Thursday, June 29, 2006
God save this honorable court
But, boy, how times and presidents have changed!
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2006
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – In a landmark decision restricting the president's powers during wartime, the US Supreme Court has dealt the Bush administration a severe blow in its push to prosecute terrorists in military tribunals. ...
"I want to find a way forward," Bush told reporters. "I would like there to be a way to return people from Guantánamo to their home countries, but some of these people need to be tried" in court.
Read all about it.
Cherokee Nation vs. State of Georgia, 1831
From RoseNet.
Cherokees occupied lands in several southeastern states. As European settlers arrived, Cherokees traded and intermarried with them. They began to adopt European customs and gradually turned to an agricultural economy, while being pressured to give up traditional homelands. Between 1721 and 1819, over 90 percent of their lands were ceded to others. By the 1820s, Sequoyah's syllabary brought literacy and a formal governing system with a written constitution. In 1830--the same year the Indian Removal Act was passed--gold was found on Cherokee lands. Georgia held lotteries to give Cherokee land and gold rights to whites. Cherokees were not allowed to conduct tribal business, contract, testify in courts against whites, or mine for gold.
The Cherokees successfully challenged Georgia in the U.S. Supreme Court. President Jackson, when hearing of the Court's decision, reportedly said, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.
President Jackson, when hearing of the Court's decision, reportedly said, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."
Read all about it.
Read the decision.
--ER
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2006
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – In a landmark decision restricting the president's powers during wartime, the US Supreme Court has dealt the Bush administration a severe blow in its push to prosecute terrorists in military tribunals. ...
"I want to find a way forward," Bush told reporters. "I would like there to be a way to return people from Guantánamo to their home countries, but some of these people need to be tried" in court.
Read all about it.
Cherokee Nation vs. State of Georgia, 1831
From RoseNet.
Cherokees occupied lands in several southeastern states. As European settlers arrived, Cherokees traded and intermarried with them. They began to adopt European customs and gradually turned to an agricultural economy, while being pressured to give up traditional homelands. Between 1721 and 1819, over 90 percent of their lands were ceded to others. By the 1820s, Sequoyah's syllabary brought literacy and a formal governing system with a written constitution. In 1830--the same year the Indian Removal Act was passed--gold was found on Cherokee lands. Georgia held lotteries to give Cherokee land and gold rights to whites. Cherokees were not allowed to conduct tribal business, contract, testify in courts against whites, or mine for gold.
The Cherokees successfully challenged Georgia in the U.S. Supreme Court. President Jackson, when hearing of the Court's decision, reportedly said, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.
President Jackson, when hearing of the Court's decision, reportedly said, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."
Read all about it.
Read the decision.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
From what I can tell, this war on terror will not end for many years. The SCOTUS allowed for the detainment of combatants for the duration of said war.
Enforce it if you can liberals! Laugh now--cry tommorrow!
Enforce it if you can liberals! Laugh now--cry tommorrow!
looks to me like the court has ruled and exposed chimpocratic hypocrisy--once and for all.... (dildio enterprises®)
KEvron
KEvron
D.Daddio, that doesn't make any sense. Try again, minus the spew and spit.
Are you off yer meds again? What is it? Haldol?
Enforce *what*?
Are you off yer meds again? What is it? Haldol?
Enforce *what*?
That's no personal Attack--it's reverend-speak!
What's that old saying? "You can dish it out, but you can't take it"?
You are a shining star, Rev! A shining star, indeed!
What's that old saying? "You can dish it out, but you can't take it"?
You are a shining star, Rev! A shining star, indeed!
Could be worse. Could be a cockle-drinking dick sucker.
Ain't *that* funny! Mouse, you tire me. (Sorry, y'all. I grow weary. Somebody tell me how to get Haloscan.)
Answer the implication, D.Daddio: Are you off your meds? You go from fairly level-headed to explosive for no apparent reason; that's one indication of bipolar disorder, or psychosis.
And answer the question: Enforce *what*?
Ain't *that* funny! Mouse, you tire me. (Sorry, y'all. I grow weary. Somebody tell me how to get Haloscan.)
Answer the implication, D.Daddio: Are you off your meds? You go from fairly level-headed to explosive for no apparent reason; that's one indication of bipolar disorder, or psychosis.
And answer the question: Enforce *what*?
YIKES this is something I didn't know about Haloscan. When you put it on your blog, all your previous comments cannot be seen.
I'm not sure I like this myself, at this time. They are supposedly "archived" but you can't see them through Haloscan.
I'm not sure I like this myself, at this time. They are supposedly "archived" but you can't see them through Haloscan.
Yeah, I've noticed that. Oh, well. More fun to kill blowflies with a swatter than with a fly strip anyway.
"When you put it on your blog, all your previous comments cannot be seen."
no, you can see them. just click on the time stamp at the bottom of the post in question.
KEvron
no, you can see them. just click on the time stamp at the bottom of the post in question.
