Gonzales: Judges Are Unfit To Question Bush-They Should "Defer To President's Will"

[kpete]

Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on terror policy
Attorney general says federal jurists should defer to president's will

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.

In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. He also raps jurists who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.”

....................

The text of the speech, scheduled for delivery at the American Enterprise Institute, was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. It outlines, in part, what qualities the Bush administration looks for when selecting candidates for the federal bench.

“We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.”

more at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16668110/

[LynnTheDem]

1. So Gonzales says we have a DICTATORSHIP.

Sure would be nice if the bush regime would simply stand up and admit it outright, already.

[bdamomma]

14. bush has already said it.

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." —George W. Bush, July 27, 2001

that quote gave it all away.

[malaise]

74. Remind them n/t

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[MessiahRp]

78. I love how the media takes his comments as if they are jokes

Especially since they never are..

The dicatorship joke was right onto his line of thinking.

Saying 2001 was a great year for him and Laura was true, it secured the aforementioned dictatorship.

He joked about weapons of mass destruction and the "trifecta".

He pumped his fist and said "that feels good" when he started bombing Iraq.

The man is fucking evil.

He doesn't joke, he makes freudian slips.

Rp

[bdamomma]

121. when have you ever known a living President to say such

a thing, this comment should of tipped us off. Now we have decreased or lack of our Constitutional Rights and less privacy rights. This is one of many quotes he has made,

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." --George W. Bush, Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." —George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"I'm the commander — see, I don't need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." —George W. Bush, as quoted in Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"

[coalition_unwilling]

148. Rumsfeld, Gates, Rice and Cheney are "evil" But I would argue that Bush is

a pathological narcissist, as Christopher Lasch and others employ the term. His pathological narcissism forestalls him from being "evil" (at least in the Shakespearean Iago-esque sense), as his pathology controls him rather than his controlling his pathology.

[Orsino]

128. And he *always* takes the easy path.

Easy for himself, that is.

[kath]

186. he said it earlier than that, Alyce - 6 days after he was appointed by the Felonious Five

Dec. 18, 2000:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

I heard it on the radio at the time and just about drove the car off the road. How utterly inappropriate, ESPECIALLY right after he'd been appointed to office, not elected.

As a matter of fact, he's expressed similar sentiments at least 5 times!:

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/repeatoffender.phtml?offense=dictator

[indepat]

73. When will the Congress impeach this official expressing so un-American views?

[LynnTheDem]

81. When the majority of Americans get over the brainwashing

they've been suffering for the past several decades and wake the fuck up to reality and facts as to what has been and is being done in our names and say "NO MORE".

[indepat]

147. It can't be soon enough

[LynnTheDem]

199. Amen to that!

[stonecoldsober]

93. Never in my life have I found myself wondering

if the presidency would be 'relinquished' by a 2nd term president. So we do in effect have a dictatorship already. What if Bush fails to step down? The very fact that I take that question seriously is all I need to know.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

159. Bush slowly crossing the Rubicon - first signing statements, now this

He's ignoring the will of the people in his signing statements, that reinterpret the law enacted by the representatives of the people. Now he threatens to ignore the supreme law of the land, as interpreted by the highest court of the land.

[LiberalFighter]

169. Gonzales is more unfit as AG then USSCJ as justices

He was also unfit as a justice in the Texas Supreme Court.

[havocmom]

2. Isn't the AG supposed to be the NATION'S lawyer?

This clown enabler needs to go.

[EFerrari]

7. The AEI needs to be investigated for sedition.

They are a factory for fascists.

[fooj]

123. "factory for fascists"

Well said.:thumbsup:

[libnnc]

184. added to my vocab as well

[wordpix]

207. some are libertarians---but I don't get why libertarians would support * or this war

that's cost us $400 billion, 3000+ US lives and 23,000 wounded, not to mention 1/2 million Iraqis displaced and hundreds of thousands(?) killed.

[mwb970]

44. Gonzales is betraying his country.

He writes these long memos justifying whatever fresh hell Cheney has come up with, and is paid handsomely for destroying our Constitution.

Boy, these guys are sure lucky that Americans don't care about their country enough to do anything about all this! What a break for them.

[SemperEadem]

141. he certainly needs to be censured for making that remark

and reminded of his duties. Frankly, there is no way the media should not put the dictatorship question to him and the rest of that band of boneheads.

