Will the Supreme Court's Butchery of the Constitution Get Us Attacked?

[Navy Pride]

2 out of 9:

John Roberts (Chief Justice) Appointed by GW Bush REPUBLICAN
John Paul Stevens Appointed by Ford REPUBLICAN
Antonin Scalia Appointed by Reagan REPUBLICAN
Anthony Kennedy Appointed by Reagan REPUBLICAN
David Souter Appointed by GHW Bush REPUBLICAN
Clarence Thomas Appointed by GHW Bush REPUBLICAN
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Appointed by Clinton DEMOCRAT
Stephen Breyer Appointed by Clinton DEMOCRAT
Samuel Alito GW Appointed by Bush REPUBLICAN

So this proves that even Republican appointees see the law as liberal leaning or Republicans can't be trusted to make intelligent appointments.

That does not change the fact that there are 4 Conservatives, 4 Liberals, and 1 Moderate on the court..........It only shows that a Republican president made some bad pcks........

 

[aquapub]

If issues regarding foreign citizens(that includes foreign terrorists) and the constitution weren't meant to be addressed by the SCOTUS why would it be included as part of their job description?

It wasn't. You misread it. It said "between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." Between a state and a foreigner or foreign power, not between the US and any foreigner...and even if you weren't merely failing to grasp what you were reading here, the Supreme Court still only has the power to rule on individual cases, not to set policy. That fact alone makes this an outrageous case of judicial activism.

 

[aquapub]

2 out of 9:

John Roberts (Chief Justice) Appointed by GW Bush REPUBLICAN
John Paul Stevens Appointed by Ford REPUBLICAN
Antonin Scalia Appointed by Reagan REPUBLICAN
Anthony Kennedy Appointed by Reagan REPUBLICAN
David Souter Appointed by GHW Bush REPUBLICAN
Clarence Thomas Appointed by GHW Bush REPUBLICAN
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Appointed by Clinton DEMOCRAT
Stephen Breyer Appointed by Clinton DEMOCRAT
Samuel Alito GW Appointed by Bush REPUBLICAN

So this proves that even Republican appointees see the law as liberal leaning or Republicans can't be trusted to make intelligent appointments.

Of these two options, after Harriet Myers, I'd say the latter is the case.

 

[aquapub]

That does not change the fact that there are 4 Conservatives, 4 Liberals, and 1 Moderate on the court..........It only shows that a Republican president made some bad pcks........

I wouldn't say there are 4 actual conservatives on the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas, sure, but Roberts and Alito have lost all credibility with me as loyal Constitutional conservatives. And the moderate you speak of strikes me as about as moderate as McCain...giving liberals slightly less than everything they want.

 

[Navy Pride]

I wouldn't say there are 4 actual conservatives on the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas, sure, but Roberts and Alito have lost all credibility with me as loyal Constitutional conservatives. And the moderate you speak of strikes me as about as moderate as McCain...giving liberals slightly less than everything they want.

We will have to agree to disagree on Alito and Roberts.....I believe they have voted with the Conservatives on almost every issue........

 

[tfox_60]

Their role is to solve problems that arise in regards to our constitution. This includes problems that involve foreign citizens. Seems to me like they aren't inventing any rights. Merely doing their job. You just don't agree with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 2 of Article Three of the United States Constitution
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,...

And Congress has the power

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

Which they have done throughout our history of warfare. Like the Uniform Code of Military Justice they enacted in 1950 which authorized military tribunals to try both US military and foreign combatants.

 

[Doc Howl]

There is no doubt that the obstruction by the Democrats in the senate hurts our chances to track down terrorists in this country and because o that reason we could very well have another attack and soon................

How many terrorists do we have in this country?

 

[rsixing]

There is no doubt that the obstruction by the Democrats in the senate hurts our chances to track down terrorists in this country and because o that reason we could very well have another attack and soon................

It's a fine line between security and liberty NP and Ben Franklin put it best:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[Ikari]

It's a fine line between security and liberty NP and Ben Franklin put it best:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Damned straight. Terrorists are the commies of our world, used to strike fear and get people to go along with crap which is clearly unconstitutional. Free has never, is not, and never will be safe. While there are certainly measures which can be taken to help decrease the probability of attack, that probability will never be zero. Every once in awhile we'll have a terrorist attack, it's happened in the past it will happen in the future. Grow up and deal with it. We can defend ourselves, hunt down the terrorists and bring them to justice. But we don't need to be running around invading countries, occupying sovereign lands, and in general doing everything we can to give the terrorists more propaganda to use as recruitment. I'll take the slight increase in the probability that I'll be killed by a terrorist so long as it means the government is obeying the Constitution.

