Reply With Quote
24 months ....
Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on terror policy
Attorney general says federal jurists should defer to president's will
MSNBCWASHINGTON - 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 Ins ute, 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.”what is in the national security interests of our country.”t, what qualities the Bush administration looks for when selecting candidates for the federal bench.
According to Gonzo, international law has no jurisdiction over our glorious president, the Supreme Court doesn't, Congress doesn't, and now federal judges and juries don't either? Who DOES have legal authority over this President anymore?
Dubya is ignoring the will of the people with his signing statements that reinterpret the laws enacted by the representatives of the people. Now he threatens to ignore the Supreme law of the land, as interpreted by the highest court of the land.
24 months ....
This president doesn't need oversight because he can do what he wants.
Some interesting Gonzo testimony yesterday...
"Just because they talked about the Cons utional right to habeas corpus doesn't mean the decision was about the Cons utional right to habeas corpus"
"There is no express grant of habeas in the Cons ution, there is a prohibition against taking it away"
Specter "now wait a minute wait a minute the Cons ution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?"
Gonzo "I meant by that comment that the Cons ution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus it doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended"
Specter "You may treading on you interdiction of violating common sense"
The Cons ution specifically says the opposite of what Gonzo is claiming. It makes clear that rights are inhernet. So does the Declaration. The rights exist intrinsically and as absolutes. The Cons ution merely says they gov't can't do a thing to subrogate those pre-existing rights except under exigent cir stances
I don't like Specter however, when he said "You may treading on you interdiction of violating common sense", they shoud have given him a big
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions