One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decision

by politicsmatters, Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:32:08 AM EST

Here's some news to pass along to anyone who thinks one Justice on the Supreme Court doesn't matter.

The Court ruled today - 5-4 - that prisoners at Gitmo can appeal their convictions to civilian courts.  This means that the US can't detain people indefinitely and that the people swept up and sent to Gitmo will have an outside review to ascertain their guilt or innocence.  This brings the US back into compliance with very old Anglo-American principles and the approach our country helped establish in international law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Sc otus-Guantanamo.html

Let's elect a president who believes in the rule of law and who will appoint judges who care about the Constitution and fundamental rights -- Senator Barack Obama.




Tags: Supreme Court, Barack Obama, Gitmo, rights, Constitution (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 84 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 21)

The Justices in the minority are the ones McCain has said would be his model for appointments he would make: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:34:45 AM EST

Hah, I knew it. (2.00 / 5)

You beat me by 5 seconds.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:36:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 3)

I thought Scalia was strict constructionist of the constitution, does he now say it breathes and can be modified to suit the needs/interest of any adminsitration to fulfill their agenda?

hmmm, I 'll look for the dissenting opinion, if any, and see how the f*ck a justice would vote  down fundamental rights


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:24:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 1)


Don't forget the definition of 'strict constructionism' that Bill Rehnquist gave John Dean in 1967.  Basically, that the courts should bias for the prosecution in criminal cases and for the defendant in civil cases.

Which amounts to saying: screw equal protection and the spirit of the 14th Amendment guarantees of fairness, always bias in favor of the state/government and elites against the poor, and for whites against blacks.


by killjoy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (none / 0)

true that, it depends on how you construct your constructionism... but indeed my comment was sarcasm about Scalia and his "staunch" beliefs.


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:26:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 1)

mostly seems to boil down to the construction of jails and all the money involved...as well as political points for the persecution.


by zerosumgame on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:35:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for this diary.  Great decision by the Court (though lucky that it split the way it did).

I saw Scalia do a speech/talk in front of conservative high school students on C-SPAN a month or two ago, and he came across as one of the biggest assholes I've ever seen.  If I saw him in the street (which I won't since I live in PA and I'm not filthy rich), I'd be tempted to pop him in the nose.


by ProgressiveDL on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (2.00 / 1)

he looks and acts like he has a telephone poll shoved up his ass, always cantankerous and insultaingly elite.  I also wouldn't be surprised if he has bitten a face or two in his life


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 0)

oops "insultingly"


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 0)

Ha!  Props and mojoed for comparing Scalia to Hannibal Lector.


by ProgressiveDL on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:59:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 0)

Remember his interview on "60 Minutes" with Leslie Stahl?

"Supposing yourself as a Supreme Court justice were granted the power to appoint the next president of the United States. Who would you pick and why? And would he or she be better than your last choice?" a student asked Scalia.

"You wanna talk about Bush versus Gore. I perceive that," he replied. "I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush versus Gore. We did the right thing. So there!" "People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy but on politics," Stahl asks.

"I say nonsense," Scalia says.

Was it political?

"Gee, I really don't wanna get into - I mean this is - get over it. It's so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn't even close. The vote was seven to two," Scalia says.


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:09:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is "case in point" for any Hillary (2.00 / 5)

"supporter" who claims that McCain is an acceptable alternative. He is not, and anyone who threatens, plans, or promises to vote for him is NOT a Democrat.


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let me guess (2.00 / 6)

The minority opinion came from:

Scalia
Thomas
Roberts
Alito

Correct?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:34:50 AM EST

Re: Let me guess (2.00 / 2)

I haven't looked, but I would bet a lot of money on that.


United we stand, divided we fall.
by mefeck on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:44:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let me guess (2.00 / 2)

Yup.  
From NYtimes
"The dissenters were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, generally considered the conservative wing on the tribunal."
Vote Change in '08!
by iowa dem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let me guess (2.00 / 4)

Correct.

And, isn't that frightening?


by UrbanRedneck on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:09:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (2.00 / 4)

It is frightening.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:12:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let me guess (2.00 / 2)

Yeah, and just for the record:


When the U.S. Senate voted in September, 2007, on whether to restore habeas corpus protections for those detained by the United States, the senators who would emerge as the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees for president parted company.

Illinois Democrat Barack Obama embraced the basic Constitutional principle that individuals who are detained by the U.S. government have a right to challenge their detention -- no matter where they are held.

Arizona Republican John McCain rejected the wisdom of the founders of the American experiment and voted against restoring habeas corpus protections for foreign suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and others who are detained by U.S. authorities.

