One Justice Away from Tyranny »
Posted by: scott4261 2 months, 2 weeks agoIt is somehow supposed to be amazing that five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court last week did not scuttle 793 years of precedent and affirm that President George W. Bush could ignore the Constitution if it suited him...
Read Full Story at arktimes.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 67
-
0%
scott42612 months, 2 weeks ago
Arkansas Times' Ernie Dumas gives us a history lesson:
Just one more conservative Supreme Court could greatly curb the influence of the writ of habeas corpus, which is guaranteed by the Constitution to anyone held by a government of the United States and which has been the bedrock right of western civilization since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215.
This is but one example of what keeps me lying awake late at night...
Reply-
0%
jordan112 months, 2 weeks ago
Yep, the CONS have almost pulled it off, and not only at the level of the SC. They've turned the Dept. of Justice into a branch of the Republican party, they've dismantled all safeguards against propaganda, corrupted the FCC, etc, etc, etc. And Americans are appeased with $600.00 checks. If we lose this 'experiment', there will be no turning back.
Reply-
0%
bruhaha2 months, 2 weeks ago
And the naysayers will say that we're just paranoid. Not so paranoid when Scalia, whom McCain has said he'd chose his picks in his model, has pretty much stated that because we're at war with "islamofacism" the president can do whatever he wants, to hell with the constitution. How's that for judicial activism.
Reply
-
-
0%
JoseMadre2 months, 2 weeks ago
"Just one more conservative Supreme Court could greatly curb the influence of the writ of habeas corpus"
Of course Congress could just exercise its power under Article 3 Section 2, define the extent of habeas corpus, and deny the Federal courts, including the SCOTUS, review.
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Reply -
0%
dunkirk2 months, 2 weeks ago
What scares me is this seems to equate freedom of speech and the Bill of Rights as Liberal ideologies vs guaranteed human rights. And what further amazes me is the right wing minions who believe by waving the flag they;ve guaranteed mthemselves those rights.
Reply -
0%
Locky122 months, 2 weeks ago
It doesn't bother you that the other 5 would be willing to force you out of your house because a developer could make more money for the state by turning your neighborhood into a shopping mall?
Let me ask you this, Scott. If any Gitmo detainees are found not guilty, where do they go??
If they go "back home" they'll be tortured-- that is of course, they don't return to the battlefield.
Maybe they'll just have to stay here in the good 'ol USA.
One more conservative that loves this country is exactly what the court needs. NOW.
Reply-
0%
scott42612 months, 2 weeks ago
1st, I happen to agree with the conservatives on the court on the subject of imminent domain.
2nd, you are assuming guilt.
Many neo-cons assume that maybe less than a dozen are innocent. I maintain that figure is probably much, much higher. What we've done with Gitmo is to ignore a cornerstone principle of our Constitution which had been a part Western Civilization for nearly 800 years. All human beings deserve a right to a fair trail. Period.
And yes, I DO love this country to the depths of my soul...but if my belief in the writ of habeas corpus as the only way to fairly dispense justice makes me a bleeding heart liberal, then BY GOD I wear that label proudly!
Reply
-
-
ML2007Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
cowboygrandpa2 months, 2 weeks ago
Sadly, freedom is something that worldly leaders hate. They are despots. It threatens their belief of their greatness.
How many have said they are led by God or thought they were a god only to be shown it is the opposite. Hmmmmmmm Hitler, GW Bush, Nero, Caesar, Mussolini, Japans Emperor during WWII,...
All wanted to be able to shut people away without a proper hearing to keep their power. They depend upon force and fear to maintain their leadership.
I don't fear them. I loathe them and their kind. I will work to keep these types of people out of power. I will speak up and voice my concerns. I will vote against their treasonous power bids.
Reply -
0%
Spadecaller2 months, 2 weeks ago
During the past eight years, Americans "should" have learned how this govenrment was bought; how the justice sysem can be manipulated, how K Street runs Washingtonm, and how elections can be fixed.
Lets face facts; the sun has set upon our reprentative democracy. The only one cruscial question remains: can enough Americns unite and find the strength of commitment to rebuild a government by throwing out the profiteers and politicians beholden to special interest?
The time has come to get rid of those who have betrayed the voters -- on both sides of the aisle. That includes Hoyer and Pelosi!
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
DarkWizard2 months, 2 weeks ago
With a Supreme Court vote of 5-4 it is easy to see just how polarized the thinking of our country has become. Yes, the correlation is there.
That only one vote is the decider between a good decision or a bad decision is a statement in and of itself. And, there have been many 5-4 votes in the Supreme Court in recent years.
As a nation, we have become more polarized in our views than at any other time I can remember. The government, the media, and big corporations have taken advantage of the population's political apathy, political ignorance, and willingness to play victim.
Those who are politically savvy are polarized left or right with few options available for those who disagree with either side.
The majority of the population barely notices the political process until their job is gone.
A nation of Ostriches is what we have become.
Reply-
0%
JoseMadre2 months, 2 weeks ago
Again, all Congress has to do is define the scope of habeas corpus and deny the courts appellate jurisdiction. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts wrote an argument in favor of just such authority based primarily upon Article 3, Section 2.
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS CONGRESS SHALL MAKE."
http://www.popularsovereignty.org/spectop9.html
Reply-
0%
scott42612 months, 2 weeks ago
But Justice Roberts (and you and others of your ilk) overlook the beginning of the very NEXT paragraph:
The trail of ALL Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury...
Nowhere - and I mean NOWHERE - does the Constitution state that we should be allowed to hold anyone prisoner without a fair trial.
And it shouldn't, for that undermines the very principles of human rights upon which this country was founded.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
religion12 months, 2 weeks ago
FREEDOM ?
The Great King of Afghanistan Mr. Shah has said once that "The freedom is when we are free from all influence". We appreciate Mr. Shah and express my suffering for freedom in America .How could a human being aspire to freedom in any field when he is deprived of the freedom of his life? The question is are we living in the prison camp of Christianity?
Freedom is when human brain does not suffer from any unpleasant restrictions of liberty. HUMAN FAITH
Reply -
0%
raza92 months, 2 weeks ago
Judicial activism is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
Congress is guilty of enabling judicial activism. Just as Congress ceded far too much legislative authority to presidents throughout the 20th century, it similarly has allowed federal judges to operate wildly beyond their constitutional role. In fact, many current members of Congress apparently accept the false notion that federal court judgments are superior to congressional statutes. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers.
Reply -
0%
raza92 months, 2 weeks ago
The congressional power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. Both political parties are guilty of ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, and federalizing whole areas of law that constitutionally should be left up to states. This abandonment of federalism and states' rights paved the way for an activist federal judiciary.
Reply -
0%
raza92 months, 2 weeks ago
The public also plays a role in the erosion of our judiciary. Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.
Reply -
0%
JoseMadre2 months, 2 weeks ago
To raza9
Isn't it interesting that those who claim to defend the Constitution refuse to accept what it actual says?
Congress has the power to limit the courts, except on issues of original jurisdiction.
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS CONGRESS SHALL MAKE."
http://www.popularsovereignty.org/spectop9.html
Reply-
0%
raza92 months, 2 weeks ago
Jose - I was more or less ranting about the federalization of social issues. Silly me, I thought I was posting under a different story =O
In light of your question, "Isn't it interesting that those who claim to defend the Constitution refuse to accept what it actual says?"
The Supreme Court took up the issue of Guantanamo inmates in 2004 and again in 2006, ruling both times that detainees had a statutory -- legal but not constitutional -- right to contest their indefinite detention before an independent judge, a legal process known as habeas corpus.
But, urged by the Bush administration, Congress in 2006 passed new legislation that forbade them from seeking justice in a federal court until they are judged by a special military tribunal.
Reply-
0%
raza92 months, 2 weeks ago
The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," the court said in its historic ruling, for the third time in four years striking down the government's case for trying "war on terror" suspects in military tribunals.
"Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law," the court added, ruling that prisoners in the remote US jail in southern Cuba "have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus."
The Supreme Court ruling that foreign terrorist suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay have rights to challenge their detention in US courts is a welcome affirmation of our national values and commitment to the Constitution. The ruling should now give the prisoners and their legal teams the right under the constitution to demand to know on what basis they are being held.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Klarissa2 months, 2 weeks ago
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/06/departm...
"The new Obama seal--inspired by the real presidential seal--debutted in Chicago on Friday at a meeting presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had with Democratic governors. The seal--with the Obama "Yes we can" slogan in Latin--was created by the Obama campaign graphics team. In a bit of graphics whimsy, the seal incorporates the Obama "O" rising sun icon."
Reply -
0%
donald512 months, 2 weeks ago
One vote away from the UNITARY EXECUIVE. How will Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito change their tune when a Dem becomes president (?) - you can always rely on the corrupt repugs to change their tune as it suits them for power and greed!
Only a repug led congress has ever tried to impeach (johnson and Bill). Only the repugs have convictions at the presidential cabinet level in three different adminstrations now (watergate, Iran Contra and plamegate). Reagan vertoed the Truth in Telecommunications Act and the present repugs oppose the Fairness Act - what you'd espect from a terrorist organization in America who have alos violated the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions. and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act! Even now 18 of the 22 congressmen on the most corrupt CREW list are repugs!
Reply -
0%
MIGUNI2 months, 2 weeks ago
remember the world trade center falling? I will let my phone and email be monitored if it means we can stop the infidels from attacking another US soil icon of the western world, rather then crucify this president why not go back a few years to see where the real blame falls, bush may not be the sharpest tack in the upholstry but at least he did what most wouldn't have the backbone for in time of war, he had to go and finish what his father dropped the ball on and hit afghan rebels at the same time,
hell we just got through getting russia to leave them alone and this is the thanks we get, more heroin and osama supporters, would we do best to let the rest of the world take a shot at us? I am all for guarding the home with force rather then making out a damage report after the fact, in colorado it's called the "go ahead make my day" law, in california it's called the please don't hurt me and my family while you take everything we own mr.home invasion robber,
Reply-
0%
sailr2 months, 2 weeks ago
Bush had the chance to go after OBL as Clinton tried to do. But Bush didn't want to hear it. He wanted something to happen to give him an excuse to go into Iraq! Afghanistan was and still is a just cause. Iraq was unnecessary and stupid and 4500 of our finest have died as a result.
Bush is a criminal. He should be tried for war crimes and imprisoned or more.
Reply -
0%
dunkirk2 months, 2 weeks ago
Psssst Osama is in Afghanistan. Bush didnt do what had to be done he did what the oil companies wanted.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
sailr2 months, 2 weeks ago
It was the MORAL code of the Magna Carta that America modeled much of itself after. In case you missed it, the Magna Carta was penned in 1215...793 years ago!
Reply -
0%
dunkirk2 months, 2 weeks ago
Do you believe the Bill of Rights was pulled out of the thin air? The rights guaranteed in that document are pulled from historic documents back thru time. Habeas Corpus being the prime in the Magna Carta. The idea being the present junta attempt at curtailing that right can be viewed against mankinds history and the fight to establish it as being more then just US history.
Reply -
0%
scott42612 months, 2 weeks ago
Obviously you did not read the story.
FTA:
"Parliament gave average people habeas corpus and other rights (basically the 4th through the 8th amendments in the U.S. Constitution) after a 17th century version of George Bush, King Charles I, insisted on his right to imprison anyone he liked without charges 'per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis' Ã;¢;; because he was in charge."
Yes, we are not a part of England. But the writ of habeas corpus is the cornerstone of American jurisprudence. To ignore this is to ignore our Constitution.
....Oh, wait... THAT'S what the President wants to do!
Reply-
0%
Nowalive2 months, 2 weeks ago
You are absolutely right. However, the fact that habeas corpus has NOT been suspended for AMERICANS on AMERICAN SOIL means nothing.
I have decided to change my opinion to match what is popular, so here goes:
1. We must never spy on known, or suspected terrorists.
2. We must never be prepared for attacks from within or wothout our sovereign borders.
3. We must eliminate our sovereign borders.
4. We must cease all ecomonic activity.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Natureboy2 months, 2 weeks ago
"one justice away from tyranny"
It's worse - understand the times we live in-
It's one tyranny away from justice.
Make friends, and make a plan.
Reply -
0%
Truzseeker2 months, 1 week ago
US to carry on military trials at Guantanamo despite ruling ... http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080624/pl_afp/usa...
Reply
Submitted By:
scott4261
I am a 47-year old gay man in Fayetteville, Arkansas. I am an unapologetic, unrepentant liberal. By affiliation I am not a Democrat, but I ...
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
MidnightPrism
Helixbuilder
ciera-marie
berkeley
Ratskii
chuck-the-canuck
Eagle_Eye
DarkWizard
engineer- donald51
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
