What is Digg?71 Comments
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -3/+83So...adding to this list of those that shouldn't ever second-guess Bush our president: 1) the media. 2) elected officials from the opposing party. 3) former presidents. 4) our allies. 5) past members of the administration i.e. former Secretaries of State. 6) military officials. 7) voters with questions ....we can now include our Judges.
- erikerikerik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+58All hail the great decider!!! (note the THICK sarcasm)
"He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief "
-Of the Armed forces, Not the people.
"And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism."
-That is why they are appointed for life, so that they will never have to worry about reelection, criticism, etc etc. The theory was that if they didn't have to bend over to appease any one, they would think with a clear mind - Skafloc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+50Unbelievable! Isn't one of the main functions of the judiciary branch to make sure the executive branch does not overstep their authority?
- martalli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34How can such talk be tolerated? Just on NPR this morning, they were playing tape of Newt Gingrich recently saying that the judges shouldn't be second guess the president or the congress.
Maybe the rest fo the US should declare independence from the District of Columbia! - JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33Had to check my calendar... I thought it might be 1984.
- titaniumdecoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28***** the administration.
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Gotta love the Bush Administration's respect for the separation of powers. ;)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22it is part of the swift boating of the judiciary.
They know they are going to start to get more ruling against them.
they also know the detainee bill as it is, will probably be over turned by the supreme court.
And newt said there should be an easier way to overturn the supreme court, rather than the hindersome 2/3 majority needed to add an amendment. His arguement was 5 people shouldnt be able to over turn the will of the people. Of courst that arguement was quickly countered with the 2000 election.. Since al gore got the majority vote but lost in the supreme court. - UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Cautions against..
Warns against...
This administration talks to us like we are children and most of us respond as such. It's a disgrace. - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21To reiterate your point, Conrgess authorized the use of force, but there is no current declaration of war. A declaration of war is a constitutional duty of the Congress. Authorizing force is not a declaration of war. I realize we are in an armed conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq - it is essentially war...however....
Any talk about 'we're at war' is really only talk, from a constitutional sense. Once Congress formally declares war, then the President would have a better claim for restricting our rights temporarily in the pursuit of war. If Congress is unwilling to delcare war, the President should not be able to usurp our rights. - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17So can we fire that guy now?
And why is it that the attorney general (the main guy who's responsible for defending the law) is usually one of the most gung-ho to do damage to our system of justice? - airencracken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16All hail king Bush!
We have always been at war with terror.
Seriously how much will it take before people WAKE UP!? - jackelsmack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Don't think we're in a dictatorship right now? Here's all you have to ask yourself: If the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush Administration and their incredible 'war powers', what would Bush do, submit to the will of the court? Not a chance. In fact, the Supreme Court has already considered Bush's magic war powers in Hamdan V Rumsfeld and declared them not just illegal, but unconstitutional. Did that stop them?
They've already shown complete contempt for the Legislative branch, simply declaring they're not going to obey FISA. Now they're giving the finger to the Supreme Court and 'warning' judges not to rule on the magic war powers... what is left to check them? They have succeed through pure willpower. If this country is to survive, the executive branch must be redesigned so this can never happen again. - Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I guess he should just lock the judges up that disagree with him as terrorist.
Isn't it obvious they are threats to 'National Security?' - elliam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Holy ***** lap dog.
- DeadLikeMe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Why do I have the feeling that in our reality the outcome of "V for Vendetta" might have a different outcome - the govt. destroys the other branches of govt and a dictatorship is established.
- Sunwalker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Gonzales is the Generalissimo of Torture. All bow before him!
- voodoobru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12gonzales telling a judge not to judge? wow.
- cocoamix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I'm sometimes uncomfortable digging these stories.
While I agree that Gonzales and Bush are both complete tools, I always think that people will interpret a large number of Diggs as meaning there is support for their positions, rather than a strong desire that as many people as possible be made aware of their idiocy.
Just to make myself clear though: Yeah, they're tools. - titaniumdecoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12That might make sense, if we were at war.
Wait, that would still be a bad idea. - superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Bush doesn't believe his authority has limits.
- MaximusIGN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Since the "War on Terror" will never end, I wonder whether the Republicans will support all their draconian tactics when a Liberal President gets into power.
I can't wait to hear Sean Hannity and all the other right wingnuts support eavesdropping on citizens, spending like there's no tomorrow, torture, absolute power to the executive branch, etc.. if Hilary Clinton were in power. LOL....Guaranteed they'll all suddenly wake up and see how wrong it was.
Makes me sick... - sgbooth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@erikerikerik: That is the post of the week. Absolutely brilliant. That is the exact policy reason for having lifetime appointments.
@martalli: also excellent when you consider the fact that the "strict constitutionalists" on the Supreme Court have voted to overturn laws more than those who are "liberal." (I phrase that lightly because Souter, Breyer and Kennedy, three of the five "liberals", were appointed by conservative presidents). - smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I thought judges were not to take direction on anything from the other branches and only interpret the laws...
but hey who cares about that this is a special circumstance so they'll have to take direction until the war on terror is won.. how long will that be? who knows. - jbus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Speedy Gonzales might be able to see things a little more clearly if he would pull his lips off Bush's ass once in a while.
- dzappone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Do I smell divine right of kings? That's odd because I thought the President owes his position to the will of the people. And since when is Bush infallible - I mean it's not like he's a burning bush or anything. Meh.
- FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I agree with most Gonzales-bashing and hate most of what comes out of his mouth (or pen), but Alberto is right in the last 3 paragraphs about electing judges in partisan elections. Having judges beholden to contributors is bad news.
- brbubba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Wow, another one of Bush's puppets. Does this guy have anyone working for him who has a single independent and intelligent thing to say?
I also like how he mentions presidential powers during wartime, what war would that be Gonzales. Its not Iraq, that war is over, its now a peacekeeping mission. And its impossible to have a war on terror, because it quite simply can never be won. Is this like the war on drugs now? When Mr. President is the war going to be over then, in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, never? - JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The US has been in a state of war with one country or another for all but 4 years of its history. When else should judges question?
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ministry of truth?
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"I agree with most Gonzales-bashing and hate most of what comes out of his mouth (or pen), but Alberto is right in the last 3 paragraphs about electing judges in partisan elections. Having judges beholden to contributors is bad news."
Having judges not beholden to an electorate is also bad news. We don't need a legal aristocracy.
And f*** Gonzalez in the ass. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Gonzales is a piece of *****. He deserves to be thrown in the ring with Mike Tyson and get the snot knocked out of him.
Can anyone here make that happen? It would make an awesome TV show and would get you massive earnings! Think of 60% of Americans tuning in to your channel all at once! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You guys have completely and totally lost all control of your country.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Terrorism is the new Communism
Gonzales the new McCarthy
Fear is still fear and its just as powerful as ever. - soarin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What a recipe for a totalitarian state:
1) Start a stupid war by lying to the people (WMD!! We will be greeted as liberators! They will throw flowers at us when we come in! I doubt the war will last 6 weeks, let alone 6 months, Mushroom Clouds! We know where the WMD's are.... etc. etc.)
2) Decide that this is a "generational war" against an ideology "until all global terror groups are gone". Declare further that it is a "struggle for civilization". (Never mind that it is just a blatant grab for oil -- life is easy when your buddies own Media)
3) Declare that no one can "second-guess the President in Wartime". Gain power to torture people and throw them in secret jails with secret evidence against them.
4) Profit!!!!
With no one able to question the President's power, he is officially or unofficially a dictator. Anybody who helps him do this makes lots of money and is rewarded nicely. Anyone who doesn't like it gets thrown in secret jails.
repeat as necessary - gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6His idea of the separation of powers is separating the other two branches from it.
Not to mention the rest of us. - mistermachine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Wait, we're in a war? Seriously? Then what the ***** was that "Mission Accomplished" banner all about?"
that was just the mission of destroying America's credibility. he did good on that one. - torifile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Thankfully, not yet. And judges don't suffer being told what to do very well. I hope the next judge Gonzales goes before rips him a new one. Judges can be nasty when they're pissed off.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This coconut (brown on the outside and white in the middle) must think that Bush Lite has become king or something. And he's now biting the hand that put Bush into power in the first place. If you recall, Bush Lite was declared president in 2000 by the (Republican majority) Supreme Court.
And he must not forget that this is not a dictatorship (at least not yet). When the people wake up from this fear mongering trance, they will have the power to remove Bush Lite. So people wake up and let's get this "so called wanna be" king impeached (before it's too late).
This is what Bush Lite is King of ...
http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/571511948/thewhitehouse/416346 - samcrut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So nobody can second-guess W while he's at war, but he's at war with a tactic. He'll never be at peace from here on out. He's seeing to that at every possible turn.
- GinsuGuy585, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No 2nd guess can be as bad as the first.
- Somniis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Just because he is the "commander in chief" does not mean he knows what the hell he is doing.
- FreeDumbFighter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Es No Problemo me Fellow Gringos, this is just a beginning. As you can see, your Mexican experience is becoming fuller and deeper. We are even thinking about encouraging you to go to Canada and send money home, just the way Chicanos do it. You see in Mexico and all other dictatorships, people either love their leader or some how they show up missing! We don't want that to happen to you, do we?????????????????????
- omababy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Next well heard bush announce he is changing the laws which state he can't run in the next presidential ellection. Hell we'll probably hear that he will now assume the role of Commander and Chief until terrorism is completely defeated, reasoning that no one is as qualified of protecting Americans the way he can.
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And since when are we at war? I don't recall Congress issuing a declaration of war.
- rabidjester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The Attorney General (appointed by the executive) is cautioning the judiciary? During a war on an abstract idea which has no defined condition for victory? How the hell did we get here, and what comes next? :(
- HickJew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So much for "We The People".....
- crapple, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The posts here have been consistently some of the best I've ever read. I'm just surprised there isn't more "liberal bashing"....do all right wingers go to bed early and rise late?
I'm just hoping that the SC will have the gall to toss out the bill allowing the torture/detaining w/o haebeus corpus.
I know the means to email the pres and all my representatives, but how about the SC Justices? - SDE06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So when is the senate gonna be disolved and when are we gonna hear declaration of the first Galactic Empire? oh wait wrong post....maybe not! lol!
- nowisee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3GO USA! Now they have started building a wall to keep people from getting out of the US too. Good luck to all of you when you are stripped of all your rights, freedom and liberty.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is