[wryter2000]

59. Sometimes I'd rather look at Cheney than this bastard's smarmy little face

I'd love to give him a good dose of unfit. :mad:

[coalition_unwilling]

149. Reminds me of the intense dislike I felt towards Rumsfailed and

the even more intense dislike I feel towards Gates. Rumsfailed reminds me a bit of Heinrich Himmler. Gates reminds me of Adolf Eichmann, the tidy little bureaucrat making sure the "trains run on time."

[enlightenment]

96. Isn't the AG also an "unelected official"?

Nasty little wanker should take his own advice.

[gollygee]

3. Yeah, who cares about division of powers

or checks and balances? We don't need anything like that! We should just make Bush emperor, like Napoleon. That would solve EVERYTHING!

[BayCityProgressive]

8. Once again

anyone who doesn't believe we are being ruled by a right wing dictator are dreaming or lying to themselves. He wasn't elected in the first election and the second was highly questionable. He has stripped us of civil liberties, uses signing statements, and takes powers of the courts and congress.

[PurpleChez]

181. Re-election based on an illegitimate incumbency is itself illetgitimate.

So there!

[coalition_unwilling]

150. I know you're being facetious (at least I hope so), but * has already

had his Napoleon moment. Iraq is Bush's Russia (or at least his Stalingrad). Please don't insult Napoleon by using his name in the same post as *'s. Napoleon actually did a lot of progressive things, like freeing serfs.

[Neecy]

4. y'know....

Mr. Torture is one of the real evil henchmen behind the throne.

If Congress isn't going to impeach the chimp or Cheney, they should impeach Gonzales for this speech alone.

[crim son]

5. The judges are unfit but the Pretzel isn't?

We need this man out of office. Now.

[wizstars]

130. Caesar had his Brutus, Richard the First had his Cromwell......

...and GEORGE THE LESSER may profit by their example!!

If this be treason, then MAKE THE MOST OF IT!!!!!!!

:mad: :mad: F***ING :mad: !!

[SemperEadem]

142. Richard I Plantagenet, Coeur de Leon? I don't think so.

Thomas Cromwell served Henry VIII Tudor. Oliver Cromwell rose to power during Charles I Stuart's reign.

[coalition_unwilling]

151. Oliver Cromwll rose to power following the deposing of Charles I, not

during Charles' reign. Still, thanks for the corrective note. Important to keep our Cromwell's straight :)

[SemperEadem]

162. History disagrees with you

He had to have established the fact that he had enough power in order to even convince Parliament and the rest of England that he could overtake Charles I.


In the 1630s Cromwell experienced a religious crisis and became convinced that he would be guided to carry out God's purpose. He began to make his name as a radical Puritan when, *in 1640, he was elected to represent Cambridge, first in the Short Parliament and then in the Long Parliament.

Civil war broke out between King Charles I and parliament in 1642. Although Cromwell lacked military experience, *he created and led a superb force of cavalry, the 'Ironsides', and rose from the rank of captain to that of lieutenant-general in three years. *He convinced parliament to establish a professional army - the New Model Army - which won the decisive victory over the king's forces at Naseby (1645). The king's alliance with the Scots and his subsequent defeat in the Second Civil War convinced Cromwell that the king must be brought to justice. *He was a prime mover in the trial and execution of Charles I in 1649 and subsequently sought to win conservative support for the new republic by suppressing radial elements in the army. (Once the King was dead), Cromwell became army commander and lord lieutenant of Ireland, where he crushed resistance with the massacres of the garrisons at Drogheda and Wexford (1649).

Cromwell then defeated the supporters of the king's son Charles II at Dunbar (1650) and Worcester (1651), effectively ending the civil war. 4 year after Charles I's death, in 1653, frustrated with lack of progress, he dissolved the rump of the Long Parliament and, after the failure of his Puritan convention (popularly known as Barebones Parliament) *made himself lord protector*. In 1657 he refused the offer of the crown. At home Lord Protector Cromwell reorganised the national church, established Puritanism, readmitted Jews into Britain and presided over a certain degree of religious tolerance. Abroad, he ended the war with Portugal (1653) and Holland (1654) and allied with France against Spain, defeating the Spanish at the Battle of the Dunes (1658). Cromwell died on 3 September 1658 in London. After the Restoration his body was dug up and hanged.

