Could one or more of these cases before the Supreme Court topple Bush?

[Tatiana]

<snip>

After Nixon pushed the presidential powers even further than past presidents had, both the Congress and Supreme Court acted to curtail his activities. In the name of protecting national security, Nixon wanted to be able to wiretap without the approval of a judge. The authority for this power? Before the Court of Appeals, Nixon relied on a vague "historical power of the sovereign to preserve itself" and "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation."

Later, arguing the issue before the Supreme Court, the government got even more vague -- just loosely using the national security contention. In the end, the Court -- in the ironically named case United States v. United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (which became known as the Keith Case) -- said no. Joining the opinion were all of Nixon's own appointees -- except William Rehnquist, who recused himself.

<snip>

Not inaccurately, the Bush presidency has been called imperial, in Schlesinger's sense. The evidence? Its "preemptive" and "preventive" military policy, its contentions that it can go to war regardless of whether Congress approves, its policies calling for American world domination, and its unprecedented blending of national security policy and domestic law enforcement. In my view, these policies and positions not only easily establish the Bush presidency as imperial, they also rank it beyond anything in the annals of the modern American presidency. This may be the most imperial Presidency our history has yet seen.

I've spoken with Arthur Schlesinger about it -- asking him if he thought the Bush presidency fit his description of an imperial presidency. In response, he chuckled, and said, "I'd certainly say this is an imperial presidency."

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040116.html

Another excellent column by Dean. I think the definite ones to watch are Padilla v Rumsfeld and Cheney v Judicial Watch and Sierra Club. In both these cases, there is established precedent to rule against the Bush administration's position. Also, the fact that rulings could be delivered in Summer '04, smack in the middle of the Presidential race, provides great political impact and momentum these decisions have the power to bring.

[cornermouse]

1. It'll never happen.

They're going to do exactly what the Bush administration tells them to do.

[Eric J in MN]

2. Ruling in Padilla won't be useful to the election either way

If the Supreme Court rules against Bush in the Padilla case, people could say that they're balancing Bush so we have nothing to fear from 4 more years.

If the Supreme Court rules for Bush in the Padilla case, Bush can claim that proves he's right to claim unlimited power to incarcerate us indefinitely without trial.

[dusty64]

3. Expect a quick backtrack

on ALL of these powers and privleges as soon as a Democrat can find a way around the electronic "voting" machines.

[Jacobin]

4. We should try to remember,

as painful as it is to do so, that the Supreme Court appointed the puppet leader of the junta.

Accordingly, it does not appear at all likely that they will attempt to depose their own appointee.

If this were still America, and if courts were not allowed to pick presidents in this country, many things would be different. It would be much more like a democracy.

[HereSince1628]

5. Yes, and realize that Scalia has control of TX gerrymandering case

[Eric J in MN]

6. The Supreme Court already denied the appeal in TX gerrymander.

The Supreme Court already denied the appeal in TX gerrymander.

They are currently reviewing a similar Pennsylvania case, Veith.

If they rule against gerrymandering there, then the TX case could be re-opened.

Unfortunately, the PA case also involves Republican gerrymandering. I wish that a case of Democratic gerrymandering had reached the Supreme Court first.

[rockymountaindem]

7. All those cases involving accused terrorists

won't help us. The way I see it, if they rule against people like Padilla and the others, the public at large will just go into a "to hell with the terrorists" rant. If the suspects are supported by the court, people will feel like we aren't being protected by the judiciary. I don't think this is the key to defeating Bush.

[seemslikeadream]

8. Maybe Ellen Mariani's RICO suit will get there soon

:evilgrin:

[Moderator]

9. Tatiana

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you


DU Moderator