Today, the Supreme Court said Obama was right and McCain was wrong.

A majority that included conservatives and liberals issued a 5-4 decision holding, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, that, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

This was the third time the nation's highest court has rejected the claim of the Bush administration -- and allies such as McCain -- that the military has the authority to hold people it labels "enemy combatants."

John Nichols - Supreme Court Judges Obama Right on Constitution The Nation 12 Jun 08

Our freedoms have never been so conspicuously threatened in a generation.  We are on the verge of stopping a real train wreck.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 6)

Like Clockwork.

If there is something evil before the court, you know which side of the issue those guys will come down all.


If you are not voting Obama, please let me know so I can replace your sorry ass with another new voter.
by Darknesse on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:36:58 AM EST

Wow (2.00 / 8)

It's a good thing conservatives haven't been packing the court with activist justices.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:38:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (none / 0)

all = on


If you are not voting Obama, please let me know so I can replace your sorry ass with another new voter.
by Darknesse on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:35:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 9)

For a lot of people who take the Supreme Court into account when voting for President, this out may be as productive or more productive to point out than Roe for reminding people why we need to elect a president who will appoint reasonable judges.

It's worth remembering that there are pro-choice liberals who think Roe was a bad judicial decision. But I think if you ask any person with their act together "do you think the US should be able to detain people arbitrarily and without trial just because they say so?" ... well, it's just a different sort of hard to disagree.


by Exhausted Pennsylvanian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:42:43 AM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 4)

It's even MORE useful because this just happened.

A fundamental American right was just upheld by one vote.  If this case had happened after a McCain win and the next Supreme Court vacancy, there's a 100% chance that it would have gone the other way.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:07:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 1)

Thank god for Kennedy, who leans right, except when it comes down to civil liberties and fundamental rights, then he leans True American.


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:27:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (none / 0)

I give Kennedy all the credit in the world for this, but how messed up is it that he's now considered a court moderate?

After Stephens, who is going to retire next term, he's the next most likely retiree.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:37:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (none / 0)

After Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsberg might be more likely that Justice Kennedy.


by YuedoTiko on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:48:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (none / 0)

messed up indeed, another reaason that the supreme court appointments in the next few years are absolutely critical.

I 'd think normal repubs are pretty pissed that their party has been hijacked by neocons placed in highest positions of power.  that is probably why  many are sick of it and voting obama to reign in these wing nut extremists from completely taking over


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

umm except (none / 0)

the fundamental right to privacy


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: umm except (none / 0)

well at least in regards to express constitutional rights vs. implied rights


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: umm except (none / 0)

ahh therein lies the difference between me and Kennedy.

I think the fundamental right to privacy is express in the constitution, and there should be no distinction.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: umm except (none / 0)

I hate to break it to you, but it is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it is provided by case law, interpretations of express guarantees by the Supreme Court...thus I label it implied.  Regardless, a right to privacy is a fundamental one and it sucks when judges vote against fundamental rights


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i'm quite well versed in the constitution (none / 0)

i am a 3rd year law student after all.

Its all about perception and how questions are asked that make the difference.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm quite well versed in the constitution (none / 0)

well then you can label it implied though the expression of words, but there is no expres "right to privacy" listed in the constitution, like the other rights, Esquire


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oo snarky (none / 0)


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 9)

Giving terrorists access to our courts? What a terrible ruling!!!! And don't even tell me that they may have been tortured or convicted in trumped-up military court courts and may well be labeled terrorists only because the government says so.

We should all start learning the Koran now, because I give it 2 more years before we're all enslaved by islamic terrorists who convert the U.S. into a caliphate. Thanks, Supreme Court!!! I'm going to turn up my Lee Greenwood CD really, really loud so I don't have to think about this.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:44:58 AM EST

is this snark? (none / 0)


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the Supreme Court matters more than ever (2.00 / 2)


by slinkerwink on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:46:09 AM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 (2.00 / 9)

It's important to consider that it's not just the Supreme Court that is at stake.  The lower federal courts, the Court of Appeals and Federal District Courts dispense the bulk of the justice in this country and the conservative Bush appointees have tilted the judiciary way to the right.  


by StrangeAnomaly on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM EST

You beat me to it. (2.00 / 1)

The conservatives have focussed even more on stacking the district courts.  That piece of judicial usurption doesn't get the press...when Bush & Co are out I'd love to see an expose of all of this.  It would make a great mini-series.


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:56:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 (none / 0)

This is so true.  The Supremes hear very few of the cases that are appealed to the Court (something like 2%).  That means that the lower court judges are every bit as important, if not more so, than the Supreme Court justices.