[coalition_unwilling]

222. Yeah, after I posted I double-checked and I believe your take

is far more accurate than mine. The closet monarchist in me believes that no one else can assume position of Chief of State until the current ruling monarch is dead or deposed, i.e., "The King is dead. Long live the King." But upon more reflection and review, your original statement is accurate.

[wizstars]

224. thanks for keeping me straight, I was quoting from (an obviously faulty) memory....

....but I trust the point was clear. My bad.

:dunce:

[mod mom]

6. Can't someone arrest these guys for crimes against the constitution (for starts)

and then proceed to the war crimes tribunal? Seriously! enough is enough!

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Serious question: Can Congress oust a presidential appointment?

At best, Gonzales is committing malfeasance if he acts upon such statements. At worst, he is a traitor. In either case, it is vitally necessary for the security of this country and the preservation of the Constitution that he be removed from office immediately.

But what can be done?

[Neecy]

15. I think so

He was confirmed by the Senate, so I believe he (and any of Bush's cabinet) can be removed by the Senate as well.

[madokie]

19. just thinking but wouldn't that be by impeachment too

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. Apparently, appointees can be impeached

I was asking one of my co-workers when another spoke up. She pointed out that the power of impeachment extends to all members of the Judicial and Executive branches. (Each house of Congress has the power to expel their own members without resorting to impeachment.) Although she can't recall any case where it was used against a cabinet member, theoretically it does exist and could be used to remove Gonzales.

If Congress refuses to impeach the Traitor-In-Chief, how about they go after the other traitors in the Junta?

[shraby]

40. Any civil officer can be impeached. Read

your constitution.

[The Wizard]

91. On top of it all

Gonzo is a lousy lawyer who I wouldn't hire to defend a parking ticket.

[ProudDad]

194. Impeachment

[EFerrari]

10. Jinx. AEI turns out authoritarians faster than my puppy eats treats.

I hear them on BookTV on the weekend occasionally and they scare the hell out of me.

[Prophet 451]

100. Forget impeachment

We don't have that kind of time. Is there a provision in the Constitution for removing a President on the grounds that he is "mentally unfit for command"? I'm thinking something similar to the military rule that a superior officer can be relieved of command if he's gone freaking tonto.

[PurpleChez]

182. Yes, but I forget who has to cerrtify that the fucker is unfit.

You know Cheney ain't gonna do it. Or any of the other toady enablers in the administration.

[ProudDad]

195. It's all in the 25th Amendment...

"Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President."


"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."


Not likely...

[PurpleChez]

208. I no longer remembered which Amendment...

civics was a long time ago. I just remembered that Darth Cheney was involved somehow. As you say...not bloody likely....

[bdamomma]

11. Gonsalves just another smirking lap dog

defer to the will of the President, :wtf:

[ananda]

12. Bush: dry drunk abusive parent syndrome.

Gonzalez is the child who agrees with and supports the abusive parent no matter what, makes his excuses, and aids him in punishing or banishing anyone who disagrees.

So sad.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

217. Never thought of this before, IRCC Gonzales father was a drunk?

Am I recalling this correctly? If so, then he would be an enabler in the addiction cycle setting.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. Disbar this asshole now. Remove him from office.

He isn't fit to be a paralegal.

Memo to AG AG: Read the Constitution and some Supreme Court cases before you call a press conference.

[LiberalFighter]

22. That would be better... disbar the sob but also make his life miserable

[davekriss]

16. Gonzales is such an idiot

A traitor to the American system. He should be impeached, tried, convicted, imprisoned -- hey, offered a nice golden parachute to just go away and stop trying to remake the United States into a fascist dictatorship. He is an embarrassment to our republic.

[Demeter]

45. As Long As That Parachute Lands Him In Iraq, It's Okay with Me!

[fooj]

216. I don't want him to just go away. I want him to be held accountable.

:grr:

We can play by the rules and STILL fry his skanky ass.

[Hosnon]

17. I, and the Supreme Court, tend to agree with him.

The Court has repeatedly noted that it is ill-equipped to determine policy. That is for the two political branches of the federal government.

However, this only applies to determinations of policy. The Court can, and must, take cases dealing with the law and judge accordingly.

[kestrel91316]

75. So fascist dictatorship is fine with you?

I'm not surprised.

[Hosnon]

80. Of course not. And I don't quite get your comment.

Policy is not the Judiciary's job. Policy is to be determined by the two political branches of government: the Executive and the Legislature.

However, it is still the courts' job to interpret the law and rule accordingly.

[Bob3]

105. This AG's idea of what the word policy means is very broad

it includes things like whether or not the president needs to obey the law of the land (which the AG has already said he doesn't) in cases like tapping phone lines without a warrant.

[GOTV]

114. But is that all he's saying?

Because that seems non-controversial. So much so that I don't know what would have prompted him to say it.

What judge has issued policy for the nation?

Isn't he saying that the Judiciary can not rule on the legality of policy decisions?

[coalition_unwilling]

152. U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, in effect

set policy for the nation by reversing through stare decisis a previous court's ruling in Plessy v. Fergusson (which had ruled constitutional the doctrine of 'separate but equal' in 1896.

[krispos42]

139. The courts don't have a policy agenda

The Democrats and Republicans have agendas that influence their overall lawmaking. For example, Republicans are anti-tax, and this way of thinking permeates all aspects of their legislation. They will consistantly attach tax credits, breaks, loophole, and deductions to any piece of legislation that they can if they can get away with it because they are following an ideal of some sort.

Courts don't do that. The National Association of Federal Judges don't have an annual meeting where they say "This term, we're going to gut marijuana laws", and then it's members procede to rule in favor of people caught with weed.

The judges and juries consider specific examples in specific circumstances only. Judge Diggs did not rule that domestic surveillence was illegal, only that the specific fashion that the Bush Administration was doing it was illegal.

However, that specific fashion that was ruled illegal was part of Bush's anti-terrorist policy, so Gonzi there decided that the federal bench must have some sort of agenda that is anti-Bush. I guess Gonzi is of the opinion that the since it is part of Bush's policy, is should be unquestioned and unchallenged and made both de facto law and de facto Constitutional.

[PurpleChez]

183. That's not what (s)he said.

[mmonk]

18. The constitution isn't "policy" or "activism".

[redirish28]

21. Bwteen these comments and what is happening with the 11 Attorneys being forced out

And you see the Administration basically making one branch of government almost unequal...


Add to this the fact that eariler parts of the Patriot acts in the past that basically allowed congress to be dissolved and allowing President all power in light of another terrorist attack and you have a dictatorship in the oven.

[mmonk]

23. Seems while the dems in congress work on their 100 hour plan,

the rightwing in this country is working on another unchecked plan of their own.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach

There has never EVER been an act so demanding of impeachment than Bush's full-frontal attack on the Constitution. The Congress is fiddling while the Constitution burns.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

[mwb970]

51. If we don't get rid of these people NOW, we never will.

I don't know what it will take to get action, but this administration is dangerous to our country and must GO. But there's nobody to do it for us. A huge majority of us want them gone, and there they sit. Maddening.

[SusanaMontana41]

215. Hear hear!

For the whole motley crew.

Heard Jonathan Turley describe Gonzo as "more General than Attorney." Now that's a perfect description.

[barbtries]

25. from these snippets

it seems plain that the last thing on the mind of this lawyer is the LAW. disgusting, and scary

[Marnieworld]

26. I actually gasped at this headline

Anyone who went to elementary school here would know what an unAmerican concept this is. Just watch 1776 and you'd know it. These people are traitors to our country, to the Constitution and I think they know it too.

I still believe they will be stopped. Think how far we've come in consciousness raising since the fall of 2002.

Gonzales, Yoo, they are co-conspirators in my book. Off to the Hague with them all!

[halobeam]

113. Who will stop them and how do you think they will do it?

[The Wielding Truth]

136. Congressional hearings and public scrutiny will cause resignations.

[rexcat]

27. All judges do in this type of case is determine if the law is constitutional...

therefore what he is saying is judges are not capable and should not determine a law as constitutional or unconstitutional. With this type of reasoning we should amend the Constitution and abolish the judiciary.

I must say that Gonzales is a complete fucking asshole, but look who nominated him and look who approved his nomination! His disregard for the Constitution is behond the pale.


edited for spelling and clarity

[spanone]

28. and when it comes to voting, the voters should defer to the will of Junior.

Alberto should be in Gitmo.

[IWantAChange]

29. What an oxymoron - the "Patriot Act" is - this neocon manifesto must be changed or repealed.

[Botany]

30. Hey, Alberto

Check this out .... 3 co-equal branches.

[Felinity]

50. Speaking of the Constitution

Here's an idea--

The Democrats in Congress should quote verbatim from the Constitution and start passing it into law.

For example: the part about not abridging the right of habeas corpus; or the part where it says the three branches of government are equal.

Do you think * would veto them, or just qualify with one of his famous signing statements?

[halobeam]

116. interesting... and yeah.. he would sign statements.

little risky?

[Felinity]

158. How so? n/t

[bonito]

31. They want loyalist

Patriot, loyalist or worse yet in assault of liberty
By PHILIP C. RESTINO
COMMUNITY VOICES

Being a loyalist is easy. Being a patriot takes the courage to speak out in protest, albeit courage that any one of us can muster. Mark Twain wrote, "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

During these very troubling times in our country's history when our basic liberties are under attack, we can choose to be a patriot, a loyalist or worse yet, to continue to sit it out.
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/opnOPN74011707.htm

[underpants]

36. They want God to be the only decider

This is born out of the religous right insisting that man is unable to judge only GOD can. Actually this is the political low hanging fruit that they perpetuate to keep the thumpers happy and to gain more power for themselves(under the guise of strengthening the executive branch).

[colorado_ufo]

88. No trouble with God being the decider -

it's the people who think God speaks through them. Or want everything ELSE to think God speaks through them!

Our judicial system is a precious jewel of democracy and essential to our freedom; Gonzalez is nothing more than a dangerous, brown-nosing little toady.

[thereismore]

32. Even if the President were a democrat? nt

[SutaUvaca]

33. This is simply too outrageous!!

This dangerous man has got to be removed from his office.
Holy freakin' cow!! I cannot believe an attorney general of the United States has said such a thing.
How the hell will this country get out of this constitution-shredding mess??

[harun]

34. If you look at the rhetoric from this camp over the last

10 years that is exactly what they believe. From the beginning of their run it seems they want a democracy to elect a president where the president then has the power of a dictator. You can see examples of this all over the place. It is absolutely what Cheney thinks.

[leftyladyfrommo]

35. All Hail Caesar!

Like I would trust anyone in the Bush adm. to have a clue about anything legal.

[OwnedByFerrets]

37. But will ANYONE do ANYTHING about this

crap? Or will they just pretend that it didnt happen and hum in the darkness?

[gordianot]

38. Gonzales forgets the "unelected judiciary" elected Bush in 2000

The Judiciary was not viewed as inferior is 2000. They can say this outrageous crap and the "inferior" liberal media seldom pays attention or calls them on it.

“We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.”

On second thought Gonzales may have that right, when the judiciary selected Bush, national security went down the sewer.

[BuyingThyme]

39. Why the fuck haven't impeachment hearings been held for this Puke?

[emmadoggy]

41. Trying.. to...pick my ...jaw...up...off ...the....floor.......

:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

[underpants]

42. Gonzo also says defense attorneys are to blame for no Gitmo convictions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3137778&mesg_id=3137778

[LaloBorges]

43. Gonzales is a very dangerous rat

When I think about Gonzales I always picture a rat as depicted in cartoons, one like on the Disney movie of "Basil the Great Mouse Detective". He is a very dangerous man and if I am not mistaken, he was key to many execution decisions when bush was governor of Texas. He is a little dangerous rat and must not be taken lightly, he knows the law and will twist it to accomodate policies.

[wryter2000]

64. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Canuckistanian]

201. Gonzales, John Yoo and Viet Dinh

Especially John "Bush has the right to torture children" Yoo.

The true axis of evil.

And you're right about Gonzales. He IS a rat who will twist the already strained definition of the Constitution to suit his evil ends.

And BTW, welcome to DU!
:toast: :hi:

[dkofos]

46. Is it time to FLOOD the WH & AG's office with copies of the

CONSTITUTION.
Maybe they will see one and read it (if they are capable of reading).

I'm sure they won't bother

[Frustratedlady]

49. Well, it is sure time to flood the media with emails!

I'm definitely heading for CNN and MSNBC. I want to see Cafferty and Olbermann bite into this bit of news and shake the devil out of it.

[nolabels]

52. They won't have much use for it unless it's on a roll

http://www.old-fashioned-values.com/get_item_icarta-ipod-roll_icarta-ipod-toilet-paper-holder.htm

[Peace Patriot]

65. Is that a voting machine? n/t

[lovuian]

47. War & Terrorism makes Bush a dictator and Americans

won't allow it... Bush is NOT charismatic

[mmonk]

53. He already can have you picked up

and held at an undisclosed location without access to counsel nor habeus corpus nor any due process of law. You need to scratch the won't allow it part.