KEvron
Before people spout off they should know:
D Dadio et. al.:
Say you Duffussi, after Jackson thumbed his nose at Justice Marshall, the SCOTUS expanded its U.S. Marshal service into a potent little army. If any Federal Court including SCOTUS wants to inforce its order it now simply sends its Marshals in.
Who to obey?
The soldiers' oath is to the Constitution NOT the Commander in Chief. By oath and by law a Federal Court order trumps a military order even in time of war.
The Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is. To order the military to ignore it is Treason and the Court can enforce that. Any officer or enlisted man that follows a contrary order to a SCOTUS order is guilty of Treason as well.
Anyone, (including D. Dadio) that promotes the dis-obeying of such an order is guilty under the 1917 Sedition Act and can be imprisioned. No Kidding.
Times may get down right shitty boys and girls.
D Dadio et. al.:
Say you Duffussi, after Jackson thumbed his nose at Justice Marshall, the SCOTUS expanded its U.S. Marshal service into a potent little army. If any Federal Court including SCOTUS wants to inforce its order it now simply sends its Marshals in.
Who to obey?
The soldiers' oath is to the Constitution NOT the Commander in Chief. By oath and by law a Federal Court order trumps a military order even in time of war.
The Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is. To order the military to ignore it is Treason and the Court can enforce that. Any officer or enlisted man that follows a contrary order to a SCOTUS order is guilty of Treason as well.
Anyone, (including D. Dadio) that promotes the dis-obeying of such an order is guilty under the 1917 Sedition Act and can be imprisioned. No Kidding.
Times may get down right shitty boys and girls.
# posted by 
: 10:29 AM
: 10:29 AM
"And Stevens pointedly noted that the court was not challenging the government's authority to hold Hamdan "for the duration of active hostilities," a murky deadline in the current conflict, which could stretch for decades without a clear end."--Baltimore Sun
I'll keep an eye out for the jack-boots boys, girls, and umm....KEvron!
LOL!
I'll keep an eye out for the jack-boots boys, girls, and umm....KEvron!
LOL!
I expect the administration to be as sensible as you are about all this Daddio. So rather than follow the law and do it right as the SCOTUS said to do, they'll screw it up. In that they are consistant. In that they are experts.
# posted by : 5:41 PM
: 5:41 PM
i don't think dildio gets it yet.
dil, your chimp was acting without consideration of due process. scotus has said he may not do that. you see, we, as americans, believe in the rule of law.
could you be any thicker? sheesh....
KEvron
dil, your chimp was acting without consideration of due process. scotus has said he may not do that. you see, we, as americans, believe in the rule of law.
could you be any thicker? sheesh....
KEvron
Here is a late entry from Bush's Friday Press Conference just for the record:
NYT
Justices Tacitly Backed Use of Guantánamo, Bush Says
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: July 8, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 7 — In his most detailed comments to date on the Supreme Court's rejection of his decision to put detainees on trial before military commissions, President Bush said Friday that the court had tacitly approved his use of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
"It didn't say we couldn't have done — couldn't have made that decision, see?" Mr. Bush said at a news conference in Chicago. "They were silent on whether or not Guantánamo — whether or not we should have used Guantánamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantánamo, the decision I made."
Mr. Bush's remarks put a favorable spin on a ruling that has been widely interpreted as a rebuke of the administration's policies in the war on terror. The court, ruled broadly last week in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that military commissions were unauthorized by statute and violated international law.
The question of whether Mr. Bush had properly used Guantánamo Bay to house detainees was not at issue in the case. At issue was whether the president could unilaterally establish military commissions with rights different from those allowed at a court-martial to try detainees for war crimes.
Mr. Bush has said since the ruling that he will work with Congress to figure out how to use military commissions to try detainees, a promise he repeated on Friday in Chicago.
"I am willing to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court," the president said."
If only he understood what they were saying!
Post a Comment
NYT
Justices Tacitly Backed Use of Guantánamo, Bush Says
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: July 8, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 7 — In his most detailed comments to date on the Supreme Court's rejection of his decision to put detainees on trial before military commissions, President Bush said Friday that the court had tacitly approved his use of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
"It didn't say we couldn't have done — couldn't have made that decision, see?" Mr. Bush said at a news conference in Chicago. "They were silent on whether or not Guantánamo — whether or not we should have used Guantánamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantánamo, the decision I made."
Mr. Bush's remarks put a favorable spin on a ruling that has been widely interpreted as a rebuke of the administration's policies in the war on terror. The court, ruled broadly last week in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that military commissions were unauthorized by statute and violated international law.
The question of whether Mr. Bush had properly used Guantánamo Bay to house detainees was not at issue in the case. At issue was whether the president could unilaterally establish military commissions with rights different from those allowed at a court-martial to try detainees for war crimes.
Mr. Bush has said since the ruling that he will work with Congress to figure out how to use military commissions to try detainees, a promise he repeated on Friday in Chicago.
"I am willing to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court," the president said."
If only he understood what they were saying!
# posted by : 9:47 AM
: 9:47 AM << Home