This ruling should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who truly cares about civil liberties and the effect that the upcoming election will have on them.  It was true in 2004, and it's even more urgent now.


by Vivianne on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:09:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and once again... (2.00 / 2)

...the Court is not just about Roe.

The third branch checked and balanced an abomination foisted on the country by the loons in the Executive and the wimps in the Legislature. The Constitution worked. How sad that I'm surprised.

I'm sure John Warner breathed a small sigh of relief. Too bad he won't get his soul back.

I wonder, but not really, if any entremeprising journamalist will remind John McCain that he once vowed to sacrifice his presidential ambitions to blocking the MCA.


by BlueinColorado on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:49:03 AM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 1)

Thanks. We've got to keep pushing on SCOTUS.  Things are bad enough as it is.  A good resource for this is Ronald Dworkin's articles in the New York Review:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20570


by redwoodsummer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:50:45 AM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 1)

Yep... this is very important.  John Paul Stevens especially isn't getting any younger... and if McCain gets to replace him with another Scalito, or even another Kennedy (which is probably what we'd get with a Dem Senate), we'd be screwed.

On the other hand, if we get President Obama for eight years, we have the following situation come 2016:
Scalia - 80
Kennedy - 80
Thomas - 68
Another four (or eight!) years of Democratic presidency after that, and we've got a real progressive majority on the Court again.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:56:07 AM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (none / 0)

"John Paul Stevens especially isn't getting any younger."

Really? I heard that's his super-power!!

Also, I would bet strongly against Kennedy staying on the bench until 2016...I saw him in oral argument in D.C. and he looked far less vital than Stevens (then again he didn't have Stevens' super-powers!).

Scalia has a decent chance to make it to 2016, because he's so freakin' stubborn, he might want to stay on even if he was not in any shape to do the job--but I think there's a non-trivial chance that a 2-term Obama administration would get to appointment replacements for Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsberg, and Scalia.


by tameszu on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (none / 0)

That I believe keeps the bush cabals 0-fer on gitmo prisoners alive. The court rejected bush on every case stemming from his attempt to railroad these guys.  


by moondancer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:01:53 AM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today (none / 0)

I understand the reasoning behind not wanting a Republican to pick the SCOTUS appointees... but didn't many Democrats vote to approve Roberts?  


by JustJennifer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:06:51 AM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today (2.00 / 5)

Yep.  The Senate hasn't voted down a single Supreme Court nominee in over 20 years.  

The Senate gives the President MASSIVE deference over their Supreme Court picks.  That's why the people who think that whoever the next President is doesn't matter as long as we have a Democratic Senate aren't living in the real world.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:11:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today (2.00 / 0)

Bork?


by rfahey22 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today (2.00 / 1)

Meow.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:35:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Barely (none / 0)

and that partisan furor has led to some deference with regard to Thomas, Roberts and Alito.

Miers was just a weird pick so I don't even count that.


by Regenman on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:38:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today (2.00 / 1)

1987, just over 21 years ago.


by Bob Miller on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:40:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

harriet meyers (none / 0)


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

disgustingly so, yes (2.00 / 1)

they senate dems have a poor record of largely deferring to this republican president's picks.  makes it even more important to get a dem in the white house who'll send solid SCOTUS picks up the hill for confirmation.


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today (2.00 / 1)

Yes, which shows that the meme that a Democratic Congress will stop bad appointees is wrong.  The only way to preserve the quality of judicial appointees is to have a Democratic President.


by rfahey22 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:18:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 1)

Nice to see Kennedy's John Roberts man-crush hasn't made him completely lose sight of things.


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:31:36 AM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 1)

I assume this is snark, if not: http://www.redstate.com/


by Pat Flatley on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:59:45 AM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (none / 0)

Parody Troll Maybe?


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 1)

One can only hope.  Crikey.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:59:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today (2.00 / 3)

The battle for the Supreme Court goes far, far, far beyond Roe v. Wade.  It goes to Engle v. Vitale, Gideon v. Wainwright, Brown v. Board, Johnson v. Texas, Miranda v. Arizona, etc.  


by TheUnknown285 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:10:19 PM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today (none / 0)

Don't forget Lochner, U.S. v. Lopez, U.S. v. Morrison.


by rfahey22 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered (2.00 / 1)

Thank you, Justice Kennedy.

I've read more than a few of his opinions and concurrences.  While he's had something of an independent bent on certain issues in the past, I do think he's taking O'Connor's departure and his new importance very seriously.

He is more conservative in his voting than was she, but he's still fairly freewheeling (more so now, I think).

