What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Know a Book Lover? Give Them the Sony Reader Touch view!
bestbuy.com - It's sleek and light, stores hundreds of books and has a long lasting battery.
463 Comments
- inactive, on 06/12/2008, -20/+463Better to die on our feet upholding the law than live by abandoning the principles our country was founded on.
- thecatcantalk, on 06/12/2008, -24/+174Thank God the system still works. *whew* This is soooo huge! This is wonderful! The Fascists are losing!
And I'm still snickering over that Scalia quote about "what Jack Bauer would do" from last year...as if "Jack Bauer" were a real person. Repeat after me, Judge..."TV is not real. Actors on TV are not real people. TV is not real. Speculation, active imagination, and paranoid fantasy are inadmissible as evidence. TV is not real."
Is it possible for a sitting Jusice to be disbarred? Seriously, is there a Bar Association governing Supreme Court justices? - facttech, on 06/12/2008, -8/+112Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts all voted against restoration of habeas corpus, which the rest of the justices (accurately) see as one of the most basic and foundational rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Do you see a pattern?
Too bad it will be a LONG time before they retire. The Democrats should not have confirmed Alito and Roberts; it was clear they do not stand for the kind of America I believe in. - inactive, on 06/12/2008, -14/+117This was a 5-4 decision, with Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting. I really REEEALLY hope Obama gets to appoint the next few Supreme Court justices.
- Verchiel77, on 06/12/2008, -12/+115Sorry, Tony. You can't legitimize El Presidente's junta EVERY day...
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/13/2008, -3/+98This is the same guy that said Torture wasn't against the Geneva conventions because it wasn't punishment.
(Bans against cruel and unusual punishment) - IrishJoe, on 06/12/2008, -11/+103This from the man who ruled that votes shouldn't count and selected Bush and his hunting pal Cheney. Another fear-mongering neoclown telling us we need to surrender our rights or the boogeyman will get kill us in our sleep. Don't look now, there's a commie oops I mean Iranian under your bed!
- inactive, on 06/12/2008, -18/+91Scalia is representing the dumb ***** viewpoint.
We all knew this jackass was bad news when President ***** appointed him, but did we know he'd actively try to destroy the judicial process? - inactive, on 06/13/2008, -17/+83It is a bittersweet day for me. The Supreme Court of my country has restored habeas corpus to the Guantanamo detainees, but the very fact that they were ever denied it in the first place, and that it has taken six years for the court to act speaks volumes about the political situation in America.
Allowing the government to pursue its current course will kill the most Americans!!!
Shame on you Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas!!! Your job is to uphold and defend the Constitution. Your opinions are irrelevant when the Constitution is being flagrantly violated. You are a disgrace to the Court, the nation, and the human race.
As for Bush’s remark about possible “further legislation,” the only rights Mr. Bush and all in the government who have conspired with him in his unconstitutional power grabs, treason against the United States of America, and War Crimes (under US Code and the Geneva Conventions,) should have is a moment to get right with their maker just before they meet him via a noose or firing squad on the White House lawn. There are hundreds at ALL levels of government who have enabled and looked the other way who are just as guilty as Bush and Cheney. The Congress (those who aren’t sentenced to death,) should allocate funds to cover the White House lawn with rows of gallows for mass execution and the carrying out of justice.
As for McCain and Obama, if justice is served both parties will have to look for other candidates (Hillary doesn’t qualify either,) as they should be among those to hang.
Why bother looking for other Republicans and Democrats? Haven’t they caused enough trouble? We have and “invertebrate Congress” (to quote Ray McGovern,) who should have impeached Bush and Cheney long ago. They promised change in 2006, but what have they done that is of any value? Nada. They squawk and carry on with theatrical histrionics, but when it comes time to vote on the issues they all waffle and support the Bush administrations assault on the United States Constitution.
Do you want to find the real terrorists and bring them to justice? You will find them all in Washington DC. They expect us to believe they are protecting the homeland, but are unable to prevent millions of illiterate wetbacks and the majority of the nations illegal drug supply from crossing our Southern border. With the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich, who appears to be a decent, honest human being (whether I agree with his politics or not,) all 535 members of Congress are unfit to serve. We must unite and get their attention by ANY means necessary if we wish to survive. America is now the 12th in line when overall freedom of a nation is considered. What happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave, and what are YOU going to do about it?
The pen is mightier than the sword most of the time, IF there is anyone reading. There is a time and place for the “Sword,” thus the second amendment. To arms America!!! Your lives will depend on such action in the near future. Acquire any form of guns and other weaponry you can get, and stash as much ammunition as you can get. A rough road lies ahead for us all unless you are working with the enemy. - RC155, on 06/13/2008, -6/+53Scalia makes our Supreme Court look like a Kangaroo court
"Has anybody ever refered to torture as punishment?"
Antonin Scalia
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/28808/1/T ... - snafflepaffle, on 06/12/2008, -10/+53Here's to hoping that Scalia is one of the Americans that will be killed.
