Finally a victory for the Constitution! (no spam)

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:38 am

Setback for Bush on â€˜enemy combatantsâ€™ - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

I'm sure fable would have eventually started a thread for this new story, but I'm just so excited about it that I couldn't wait.

It irks me to no end that these neo-con crazies work under a conservative banner when what they do is in such blatant opposition to the constitution.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:51 am

[QUOTE=jopperm2]It irks me to no end that these neo-con crazies work under a conservative banner when what they do is in such blatant opposition to the constitution.[/QUOTE]
Here here.

Unfortunately there is still much legal procedure to be done. The ruling came from a panel of the fourth circuit, meaning that only three judges heard the case. The government intends to ask for the full court to hear the case. And,whether that happens or not, there is still the potential for a writ of cert and the Supreme Court.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:18 am

True. I still have hope though that no judge would find any other way.

I know that's not realistic, but I still trust the Judicial branch far more than the other two.

It seems to me that they actually have some respect for the purpose of their job and don't try to go outside of its boundaries too often.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:46 pm

I tend to agree with you Jopp (imagine that... a law student agreeing with the benevolence of the judicial branch :speech: ). However, these are generally more issues of law than issues of right and wrong. Generally the ability of the president to deter citizens without trial is illegal... but not always. I just hope that the appeals are denied.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:33 pm

Yeah, the bottom line is that a president can do pretty much anything he likes to a few people for a short period of time and it's up to the other branches to call him on it or legitimize it.

Judges tend to do the right thing in my opinion because a lot of times their hands are tied. Take things like abortion. There is little about the case that can really be tied to should we or should we not let people have abortions. The whole case is about can we or can we not prevent people from doing things to themselves. The same principle applies in the case where the 17-year-old is serving time for oral sex. It's not that the judge wanted to sentence him to ten years probably. That's the minimum sentence and he's clearly guilty.

Right and wrong have no place in the courtroom. That's for congress. The courts just remind us what congress decided was right 220 years ago.