Again, thanks.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:12:32 PM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 1)

See discussion of the case at this legal blog, http://balkin.blogspot.com/ including this blog entry:

-- From Justice Scalia's dissent:

"The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

An instant classic of the worst order: fear-mongering.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:00:18 PM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (none / 0)

And worse, an abrogation of responsibility on the part of a Supreme Court Justice in retaining the authority of the judicial branch.  Slippery slope.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today (2.00 / 1)

I think the whole place should be shut down, period.  I can't believe we are all so comfortable with the mere existance of the place let alone celebrating that the prisoners there are being given rights.


by JustJennifer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:00:59 PM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today (none / 0)

Yes, but if they didn't keep them at Gitmo, who knows where in the world they'd keep them.  Until now the allure of Gitmo was that, since it technically is part of Cuba, and the detainees are non-U.S. citizens, some believed that the Constitution did not apply to their treatment.  We basically have a perpetual lease over the Gitmo land, however, and so it may be regarded as quasi-U.S. territory, which has affected the legal analysis of prior decisions.  If they were to be moved to a place that was definitely non-U.S. territory, it's unclear what would happen.


by rfahey22 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:05:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today (2.00 / 1)

I think any prisoners captured during this disgrace of a war should be held and tried in conjunction with our allies.  There should be strict monitoring of all activities by non-U.S. personnel.  We can't be trusted.  Sad, sad but true.


by JustJennifer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, ok. (none / 0)

Coming from her, this comment is rich:

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised the Court for "uphold[ing] the constitution of the United States" and reiterated her desire to see Gitmo shut down."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0 608/Democrats_seize_on_Supreme_Court_Git mo_Ruling.html


by JustJennifer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:59:17 PM EST

Re: Yeah, ok. (none / 0)

Can you explain why her comment is "rich"?


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, ok. (none / 0)

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised the Court for "uphold[ing] the constitution of the United States"

Praising the court for doing what she will not do herself.  That is what is rich.


by JustJennifer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, ok. (none / 0)

Honestly, I'm a bit confused - what particular issue are your reffering to?  Impeachment?


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, ok. (none / 0)

I feel she is complicit in many ways, yes.  She has ignored doing what is right for a reason.  There is speculation ranging from she knew what they were doing all the way up to she just wants to win.  Take your choice.  Either way her actions have been abominable.


by JustJennifer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, ok. (none / 0)

Sorry about the questions, but who is the "they" that you are reffering too.

I have also been somewhat dissapointed in Pelosi's tenure.


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, ok. (2.00 / 1)

Sorry for being so vague.  They are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al.  The powers that be.  

I have tried to understand why she has always maintained impeachment is off the table.  How could she say that without knowing what the evidence could prove?  There has to be a reason.  Like I said I have heard speculation that she knew all along (mislead about WMDs, the torture at Gitmo) to she just sold out for the sake of winning seats.  I dunno what the real story is but her leadership of the House has been damn pitiful.  Not just on the war stuff, but on FISA and the Patriot Act as well.  Will the real Democrats ever stand up?


by JustJennifer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, ok. (none / 0)

No worries.  I generally agree with what you've said here.


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, ok. (none / 0)

One reason why she might not want to pursue impeachment is that she knows that the Senate would never remove Bush -- You need 2/3 to do that.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:34:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, ok. (none / 0)

I've heard that they were also worried about Bush gaining sympathy and support right before the 2008 primary.


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:22:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MCA (none / 0)

Pelosi voted against it.  She wasn't able to keep everyone in line, but it's not like she has super powers.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd ?vote=h2006-508


by Ramo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:40:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MCA (none / 0)

The MCA is the tip of the Iceberg, and the DTA is quite fucked up as well.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:53:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 3)

The constitution says very explicitly which of the rights recognized therein apply only to citizens. (e.g. the right to vote in elections)

The right of Habeas Corpus makes no mention to citizenship or "legal immigration" as a prerequisite.

Your interpretation of the Constitution that it supposedly applies to only citizens and legal immigrant belongs to the same despicable brand of politics that once claimed "all men were created equal" really referred to only white men.

No, it does not. Except in the places it says otherwise, it applies to what it says: all.


by Aris Katsaris on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:33:34 PM EST

One Justice mattered (none / 0)

If McCain gets even one chance to appoint a justice this, and hundreds of other cases like it, would go the other way.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:06:16 PM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (none / 0)


by mydoubled on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:04:14 PM EST

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (none / 0)

(I accidentally mashed the enter button... compooters r hard!)

Just wanted to say thanks for this diary!


by mydoubled on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:05:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Justice mattered today - 5-4 Gitmo decisio (2.00 / 1)

I think declaring you are "4McCain" is against site rules

Hopefully you will be banned shortly.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:59:48 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: