Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on terror policy

[zimv20]

AP (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16668110/)


Attorney general says federal jurists should defer to president's will

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.

In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. He also raps jurists who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.”

The text of the speech, scheduled for delivery at the American Enterprise Institute, was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. It outlines, in part, what qualities the Bush administration looks for when selecting candidates for the federal bench.

“We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.”

(more)

step 1: acquire presidency
step 2: render congress irrelevant
step 3: render judiciary irrelevant
step 4: ????

[Queso]

So his argument comes down to:-

a) lawyers know nothing
b) politicians do

I don't know if that bad aroma I smell is this BS or the stench of corruption coming from the White House.

[Dont Hurt Me]

National Security has been used many times for doing bad and illegal things over & over in this nations history. Gonzo doesnt give me any confidence at all in our legal system. He comes across as a political stooge who will twist any law or laws for his president & partys preference.

[FleurDuMal]

So he's either confirming that the Bush administration has no regard to law in determining its security agenda, or he's suggesting that the politicians know more about the law than the judiciary do. Neither of which fill me with confidence (from an international perspective).

He also raps jurists who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.”

...ermm...but it's OK for the Attorney-General to do that in his legal advice to the administration?! :confused:

[Thomas Veil]

...federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy...Well, judges make decisions based on the arguments laid out by both sides, so...is he saying that judges are too stupid to do that?

And will there be a John Kerry-type furor over this?

[mactastic]

Is it just me, or has the Bush administration been particularly hard on the judiciary of late?

[solvs]

And will there be a John Kerry-type furor over this?

That was all about a misunderstanding. There's no misunderstanding this, and the meaning absolutely clear. Waiting for someone to call us partisans for being concerned, ignoring the obvious irony that if it was Clinton (especially Hillary) we'd all be agreeing about how bad a precedent this is.

Or how bad a President this is. What? I can pun too.

[Sayhey]

From Kevin Drum's column in the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_01/010595.php) comes this amazing transcript of AG Gonzales before the Senate:GONZALES: There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it's never been the case, and I'm not a Supreme --

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can't take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say, "Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas." It doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by --

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

GONZALES: Um.

I have to agree with Drum when he says "[t]hese guys are just beyond belief."

[zimv20]

that's unreal.

[mactastic]

Utterly unbelievable. Gonzales should probably be impeached for saying it.

[FleurDuMal]

From Kevin Drum's column in the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_01/010595.php) comes this amazing transcript of AG Gonzales before the Senate:

I have to agree with Drum when he says "[t]hese guys are just beyond belief."

Such a proposal wouldn't stand a chance in the Supreme Court surely? Especially not against a US citizen? In this case, textualism would be the friend of the US progressive forces - a rare occurrence these days...

[Thomas Veil]

GONZALES: There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away.That is so brain-damaged you'd swear it came out of the mouth of Bush himself.

[pseudobrit]

That is so brain-damaged you'd swear it came out of the mouth of Bush himself.

You know, this establishes that the Second Amendment is useless against gun control. If habeas corpus isn't "granted" by Article One:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

... then how can the Second Amendment language "grant" the right to bear arms:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why aren't the NRA up his ass with a swarm-raid of lobbyists?

[mactastic]

Why aren't the NRA up his ass with a swarm-raid of lobbyists?
I was just thinking that myself. The Constitution only says you have a right not to have your guns taken away, not that you have a right to actually have them in the first place.

At least that's how Gonzales' logic goes. ****ing twisted. Like I said, anyone with that tenuous of a grasp of the Constitution should not be the AG. Goes to show once again that Bush values loyalty more than competence in his staff. Which of course is what's best for Bush (and so the GOP thought, for themselves as well), but it's certainly not what's best for this country. Which means that these guys fly the elephant above the Stars and Stripes, while denouncing others as unpatriotic at the same time.

How long before we hear Gonzales saying "No one could have anticipated that the Constitution would grant people these rights we've been ignoring."?

[princealfie]

Alas from freedom to fascism in one step eh?