 

[rsixing]

Damned straight. Terrorists are the commies of our world, used to strike fear and get people to go along with crap which is clearly unconstitutional. Free has never, is not, and never will be safe. While there are certainly measures which can be taken to help decrease the probability of attack, that probability will never be zero. Every once in awhile we'll have a terrorist attack, it's happened in the past it will happen in the future. Grow up and deal with it. We can defend ourselves, hunt down the terrorists and bring them to justice. But we don't need to be running around invading countries, occupying sovereign lands, and in general doing everything we can to give the terrorists more propaganda to use as recruitment. I'll take the slight increase in the probability that I'll be killed by a terrorist so long as it means the government is obeying the Constitution.

And in that vein (from Rasmussen Reports):

Voters Okay with Status Quo on Wiretapping

At this time in the WOT I guess I fall into this category: "...32% of voters...feel legal authorities worry too much about protecting national security" out of the sense that totalitarianism is just a step away when the gov't is given too much power to limit liberties and rights.

 

[American]

Obama would probably put an Iranian judge on the SCOTUS, or at least someone from the World Court.

 

[aquapub]

It's a fine line between security and liberty NP and Ben Franklin put it best:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Vague, all-purpose cliches from the Founders don't explain how any actual liberties are wrongfully being traded for security. Capturing enemies on the battlefield and waiting until they are cleared to release them is no wrongful deprivation of liberty.

 

[Navy Pride]

How many terrorists do we have in this country?

You tell me........Probably hundreds.

 

[Navy Pride]

It's a fine line between security and liberty NP and Ben Franklin put it best:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

BF ne of my favorite people but with all due respect he did not have to deal with the threats of the 21st century......

 

[Navy Pride]

What is ironic is God forbid we have another terrorist attack on this country the first people that would bitch are the liberal who whine that we are losing to many of our civil rights.........

 

[DarkWizard12]

You tell me........Probably hundreds.

wouldn't democrats be considered terrorists?(except Joe Liberman?)

 

[Navy Pride]

wouldn't democrats be considered terrorists?(except Joe Liberman?)

A lot of them are terrorist sympasizers.........

 

[rsixing]

Vague, all-purpose cliches from the Founders don't explain how any actual liberties are wrongfully being traded for security. Capturing enemies on the battlefield and waiting until they are cleared to release them is no wrongful deprivation of liberty.

And if I were discussing terrorists I would agree with you aqua. I was addressing NP's claim that democrats in the Congress are obstructing catching terrorists. I understand the uproar against the SCOTUS from the right and the abject fear however that NP's claim is nothing but his extreme right wing rhetoric based on fear-mongering and attempt at casting dem's in Congress in a broad sweeping negative light.

 

[rsixing]

BF ne of my favorite people but with all due respect he did not have to deal with the threats of the 21st century......

No he did not but the way our gov't is dealing with the threats of the 21st century does not decrease the wisdom and truth based in his statement. IOW if our nation of peoples are willing to give up their liberties for a sense of safety then at what cost? And there is no guarantee these lost liberties will, in any degree, offer any greater security then we have experienced in the past nor that these lost liberties will be given back at any time in the future.

 

[rsixing]

What is ironic is God forbid we have another terrorist attack on this country the first people that would bitch are the liberal who whine that we are losing to many of our civil rights.........

Pure ****ing bull**** NP. I do not want another terrorist attack on our nation either but I would rather die free then subjected to lost liberties.

 

[Navy Pride]

And if I were discussing terrorists I would agree with you aqua. I was addressing NP's claim that democrats in the Congress are obstructing catching terrorists. I understand the uproar against the SCOTUS from the right and the abject fear however that NP's claim is nothing but his extreme right wing rhetoric based on fear-mongering and attempt at casting dem's in Congress in a broad sweeping negative light.

rsixing; You crack me up...Pot meet kettle, you give all your left wing leaders a pass when they put our military down and what is really bad you claim to have been military.........Unbelieveable.......

 

[Navy Pride]

Pure ****ing bull**** NP. I do not want another terrorist attack on our nation either but I would rather die free then subjected to lost liberties.

That is what you say now but if it was your wife or daughter that was killed because of the obstructionist tactics of the democrats you would be singing a different tune........

 

[Skip]

That is what you say now but if it was your wife or daughter that was killed because of the obstructionist tactics of the democrats you would be singing a different tune........

So I guess Patrick Henry must not have lost a family member then, either?

 

[Navy Pride]

So I guess Patrick Henry must not have lost a family member then, either?

Patrick Heny did not live in 2008.......Its a whole new ball game........

 

[Doc Howl]

A lot of them are terrorist sympasizers.........