Posted by: BillS at June 29, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #163420

I apoligize for feeding the trolls but they were starting to look so lonely.We should chip in and send them sympathy cards next Novenber.

Posted by: BillS at June 29, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #163428

Paul,

I don’t think that’s a black flag. From here it looks more like the skull and cross-bones.

Anyone remember the big stinkola by the religious right and the neo-cons about impeaching Justice Kennedy. There were numerous “conferences” by the right discussing, hmmm, condemning would probably be a better word, the “activist” judges. (Activist of course means anyone that doesn’t agree with them)

Here’s one little reminder:
In Contempt of Courts
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050425/blumenthal

It’s good to remember the wonderful and endearing remarks made by the righties, like: “If they refuse to acknowledge “God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government,” or rely in any way on international law in their rulings, judges also invite impeachment.”

You can google “justice kennedy + impeachment” yourselves if you need a reminder of just how sick the right wing has become.

I just wonder which Neo-con will be the first to make a complete fool of himself. Will it be Rick Sanitarium? Maybe Sam Brownmyback? I’d like to start a pool where we could all pick the most likely to be the most vile, contemptuous, downright stupid, etc. But Ann Coulter doesn’t count, that would be too easy.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 29, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #163430

BillS,

Those type of conservatives think people deserve exactly what they get. So it seems that our country must have really screwed up to get Bushed, not once but thrice.
Hopefully, we’ve had enough and the Chimp-minions will be out on their ass in November, no card required.

Kansas,

That article is from more than two weeks ago, too far in the past for a reference to the rightie. It’s kind of like why goldfish don’t go insane in their little bowls. By the time they get around to the same spot, they forget they had already been there.
As for Ann, she’s in a class by herself so I’m putting my money on Fred Phelps.

Posted by: Dave1 at June 29, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #163438

Dave1,

Look again. It’s from April 2005. I was pointing out the rights previous response when somebody goes against their wishes.

It basically equates to a temper tantrum.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 29, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #163454
INVESTIGATION LED TO IMPEACHMENT AND resignation of a Prez

When was that? The last one to resign wasn’t impeached and the last one impeached didn’t resign…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 30, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #163464

If this is a tightening of the judicial fist around the neck of Bush’s secret and potentially illegal activities, and he continues unabated, at what point is it proper for the common people to demand he be stopped?

More times than I’ve been discouraged by what appears to be party politics by the Supreme Court, I’ve been delighted that they have thoughtfully dismissed cases that have no federal bearing, and have made difficult decisions on the cases they hear. All with what seems to be a true constitutional bearing.

Executive and Legislative have serious issues that need attention, but the Judicial appears to always act honorably.

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 1:05 AM
Comment #163466

To rinehold artical of impeach were wrien incharging Nixon on obstruction, but resing before they could be brought before the house of repesentives. As far as Clinton of liing in a sworn deposition this is all could get him on after 6 years of investigation and 40 million$ What married man would not lie not she kept the dress.

Posted by: Earl at June 30, 2006 1:25 AM
Comment #163467

To rinehold artical of impeach were writen incharging Nixon on obstruction, but resigning before they could be brought before the house of repesentives. As far as Clinton of lying in a sworn deposition this is all Starr could get him on after 6 years of investigation and 40 million$ What married man would not lie notknowing she kept the dress.

Posted by: Earl at June 30, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #163472

Earl - If I translated your post correctly, you seem to draw a negative correlation to Nixon for obstruction, and a marginal correlation against Clinton for sex.

Did I get it?

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 1:44 AM
Comment #163485

Doc

I agree that the Supreme Court has shown the utmost integrity in the decisions that I am at least aware of.

Rhinehold

I always find it amusing when the Supreme Court is accused in activism for their recent decision in the Kelo case (eminent domain). That decision based on cases as far back as a hundred years ago, actually was a very conservative decision. It broke no new grounds as alleged, but only reaffirmed and consolidated previous findings. The majority decision was based on the tenets of Jeffersonian Republicanism and what are the best values of conservatism. While it may be disconcerting, especially to the person that is forced to give up their property, that judgment placed the power of eminent domain squarely in the hands of the people and elected government officials. It may not seem so, especially at face value, but I suggest you read the majority opinion. The way that judgment was written, it allows the people (as we already have done in my city, and perhaps soon do in my state;) to place restrictions on how eminent domain is utilized. But I have to admit, I get a kick whenever I hear a conservative wail against that case.