[sakabatou]

48. Do we start calling * Mein Fuhrer?

[tandot]

54. Bush is completely and utterly unfit to be president

IMPEACH NOW!

America will no longer "defer to the will of the president"

We had enough.

[donkeyotay]

161. Another focus group, along with the congress and the American people

Another way of saying that a court should sit on its opinion and "defer to the will of the president" is to say "The president is above the law," or even more succinctly, "Obey."

I, for one, am sick of national security being used as an iron curtain against the checks and balances that make America free. It is true, our country MIGHT be destroyed by terrorists. But why let this administration preempt the possibility and destroy it for sure?

[aggiesal]

55. Where did this guy get his law degree?

I'll make sure my kids never go to that school.

And I thought the Attorney General works for us.
My bad.

[Kagemusha]

56. It's not what Gonzales is saying, it's the smarmy way he's saying it

You wouldn't find an attorney general for FDR who would argue that the courts should interfere in the legitimate conduct of war. Stuffing in their faces that they aren't qualified to decide what's legitimate is going a bit far and is challenging the entire principle of checks and balances on the executive branch, not just in war but in peace (and particularly if there is perpetual war).

[Prophet 451]

111. More than that

It attacks the very concept of the rule of law and that concept is the bedrock of civilisation.

[coalition_unwilling]

154. It's both what he's saying AND the smarmy way he's saying it -n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

57. ProfessorGAC: Gonazales Is Unfit For Public Service

And is unfit to question the system of government.
The Professor

[NewJeffCT]

61. I could think of some good public services he could do...

Cleaning along roadways as part of a chain gang, for one...

[ProfessorGAC]

70. OK, You're Right

I didn't think of that. Good one!
The Professor

[undeterred]

58. Gonzales is unfit to be an attorney

if he is that unclear on the Constitution.

[Peace Patriot]

60. Here's what I was going to say, and its implications are interesting:

I was going to say that I'm just about ready for a LEFTIST dictatorship. Demolish the AEI. Shut 'em down. To Hell with rightwing "bought and paid for" free speech! Orange jumpsuits for Gonzales and a few others (--although my favorite punishment for Bushites is a lifetime of cleaning bedpans in Veterans' hospitals). Nullify the "trade secret," proprietary vote count of 2004, and all Bush appointments and "edicts" since then. Dismantle the corporate oil giants, pull their corporate charters, seize their assets for the public good. Dismantle the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, pull their license to use the public airwaves, and open up our public airwaves for political debate only among people making less than $50,000 a year.

It was a great fantasy--as American democracy seems to be breathing its final gasps.

But then I got to thinking what kind peril the Bushites have put themselves in, with all these outrageous extralegal assertions of power--to spy, to detain, to torture, to unsign bills passed by Congress....

Of course, this is what the "balance of powers" and the Bill of Rights are all about--to protect the minority, to assure the rights of those who are out of power. And this is why the Bush Junta's behavior is so stupid, ultimately. The powers that they are asserting can be turned against them.

Some people fear that martial law is coming--that the Junta will simply not give up power--and that we are about to lose ALL our rights in a Nazi boots clampdown. But when I look around me--at the polls, for instance, showing only 13% support for sending more troops to Iraq (--and a Gallup poll at that, which means the real stat is more like 5%)--70% wanting the Iraq War ended now, 84% opposed to any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war--the dissent in the military, both exiting generals opposing an escalation, even Daddy Bush chiming in with the "Iraq Study Group" report (trying to put the brakes on Dimson and a Mideast conflagration), and even the war profiteering corporate news monopolies wanting more Democrats in Congress (--unleashing an old pedophile scandal on the Bushites just before the election)...these things and more...the sheer size of our country and its cultural variety (so unlike Germany), the absence of Nazi youth groups marching around (virtually no one buying the war propaganda, or anything else)...

I just don't see how they could do it--clamp down on the U.S. I think it's a rightwing fantasy (--that bleeds over into the left's paranoia). How, practically, could it be done?