OK, not really. But what a prick that guy is. How can someone as obviously smart as Scalia not recognize that the price of freedom and living the American way intrinsically involves risk. - inactive, on 06/13/2008, -8/+50Scalia and his gang of judicial lackeys are a far bigger threat to America.
- lnf69, on 06/13/2008, -2/+42"system works"...
Only barely, another conservative judge and things would have been terribly different. - papastout, on 06/13/2008, -4/+40Historical quote for Scalia... and the whole lot of em.
The welfare of humanity has always been the alibi of tyrants
~Thomas Jefferson - Carv, on 06/13/2008, -3/+37Dear Justice Scalia,
Your job is to interpret the constitution. You can start by reading it.
Thanks. - ichbeineinrcg, on 06/13/2008, -3/+35Because he's above the law and above the concerns of the little people. Scalia doesn't care about you and me; he's protected.
- thechr0nic, on 06/13/2008, -0/+30I fail to see how this has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. I am assuming that either you simply added it in to the conversation, because you typeo'ed and really meant to refer to the 10th amendment; or possibly, because you truly don't understand the constitution.
Now on to the topic of abortion, yes a strict reading of the constitution would agree that abortion is not something the federal government is supposed to regulate; since it is not a power delegated to it, by the constitution. Therefore, with a strict reading of the constitution, states 'should' constitutionally be able to regulate it. And with that ability to regulate, some states could choose to ban it. And you as a citizen should have the ability of free movement to travel to a state where it is legal.
Now on to full disclosure:
I am pro-choice, although personally if my wife became pregnant, I would not be happy if she chose to abort the pregnancy. I believe that abortion is a difficult, private and important decision that should be made solely between both biological parents and potentially their personal doctor(s). I believe that government has no business making that difficult and private decision for everyone
-------------------------------------------
second amendment:
"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."
tenth amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - stonebear, on 06/13/2008, -4/+33If I lay dying after a terrorist blast, and the last words I should hear are some neocon shill saying "I told you so," I shall utter as my own: "I may be dead, but you're still wrong."
- rzxc, on 06/13/2008, -4/+32This decision will save American lives. Though some of the detainees may be found not guilty, and some of those detainees may chose to become terrorists after they are released, that loss to American lives will more than be offset by the benefit that will arise when the world sees us live by our principles. All men are created equal. When Scalia says we are at war with Islamists, Muslims think that we are at war with Muslims. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. We must treat them with respect. We must believe they are innocent until proven guilty. We must extend them the same rights we have. If do, we show them that our war is not against their religion. We must win the hearts and minds of Muslims. This decision is a good first step.
- gn0stik, on 06/13/2008, -2/+29Habeas corpus is to determine the validity of custody and to allow them to testify on their own behalf.
Not really sure what you are talking about.
However Scalia is clearly out of his mind. - Waiting2awake, on 06/13/2008, -3/+30Yepper, he is a real winner.
- ClosedCaption, on 06/13/2008, -8/+34If we allow ppl to find out why they're in jail that will kill ppl? I dont get the logic in that arguement.
- callinthelaw69, on 06/13/2008, -2/+28Try explaining that to this neo-con piece of *****.
- SQLserver, on 06/13/2008, -9/+35It is people like this that are doing their best to make America a Christian Iran.
- techmaster, on 06/13/2008, -2/+26"Give me liberty, or give me death."
- cjdunn, on 06/13/2008, -1/+25To remove a Supreme Court justice, they would need to go through the impeachment process (I think this applies to Federal judges as well). Meaning, the House of Representatives would need to hear of and investigate allegations of wrong doing.
Then the House would vote on articles of impeachment (much like a grand jury finds that there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial).
If the articles are passed, it moves to the Senate which will act as jury and a majority vote would find the justice guilty and be removed from the bench. - funkyloki, on 06/13/2008, -1/+24Which is exactly how it will be if McCain't is elected.
- thechr0nic, on 06/13/2008, -3/+25Jimmy:
You seem to try to polarize every issue as 'liberal' or 'conservative'. And then you speak of perversions of the constitution as if an un-declared war was constitutional. We would not even be at war, had we followed the constitution and got authorization for war from congress. Had we gone through the difficult process of getting declaration of war from congress, it would have required thorough justification; thus these current wars we are fighting are 'unjust wars' for lack of a declaration from congress.
Guantanamo bay was a calculated effort to hold foreign nationals outside of the rules of our laws, so that we would have the quasi legal ability to use techniques that would be illegal here in America such as suspension of habeas corpus and torture (water boarding for a specific example of torture). Bush knew that if these foreign nationals were to go through our court system, that he would never be able to hold them indefinitely without charges, he knew that he wouldn't be able to water board them to obtain a coerced confession.
In America, we should never fight an unjust war, period. We should use our military for common defense, never for pre-emptive offense. It seems to be, that we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, had we actually followed the constitution in the first place. That to me, is a much larger immoral perversion of our constitution.
I don't expect any intelligent response from you, such is the nature of trying to talk to a troll. However, I am open to being surprised, so please feel free to use all the 'logic' you can muster to give a good rebuttle. - jonnyeuchre, on 06/13/2008, -4/+24
This implies Scalia:
1) can see into the future
2) thinks emotionalism has greater legal standing than the constitution.
isn't that the definition of judicial activism? - 55mph, on 06/13/2008, -2/+22Democrats are as guilty as the Republicans for the situation we find ourselves in. Special interest funding have polluted the two party system. It's one big party now. Corportocracy!
- IrishJoe, on 06/13/2008, -1/+20US citizen José Padilla was held for more than three and a half years in solitary confinement before the government charged him with a crime. He would have been covered by this ruling. If the Bush Administration decided to name you or me an enemy combatant, prior to this ruling we would have no right to challenge our detainment. This eliminates the guilty until proven innocent category created by the Bush Administration.
- inactive, on 06/13/2008, -1/+20Far bigger threat than grammar Nazis.
- chase001, on 06/13/2008, -13/+31Scalia looks like he could croak from a heart attach real soon... hope Obama gets to replace him.
- RayLC, on 06/13/2008, -1/+18Republican talk about "states' rights" is exactly that: talk. They're all in favor of states' "rights" to restrict our freedoms, but their right to add to our freedom (e.g. legalizing marijuana) isn't anywhere in their playbook.
- arkaycee, on 06/13/2008, -1/+18I think ClosedCaption is talking about the fact (discussed roughly that way on NPR this morning, among other places) that the case against some of these people (the way the Bush Administration wants to run it) is "we think you're guilty but we'll not tell you exactly what your crime is, nor how we know about it, nor why we think you're guilty of it."
- greenm1981, on 06/13/2008, -0/+17A supreme court justice can be impeached. However, if we can't seem to impeach a President over unconstitutional acts, then I don't know how Congress could impeach a justice.
- wolfofwar, on 06/13/2008, -4/+21Give me liberty or give me death.
- lnf69, on 06/13/2008, -0/+16Pretty much, it's choice B. It's a lifetime appointment and a very difficult removal process.
- dvddesign, on 06/13/2008, -0/+16WWJackBauerD?
He'd sit in jail and serve out his DUI sentence, that's what he'd do.
Stop making heroes out of celebrities. - thaddeusj, on 06/13/2008, -0/+16Exactly! I like to hope the majority of us would rather die at the hands of an undiscovered criminal than support anything that _might_ imprison the innocent.
If getting on a plane was like getting on a bus I would still fly. And if some terrorist flew that plane into the ground ... well who am I kidding I would probably be pooping myself. But the point is I would rather take that risk than agree with the idea that anyone who isn't wholly transparent is obviously up to no good.
Not to mention hijacking an airplane is way on the highly ineffective side of killing a large group of people with a single weapon. What we experience at the airport is a facade, lending even less credence to the intrusion. - crimson117, on 06/13/2008, -1/+16Give me liberty, or give me death.
- yetAnotherCroc, on 06/13/2008, -0/+15Actually,torture is punishment for the "crime" of not giving up information voluntarily. Doesn't make it right though.
- gn0stik, on 06/13/2008, -3/+18I agree, and besides, since when do we need to be invited to weigh in on military affairs. Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of an un-checked military industrial complex, and told us to be vigilant and watch them at every step.
Scalia needs to remember that the biggest threat to American lives right now is our foreign policy and the fact that we're fighting a frivolous, unjustifiable war. Until that is taken off the table, he needs to hold his tongue.
All that being said, I still have a hard time with extending constitutional rights to non-American enemy combatants, however it does seem justified under clause 4 of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 which states:
# Being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or
# It is necessary to bring said persons into court to testify or for trial.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_ ...
Although they didn't go exactly by the word, because terrorists don't really fly a particular flag except the flag of Islam, they did go by the spirit. - UberNick, on 06/13/2008, -2/+17You're dangerous to our Republic. Shouldn't you be cowering in a corner somewhere because you're "scurred o'tha turrists", troll?
- davewelsh79, on 06/13/2008, -1/+15The US constitution doesn't just apply to US citizens. The constitution determines what the government can or can't do to people on US soil. Even a North Korean visiting the states has the right of habeas corpus if he's arrested for something.
The US government was trying an end run around their own constitution by pretending that if they kidnapped someone and brought them to Guantanamo Bay, they "weren't on US soil so we can do anything we want to them."
The supreme court just ruled that the government's little delusion doesn't hold water. If the US is running a prison in Cuba, then it counts as US soil and the kidnap victims there get a chance at a trial now. - dukeochutney, on 06/13/2008, -2/+16agreed the 'habeas corpus privilege' amuses me. last time i checked its a right and not a ***** privilege *****.
- bullhead2007, on 06/13/2008, -1/+15You might want to read the constitution sometime. It's a real shocker how it recognizes all (read: not citizens) people have inalienable rights.
- inactive, on 06/13/2008, -0/+14"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
- InfamousAtheist, on 06/13/2008, -4/+17"Only barely" means that it still worked.
The close vote reflects the divisions in our country today. - Pstmann, on 06/13/2008, -3/+16like getting McCain would be any better?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 468 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is