Ghost of Ashcroft to Haunt Liberal Activist Judges

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
<!--StartFragment --> Ashcroft Says Judges Threaten National Security by Questioning Bush Decisions

(Associated Press)

<!--StartFragment --> WASHINGTON - Federal judges are jeopardizing national security by issuing rulings contradictory to President Bush's decisions on America's obligations under international treaties and agreements, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Friday.
In his first remarks since his resignation was announced Tuesday, Ashcroft forcefully denounced what he called "a profoundly disturbing trend" among some judges to interfere in the president's constitutional authority to make decisions during war.

"The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war," Ashcroft said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers' group.

The Justice Department announced this week it would seek to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robertson in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who the government contends was Osama bin Laden's driver.

Robertson halted Hamdan's trial by military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, rejecting the Bush administration's position that the Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war do not apply to al-Qaida members because they are not soldiers of a true state and do not fight by international norms.

Without mentioning that case specifically, Ashcroft criticized rulings he said found "expansive private rights in treaties where they never existed" that run counter to the broad discretionary powers given the president by the Constitution.

<!--StartFragment -->
"Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people," Ashcroft said.

During his successful re-election campaign, Bush repeatedly promised to appoint judges who would adhere to strict interpretations of the Constitution. In addition to numerous lower courts, Bush is likely to appoint at least one and perhaps several justices to the Supreme Court during the next four years.

The administration lost a crucial legal battle this year when a divided Supreme Court determined the president lacks the authority to hold terror suspects classified as enemy combatants indefinitely with no access to lawyers or the ability to challenge their detention.

Ashcroft intends to remain as attorney general until his nominated successor, Alberto Gonzales, is confirmed by the Senate.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Ashcroft's legacy will be his open hostility to protecting civil liberties and an outright disdain for those who dare to question his policies ....
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
They should hire me for the press release
"Fascism movment by Bush Admin suffers setback; Asscroft resigns due to illness"

Related Stories
Is there a link between surpressing freedrom and fatigue?
 

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
7,379
Tokens
All that suppression creates depression. Have you seen Bush lately? He looks 10 years older since 2000 rather than 4.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war." -- Ashcroft
It is true that many of the 'enemy combatants' in Guantanamo are covered by neither American nor Geneva norms of due process. However, it is also true that this is a relatively new phenomenon, thus requiring new laws. Since the bulk of Guantanamo's prisoners are not American, it is not a stretch to request some kind of international agreement, perhaps refinements to Geneva, be undertaken. In the meantime, isn't it safe to say that SCOTUS is precisely where this issue should be discussed and determined or does Ashcroft think it is more Constitutional to subject new domain to the wishes of the President and the President alone? Wasn't the US founded in a manner to prevent this precise thing?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
What a scary statement here:

"Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people," Ashcroft said.

Someone please go inform Johnny it has always been this way. The idea of courts has always been to insist that they are above the will of the people and they uphold the law. Nothing more than that. If we had justices always worried what the people would say about decisions then the law could easily be abused or ignored. This isn't a partisan issue, it is a constitutional issue that once again shows Ass-croft just doesn't care for our sacred document that we somehow managed to abide and uphold for over 200 years.
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,373
Tokens
Some say our country was safer when Ass-croft was AG. Well I'm sure the colonies were a lot safer with British troops stationed in colonist's homes.


"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

-Ben Franklin
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
WildBill - the courts aren't accountable to the law - look at Massachusetts, whrer the MSJC legislated from the bench, ignoring all precedent, and pissing down the backs of the electorate.

In my opinion, Gov Romney should have crreated a Constitutional crisis in Massachusetts by ignoring the ruling - but he failed his constituency and we now have Homosexual marriage in a state that has become one of the jokes of the nation.

If my family weren't here, I'd move to Austin and aggravate Doc!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Tell me how has your life been personally affected by those actions? Are you losing money? Is it tearing apart your own marriage? People laughed at a few Dems who said they would move to Canada after the election, you look even more silly saying you would move because of this issue. Maybe a few extra dollars get spent on serving them, boo hoo. Probably costs you all of a quarter a year for the miniscule extra benefits for them. Beyond that I find it laughable you choose this issue among the thousands to define your quality of life in any way.
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
WildBill, I don't have any problems with providing homosexual couples with the most of the same rights and protections as a heterosexual couple; but marriage isn't one of them.
How about civil unions - I can agree to that.

Call me any name you want, but I consider marriage to be an inviolable oath between a man and a woman!

I also don't believe that the bench should be legislating my morality for me either - that's why we have elections.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by bblight:

I also don't believe that the bench should be legislating my morality for me either - that's why we have elections.<!-- / message -->

Surely you are not suggesting that morality can be decided by majority vote?


Phaedrus
 

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
phaedrus can you please look in the newbie forum there is a question there you might be able to help with
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,807
Messages
13,573,371
Members
100,871
Latest member
Legend813
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com