Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on terror policy

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 17, 2007.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    AP

    step 1: acquire presidency
    step 2: render congress irrelevant
    step 3: render judiciary irrelevant
    step 4: ????
     
  2. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #3
    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.
     
  4. FleurDuMal macrumors 68000

    FleurDuMal

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    London Town
    #4
    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).

    ...ermm...but it's OK for the Attorney-General to do that in his legal advice to the administration?! :confused:
     
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #5
    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?
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Is it just me, or has the Bush administration been particularly hard on the judiciary of late?
     
  7. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #7
    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.
     
  8. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #8
    From Kevin Drum's column in the Washington Monthly 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."
     
  9. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Utterly unbelievable. Gonzales should probably be impeached for saying it.
     
  11. FleurDuMal macrumors 68000

    FleurDuMal

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    London Town
    #11
    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...
     
  12. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #12
    That is so brain-damaged you'd swear it came out of the mouth of Bush himself.
     
  13. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #13
    You know, this establishes that the Second Amendment is useless against gun control. If habeas corpus isn't "granted" by Article One:

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

    Why aren't the NRA up his ass with a swarm-raid of lobbyists?
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    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."?
     
  15. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT

Share This Page