Gonzales Cautions Judges on Interfering

[im10ashus]

This guy is unbelievable!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.

He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. ''The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime,'' the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center.

''Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review,'' Gonzales said.

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.

cont'd...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gonzales-Judges.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Wickerman]

1. It gets more and more chilling with the hour

There will be NO dissent!

edit: either verb confusion or dementia.

[im10ashus]

5. It's seriously frightening.

Every day, every hour, I get more tempted to get the hell out. They are SO out of control.

[Stand and Fight]

37. No. No.

The problem is that they are so IN control of being OUT of control...

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Not even by judges dissenting against unconstituionality

Marbury v. Madison is being discarded, and anyone who complains will be classified as an enemy combattant, if not a traitor. Judges, specifically, are not exempt.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bowens43]

26. Yes it does.

And we have people here suggesting that we should ignore democratic candidates and allow the republicans to control the senate and the house. Bush has already appointed two neo-con thugs to the Supreme Court. These fools are willing to risk allowing him to appoint a third.

[iconoclastic cat]

2. Damn, when does martial law happen, again? nt

[Richard Steele]

"The orders of the Fuhrer have the force of law".

So saith Gonzales.

[Subdivisions]

3. This country is unraveling like a loosed clock spring. How

profoundly unbelievable!

THEY ARE TAKING OVER OUR COUNTRY!!!!

[niyad]

4. he's threatening judges now?

[Hubert Flottz]

12. That is exactly what he's doing.

Congress should remove him ASAP.

[liberal N proud]

6. That is what happens in a fascist state

The dictator threatens anyone, who gets in his way. It does not matter, Judge, Congress, the military, the media, they will and most likely have made threats to them all keeping them in line with the regime.

[Deep13]

9. Jesus Christ, Al, put a sock in it.

The court was not afraid to step on you before. What do you think has changed? They know you will be eviscerated in about five weeks.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. What do you think has changed?

After yesterday, if a judge gets uppity he can be sent to Gitmo or some camp in Utah with no chance of appeal, no habeas corpus, no constitutional rights.

That's what has changed.

[Deep13]

35. All the more incentive to squash that law.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Problem is, it cannot be squashed by the judiciary, because

the circular logic of it prevents it from coming before a judge -- only those dierctly affected may sue, and those directly affected are forbidden judicial review. The only way to change it is legislatively, which means only after the upcoming (rigged) elections.

If Americans were Parisians, we'd be at the barricades today.

We suck at liberty.

[EFerrari]

39. Maybe it's time to call out the French again.

:)

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Courts forbidden from reviewing the procedures

Here's the money quote from the bill:

Sec. 950j. Finality of proceedings, findings, and sentences

`(a) Finality- The appellate review of records of trial provided by this chapter, and the proceedings, findings, and sentences of military commissions as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of military commissions under this chapter are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, except as otherwise provided by the President.

`(b) Provisions of Chapter Sole Basis for Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

I suspect the courts will roll over and acquiesce, just like... well, I don't want to be all negative n' stuff.

[im10ashus]

38. Put a sock in it?

Nice discourse. Thanks!

[Deep13]

47. Hey, don't sweat it.

Don't you ever get tired of the same old fear mongering over and over. Gonzales is full of it and I am not going to pretend that his verbal diarreah is a sound argument worthy of a well-reasoned response.

[im10ashus]

48. I do get tired of it.

I am so weary of it. I want this nightmare to be over.

:hi:

[Deep13]

49. 26 months and counting. nt

[im10ashus]

50. Or 40 days until we take back Congress.

:-)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/09/29/sen-kennedy-on-gops-ter_n_30547.html

[BrotherBuzz]

10. Alberto Gonzales subscribes to John Yoo's twisted circular logic

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government.

JON CARROLL

Monday, January 2, 2006


Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

[Beelzebud]

11. This is what FASCISM looks like.

Fascism? You're soaking in it.

[madrchsod]

13. bush has cut the funding to protect federal judges

[Deep13]

17. See, we are safer now!

Anyone want to volunteer to guard a Federal judge? :shrug:

[AllegroRondo]

14. the Constitution REQUIRES them to use their personal views

and NOT rubber stamp the "presidents judgement".

[Avalux]

15. Who the fuck gave him a law degree?

"He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs"

So the Supreme Court is supposed to defer to Bush since he's commander-in-cheif and this is a time of war. :eyes:

[rrasile]

55. Did he hold up

his law degree when he spoke to a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center.
I love to see his qualifications. Did coming from Texas have anything to do with his getting the job.
Look, the dude has never impressed me other then talking around a question and not answering it.
I wonder how he feels when he's talking to a group of real lawyers and knows deep inside that they know more then he does about law.
Maybe I'm predigest or something, but he seems to have the intellect to sit and talk with the head Moran much like when GW talks down to the Washington Press Core.

[Marie26]

16. Just shut up already

He's just strutting around, trying to intimidate judges w/how ALL-POWERFUL he is. Any attorney knows that what he said is a joke. Judges can't interpret the laws? Dear God, what does he think they're there for?

[bluedog]

18. What about the "law of the Land"? n/t

bush is pushing his freaking luck.......shut him down

[malaise]

28. Try and listen to Judge

Joan Lefkow's address to the Rotary Club last week. Even Judges are scared of this government and their lunatic base.

[EFerrari]

19. So, how long will the Supremes pretend to hold out?

Congress has caved.

We should all write instructions for our friends and leave them in the mailbox.

"Please take care of the cats and tell Mom I love her. You can have my 45s."

[nam78_two]

20. How about they just have the fucking coronation already?

federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.

Divine right to rule is back...yowzah! :woohoo:

[no_hypocrisy]

21. Since when have the judgments of a president

NOT been subject to judicial review? Nixon didn't escape.

[Avalux]

27. Time of war!!!!

x( Prez can do anythiiiiiiiing he wants when we be fightin' bad guys.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. Nope, Nixon didn't escape.

And they've been mad about that ever since, and arranged things so they'll turn out differently this time.

Reagan was a dry run - and he DID escape.

[BurtWorm]

22. It's not okay to question Bush, but it is just GREAT

to question the judges who challenge him.

Wot a dishonest ASSHOLE Gonzalez is!

[nam78_two]

24. get with the program

don'tcha know....the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" :sarcasm:

[progressoid]

23. Oh yeah, and don't read that ole dusty Constitution too much either.

Fuckbag.

[Armstead]

25. Please keep bullying the judiciary Al ...

Hopefully the more you threaten them the more they will push back.

Jeeze maybe even the folks like Thomas and Scalia might even put their feet down and say "Enough is Enough. Stop trying to usurp the balance of powers."

Welll. I can dream.

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. If it weren't for those two, among others, we wouldn't be in this mess

and Torture Gonzo wouldn't be a blip on our radar screens.

[MGKrebs]

29. What war???

Is that the War on Christmas?
The War on Poverty?
The War on Religion?
The War on Hunger?
The War on Illiteracy?

[Frustratedlady]

32. Gonzales says...

''The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime,'

Isn't it amazing that we were able to get through so many wars with the Constitution in place?

I truly think AG is a good part of the problem, because he is reshaping the law by interpreting it to fit their agenda and intimidate dissenters. He is scary

[EFerrari]

40. He is, and he's just one of a coven of lawyers who are

engaged in this process of dismantling our system of government.

[im10ashus]

42. They are all PNAC bulldogs.

"Let's rule the world and own all the oil reserves in the ME."

[EFerrari]

44. Yeah, they are. I wonder if Yu is still at Berkeley. He better

watch out or he's likely to get himself lynched. If I see pitchforks and torches, I'll let you know.

[im10ashus]

46. Indeed he is.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/facultyProfile.php?facID=235

I guess the Bushistas are willing to snub their nose at the very court which put him in power. SCOTUS has already ruled their wiretapping as illegal and unconstitutional. What more do they need to hear?

[EFerrari]

54. They don't listen, they put out messages. People defer

to the Cabal but, sooner or later, someone is going to say, enough.

At this point, I just hope as few people as possible get hurt in the meantime. We still don't know who or how many poor souls they have locked up all over the world.

Hate to have their karma.

[im10ashus]

56. It's getting very "V for Vendetta" here lately.

A little too close for my comfort. 40 days until we take back Congress.

[formercia]

59. I love the smell of hot tar and feathers in the Morning. n/t

[madmusic]

34. What if "personal views" happen to be "Constitutional views"?

:puke: on you TOP COP!

[mmonk]

41. hard to contain myself of what I want to say.

[Rex]

43. What did he threaten them with? Incarceration?

Now maybe some people understand Roves little message the other day, "let the balance unroll." You can substitute the word elimination for balance and you should get the idea.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. I would not be surprised to see impeachment proceedings filed

against dissident judges.

"They are not qualified to be on the bench because they are not accepting the law of the land. By interpreting the law they are usurping the role of the legislature, which is outside their mandate - therefore, they must be removed."*

*Not a real quote - just what I hear buzzing in his pointy little head.

[w4rma]

51. …

[w4rma]

52. FYI: This authoritarian was the primary author of the Patriot Act. (nt)

[bigtree]

57. very important

[Imagevision]

58. Gonzalez's decisions shouldn't be immune'' from public criticism

Gonzalez forgwets he's an employee of the people of the US.

[rug]

60. People Caution Gonzales on Overreaching.

[indepat]

61. Thank God we have Gonzo to tell SCOTUS what their job is and how to i

interpret the Constitution.