Posted by: Cube at June 30, 2006 2:29 AM
Comment #163504

Hi, Liked your blog and enjoyed your comments. Since you a regular writer and commentator on Politics, I’d like to invite you to post your views and ratings on politics on ResponsePlanet.com. I believe your views will be much appreciated on ResponsePlanet.com; moreover, I’m sure you’d welcome the opportunity to promote your own blog and attract some traffic.

Posted by: Kevin Collier at June 30, 2006 4:55 AM
Comment #163505

Hi, Liked your blog and enjoyed your comments. Since you a regular writer and commentator on Politics, I would like to invite you to post your views and ratings on politics on ResponsePlanet.com. I believe your views will be much appreciated on ResponsePlanet.com; moreover, I am sure you’d welcome the opportunity to promote your own blog and attract some traffic.

Posted by: Kevin Collier at June 30, 2006 4:57 AM
Comment #163512

Thomas,

That is why the American people know that you cannot have a Democrat in office during a time of war.

Let’s hope one day the American people will know that you cannot have peace while a Republican is in office.

Lewinskies would not be available any more. What would happen to Bubba Clinton?

Oral sex from his wife?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 30, 2006 5:35 AM
Comment #163513

Connyjay,

The ideals we hold dear ARE the USA.

Agreed. And these ideals, expressed by US laws anc its Constitution, are changing by who? The Government or terrorists themselves?

Ann Coulter in ‘08, who’s with me?

Hate is with you.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 30, 2006 5:43 AM
Comment #163515

Thomas,

You get peace through strength not weakness. I like the Israeles approach.

You like 50+ years of conflicts?
I better cherish my european 50+ years of peace and being called a weaker…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 30, 2006 5:50 AM
Comment #163533
But I have to admit, I get a kick whenever I hear a conservative wail against that case.

I hope this wasn’t directed at me, being as I’m not a conservative…

As for Kelo, it was a mockery of what the constitution details and stands for, violates the 9th amendment directly, and is in direct opposition of the property rights that the founding fathers, including Jefferson, held dear.

Granted, the 1930s did usher in a new era of Supreme Court redefining of the Constitution that would make even Madison turn over in his grave, but once they set the precident there is little hope in turning this ship back around before the iceberg comes in…

You can call it a ‘states rights’ victory if you want, but how would you think I would respond if the 14th amendment were repealed and we went back to the bill of rights only being federally enforced and states could trample all of the bills of rights into the ground if they wish? There are some rights that are vital to the freedoms of all citizens in the US and property rights are definately one of them.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 30, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #163540

Kansas,

I really did mean two weeks, not two years :-)

BTW: I’ve noticed that the cons who can usually dig up some kind of rational defense are getting fewer and fewer and are being replaced with the likes of coonjay. Must be the ones with a brain are quitely mulling over the fact that they have been wrong for the last 5 years and it’s time to bag the Chimp and the remainder of the culture of corruption.

Posted by: Dave1 at June 30, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #163552

Paul Im glad the left finally has something to celebrate as usual Usama Bin-Laden is Just as Happy as you and the left are.Americans Celebrate Victories in Iraq The left Celebrates every defeat the the American people suffer in this war.The 4th of July is coming up I dont have to ask you Whose Flag you will be flying.

Posted by: justwondering at June 30, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #163554


This issue is so important to the survival of America that Justice Roberts had no right to recluse himself. Just because he voted with the president in the lower court, it is no excuse for not voting for the president this time. This means that there are five known traitors on the Supreme Court and one suspected traitor. We need a new champion like Joe McCarthy to weed out the traitors in the government both democrats and republicans. Especially the republicans who have waffled in their support for their president, the greatest president in the history of the Republic, the only president capable of saving this nation from the Islamic hordes. Either you are a true believer or you are not. If you are not a true believer then you are a traitor. Who would have thought that 60+% of the people could be traitors or at least terrorist sympathizers.

Posted by: jlw at June 30, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #163564

jlw,

Are you taking over for Aldous as the sarcastic poster? I hope so, that was a good one….

Posted by: Dave1 at June 30, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #163589

Thomas,

Yes, Rep are so much more truthful than Dems. Does Ollie North ring a bell? He is such an honest man. How about Newt. After all, he had to quite congress because he had an affair with his secretary. Look at drug addict Rush Limbaugh…
Look Thomas, you can find fault in people of both parties. Just as many Dems as Rep. But lets just go back in history just 20 years. Ronald Reagan, he had the most corupt administraition in histroy. More people were CONVICTED of crimes during the Reagan Admin than any other admin in history.
I have said a thousand times, you can’t vote party. The party always lets us down. You have to vote for the person, regardless of party. Some Dems are just better than Repubs. And visa-versa. I gave Bush his chance in 2000 and by 2004 in my opinion he had let me down. I don’t know if Kerry would have been any better or not, but Bush had already proven he couldn’t handle the job. I am an independent and I will vote for the dems in 06 to try and rain in some of Bush’s power grab.

Posted by: Rusty at June 30, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #163605

I just had a horrifying thought. One that is most likely quite obvious to many and yet in the background of much of the commentary.

What if the driving force behind the drive to retain power by Rove and company is driven by the knowledge that they have committed war crimes?

Given that type of desparation, to what ends would Rove go to secure a GOP victory??

A story from the Boston Globe details the search to find 3 witnesses who can prove the innnocence of a Gitmo detainee. Our military and its impartial members of the military tribunal alledgedly searched for these witness for months without any success.

The Boston Globe found them in…get ready for it…three days.

Three days. Why? Is it the superior investigative skills of American journalists?

Hardly. One witness is a CABINET MINISTER for the President of Afghanistan.

Another witness could’ve been Googled by you or me - he teaches at a university in Wash, DC.

None of the three witnesses had ever been contacted by anyone in our government.

In fact, the Globe story details the lack of success Bush’s hanging court has had in finding witnesses to prove the innocence of its Gitmo captives. (shocked I am!)

Because what an embarrassment (and probably a crime) to detain all these people at Gitmo and have the majority found innocent after many wasted years.

Of course the GOP is working feverishly to make these tribunals pass constitutional muster. Anything - ANYTHING - to make sure that the trials are conducted in secret.

Because once convicted, it will take years to free the innocent on appeal.

Long enough for people within this administration to escape prosecution.

So fellow non-GOPers, count on the fight OF OUR LIVES for 2006 and 2008 - because that very well may be what is driving many on the right.

It’s about survival for them and that means the rule of law is not even a consideration.

Posted by: CPAdams at June 30, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #163616

cpadame Republicans have to maintain power for the sake of America and the future of America.It would be a disaster to turn this country over to Democrats after we have come so far now in undoing the mess Democrats have made of this country over the years.I for one do not want to wear a Turban.I for one do not want to see Usama Bin-Ladens picture in every School Class room.I want my Grand children to speak english not spanish or Arabic.That sir or mam is Why it is so Important to keep the White House,Senate and Congress.

Posted by: justwondering at June 30, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #163617

“The 4th of July is coming up I dont have to ask you Whose Flag you will be flying.

Posted by: justwondering at June 30, 2006 10:43 AM”

Well, I’m just wondering why I bother replying to your nonsense, but FYI, I’ll be flying the flag that draped my Democratic Dad’s coffin in 1961 and I’ll continue to do so on Veterans Day and the Fourth of July until the day I die.

Ann Coulter was wrong again. John Murtha was not the reason “fragging” was created, people that present nonsense like you spew are the reason fragging was created.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #163628

Kansas Dem Im sure your poor old dad is rolling over in his grave.In 61 your dad would have been concidered a Republican in todays standards.

Posted by: justwondering at June 30, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #163630

“Who would have thought that 60+% of the people could be traitors or at least terrorist sympathizers.

Posted by: jlw at June 30, 2006 10:54 AM”

Well, who would have thought that an administration that led us into a war based on false information and participated in the “outing”
of a CIA agent could have been reelected?

“This issue is so important to the survival of America that Justice Roberts had no right to recluse himself. Just because he voted with the president in the lower court”

What? Is this then “the law only applies if it comes out in my favor” argument? What would be the purpose of an appeal if the same judge gets to make the decision?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #163638

“Kansas Dem Im sure your poor old dad is rolling over in his grave.In 61 your dad would have been concidered a Republican in todays standards.”

Justwondering,

My Dad was neither poor nor old. He was a Kennedy Democrat, his parents became FDR Democrats after they lost the family farm. You know nothing about my Dad or me. I consider myself very patriotic and I am a Democrat.

We’re not alone. Check out:
http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/info/about/

Your comments are not indicative of patriotism, but rather a hatred for your fellow American.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #163642

justwondering,

Learn your history. Since the end of WWII we have had 5 Demecrats elected president and served 28 years. We have had 6 Republican presidents and served 36 years.
Show me where in history over the last 64 years we are getting worse. The country has continued to prosper over that time and we have had some bumby rides, but just like the stock market we keep on ticking. God forbid the Republicans win the presidency again, however I don’t think it will be the end of the US if one does win. Same thing for the Democrats. In fact since 1900 to the present the country has done better (stock market wise) under Democrates than Republicans.
There can be and should be true debate over abortion and gay marriage and if we want to allow these things to continue or come to fruition. However, neither will be the end of the world no matter what we do.
Some people thought it would be the end of the country when we gave blacks the right to vote. Then we thought, Oh my god we can’t give women the right to vote, that will be the end of the country as we know it. As our country grows, we grow and change with it. People like you “justwondering” keep people like me form going to far in my direction. And I do the same to you.

Posted by: Rusty at June 30, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #163644

I sure would be happy to see the Kennedy Democrats take their party back over, I might still be one. :( The current crop that have polluted the democratic party makes me want to vomit when I hear them speak.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 30, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #163645

KansasDem, it’s amusing to play fetch with a troll - just remember they that they never get the ball, they just pick up a pile of sh!t and carry that back instead

I guess that helps explain their breath..

Posted by: 123 at June 30, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #163646

I dont remember Jfk or fdr ever running from a fight or ever fighting against the American People like the Leaders of the Democrat party and some far left ass sniffers of today.

Posted by: justwondering at June 30, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #163657

-Rusty Democrats are responsible for every law that lets child molesters run free in the streets of America.The Democrats are responsible for Millions of Murdered Babies every year.The Democrats are responsible for the Gay Rights issues of today.Every time a working citizen has to pay taxes for illegal’s emergancy care and welfare benefits.The democrats are responsible for taking the flag out of class rooms.Its the Democrats fault that my daughter can not wear a cross on school grounds.Its the Democrats fault that we have no morals in this country.Its the Democrats who scream we cant win the war in Iraq.Icould go on forever But You Just Dont Get It.Its the Democrats Who Know not the meaning of Winning for the good of all people!

Posted by: justwondering at June 30, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #163680

123 - You left out the part where they bark at you until you either pick up the S#|+, or toss another ball. I wonder how confusing it would be if everyone played fetch with a troll at the same time. I mean, they don’t have much of an attention span as it is.

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #163682

123,

It’s fun to play though. You just want to wash your hands afterwards.

KansasDem

PS: thanks for the laugh

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #163688

Rhinehold,

You, a Kennedy Democrat? I mean I respect you as a fellow American and I even respect, although not agree with, your Libertarian agenda, but I don’t see how you can equate your beliefs with us Kennedy Democrats. At this time I would have to say that Kerry, Edwards, and Biden are about as close as you can get to Kennedy Democrats.

I’d appreciate your feedback. While we disagree, you’re obviously genuine and your viewpoints are valid and worthwhile.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #163691

Rhinehold:

“I sure would be happy to see the Kennedy Democrats take their party back over, I might still be one. :( “

It’s facinating statements like this, coming from you of all people, that keeps me coming back here.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 30, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #163698

Rhinehold

I don’t know where to start, but first let me apologize for believing that you were a conservative.

The first tenet of Jeffersonian Republicanism, is that national government should be limited and that local government should control the day to day governance of the local people.

For the Kelo case to be considered activists, it would have overturned prior precedence, legislate from the bench or repeal an amendment. I would be upset too if the IVX amendment was repealed, but that amendment does not place void the V Amendment as stated in the IX Amendment. The “takings clause” in the V Amendment specifically states: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The only question would then be what is public use? That question was first answered in 1894 in Fallbrook Irrigation district vs Bradley, then again in 1906 in the Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining case. Then this issue was readdressed in 1954 in Berman vs Parker and the 1984 case Hawaii Housing Authority vs Midkiff.

The Supreme Court did not overturn the precepts established in these prior cases, nor did they overrule the laws governing eminent domain in the State of Connecticut or New London, nor did they establish any new law. Thereby the Supreme Court did not participate in activism as alleged. What they did was reaffirm the law of the majority, another Jeffersonian tenet. The SC went on to say that it is up to the states to further restrict ED if they choose. That the people in the eyes of the law were not harmed is in the second part of the takings clause: without just compensation.

I agree that this is little consolation when one loses their home. My only assertion is that the finding of the court was a very conservative finding and they did not participate as alleged in judicial activism. While some people are clamoring for a more conservative bench, it seems at times they do not like the outcome.

Posted by: Cube at June 30, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #163715
You, a Kennedy Democrat? I mean I respect you as a fellow American and I even respect, although not agree with, your Libertarian agenda, but I don’t see how you can equate your beliefs with us Kennedy Democrats. At this time I would have to say that Kerry, Edwards, and Biden are about as close as you can get to Kennedy Democrats.

I didn’t say I was a Kennedy Democrat, only that if they were still controlling the party I might still be a democrat. I lost faith in the democratic party while working on the Dukakis campaign and realized at that point that I could no longer accept the continual erroding of the personal liberties that the democratic party was pushing down the throats of Americans, and continue to do more and more each passing year.

Kennedy understood that there were limits on the federal government and what they could do and that it was better to incent people to rise above their station and help their fellow man than by forcing them to do so at the point of a gun. He also understood that business was NOT the enemy and that overtaxation would only harm the economy and our strength, not help it.

I would have to HUGELY disagree about Kerry holding any kind of candle to Kennedy in thought or deed in any way. He is as much a Kennedy democrat as Bush is IMO. I would say that Lieberman and Bayh are much more akin to the democratic party of the 1960s than the three hacks you mention.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 30, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #163720
The first tenet of Jeffersonian Republicanism, is that national government should be limited and that local government should control the day to day governance of the local people.

Well, A tenet. Another tenet is that the people have the very strong property rights and their property should not be taken by the ‘state’ under any circumstance save for public USE.

I would be upset too if the IVX amendment was repealed, but that amendment does not place void the V Amendment as stated in the IX Amendment. The “takings clause” in the V Amendment specifically states: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sorry, but the 9th was violated. Just because a right may not be spelled out does not mean it doesn’t exist, that was the purpose of the amendment, to block anyone who thought to suggest that since the right of a person was not spelled out in the constitution that it did not exist.

It is quite clear, at least to me and others, that the term ‘public use’ is just that, for use by the public. Not so that the public can give the property to another private individual. That the supreme court perhaps based their logic on past bad precident does not make the ruling any more right, it just makes it furthering that bad precident. And don’t kid yourself that bad precidents can’t be reversed based on better interpretation of the constitution and original intent.

Considering where the writers of the constitution were coming from, having their property taken by the state for whatever purpose they wanted, it was clear that they wanted to limit the taking of a private citizen’s property to only the most necessary of public use. To build a road or a school, etc. In fact, it was hardly used back then, most government property in that time was donated by citizens, not taken.

The thought that a person could be removed from their home so that a business owner could be given that property to develop on in order to increase the tax base would have cause the writers of the constitution’s head to spin and that the citizens didn’t take up arms and overthrow that government for doing that would have made them laid down and die on the spot, I think.

Yes, it violated the 9th amendment, it re-interprets the phrase ‘public use’ to mean ‘public good’ and it is built on bad precident of the past.

And I never said they were ‘activist’ judges for making that ruling. I said that they were bad. There is a difference. You can make a ruling that doesn’t correct any previous judgements and still give a bad ruling, precisely because that ruling was taking the constitution away from it’s intended meaning and function. Just as the ‘commerce clause’ that is used now by the congress to legislate nearly every stupid law that they make that they have no right to make continues to be held up doesn’t make it right either.

As for the ‘law of the majority’ being Jeffersonian tenet, I would have to say that remark completely misses the spirit of libertarian thought by a mile…

The reason we don’t have a direct democracy is NOT because we didn’t have the means to count the votes, etc. I was because at the time (and I am in full agreement) it was known that ‘mob rule’ can always be followed, it’s the protection of individual liberty that a government should be in existence to protect. You don’t need a government to force the will of the majority on the will of the minority, it’s the minority’s protection that the government must be in existence for.

And we have strayed oh so far from those ideals. :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 30, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #163738

“And I never said they were ‘activist’ judges for making that ruling.”

No you said they were liberal, which has been synonymous with judicial activism as of late. I made no value judgement about the Kelo case ruling and I think we are both preaching to the choir. That the Kelo ruling may have been based on prior “bad” rulings maybe the case. I am only relieved that the courts left it open to the people to legislate the definition of “public use”.

Posted by: Cube at June 30, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #163785

Rhinehold,

You are good. The only argument I can come up with is simply that I disagree. Not much of an argument really. I understand what you’re saying but I believe the Libertarian ideals would result in wide spread starvation and a true return to the way things were over 100 years ago when the powerful would rule over those of lesser wealth and stature.

But, that’s purely opinion. There is nothing in history to indicate that. At least the Libertarian’s are clear and concise.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #163978

KansasDem,

Good work and well put!

Posted by: C.T. Rich at July 1, 2006 5:21 PM
Post a comment