I can see how they can attack Iran and get away with it--and try to involve all future Democrats in protecting Exxon-Mobile's oil fields. That's a plausible scenario. But I don't see how they can survive the explosion of dissent and opposition that will occur as a result. For one thing, we simply don't have the money (not to mention the troops) to occupy Iran. So they attack Iran--then what? Another plausible scenario is that they attack US here at home (--what many people believe they did on 9/11). Another "terrorist" attack that disrupts the government--maybe followed by martial law, suspension of Congress, etc. But where are they going to get the troops to control THIS country in that case? They've bled us of National Guard! Most of the military is in Iraq. How are they going to control all the people on these two huge land masses--the U.S. and the Middle East?

I'm just sitting here shaking my head. Yeah, their assertions of power are damned scary--but what of their ABILITY to use those powers? It's EMPTY power. Almost no one supports them. Down the line, maybe, when this country is as poor and abject as Germany was in 1932, they or someone else could conceivably convince the majority to 'sieg heil.' But that is not the case now. Far from it. The American people have obviously grown impervious to the 24/7 war propaganda.

So maybe what we have more to fear--than some desperate Bush/Cheney moves to avoid prosecution and removal from power--is a future "liberal" Corporatist (a la Clinton) coming BACK into power, and using the spy network, and the detention, and the torture, to keep WINGERS out of their hair, while they re-impose global free piracy on an reluctant world, privatize everything, throw a few sops to the slave labor, and institute a Draft. Hell, I might end up joining a winger militia!

Could it be that all this Bush Junta stuff that gets you in the gut--suspension of habeas corpus, torture, ripping up the Constitution and so on--and even the war, are DISTRACTIONS? And that what's REALLY going on, or rather, what's really important, is...the consolidation of CORPORATE power. Not military and police power. But the power of Corporations and their "trade secret," proprietary vote tabulation choice in '08, for instance, to override Congress on global free piracy, or to prevents moves to pull their charters and curtail their media and lobbying power. They may like the violent enforcement power, but that's not what they're really after. They're after the "signing statement" power!

Bait and switch. While Bush is dazzling us with his dramatic tyrannical assertions, and escalating in Iraq--items sure to get the Left (the majority) upset--the Corporate Rulers have no intention of poisoning the Middle East with nukes, or permitting an extensive war. There is not much profit to be had in that (--beyond what they've already drained out of our treasury). But there IS profit in squeezing the poor, here and abroad (South America, for instance), and looting all the earth's last resources, everywhere they may be found (--again, South America comes to mind). And for that final plundering, they need to have power over, 1) our election results, and 2) any residual populist sentiment in Congress. Diebold takes care of the first, and to some extent the second. Bush's "signing statements" takes care of the rest. (--also, spying for blackmail of any of our reps who slip thru Diebold's "trade secret" programming, and who cannot be bought). It could be that the Corporate Rulers don't give a crap what happens to Bush and Cheney. Maybe they're just as discardable as all those leftists and peasants that the Corporate Rulers threw out of airplanes and buried in mass graves in Latin America in the '80s (with the help of some operators in the Bush/Cheney Junta). Maybe they'd just as soon see Bush/Cheney immolate themselves on the Mideast pyre, as long as Congress never challenges the most important (to them) of the president's new imperial powers.

Are we all talking about the wrong thing? It's not the war; it's the "signing statements" (and Diebold). Well, I wouldn't say, don't talk about the war, or protest it. Of course we should. But haven't y'all noticed the hollow quality to the war debate, in the corporate media? It FEELS like bait and switch. Maybe it's just bait and switch regarding motives (real motive: more war profiteering). But it could be bait and switch regarding EVERYTHING. And it certainly wouldn't surprise me to find our soldiers' lives, and Iraqi and Iranian lives, being used this way--as a distraction. That's how the lives in the WTC were used.

[peacetalksforall]

108. In answer to this paragraph from your well thought out presentation:

"I'm just sitting here shaking my head. Yeah, their assertions of power are damned scary--but what of their ABILITY to use those powers? It's EMPTY power. Almost no one supports them. Down the line, maybe, when this country is as poor and abject as Germany was in 1932, they or someone else could conceivably convince the majority to 'sieg heil.' But that is not the case now. Far from it. The American people have obviously grown impervious to the 24/7 war propaganda. "

I say in response -
I fear that if they are given enough time - we will have Chinese and African policemen and women to conduct the enforcement needed for martial law. Or it can be the soldiers of any country they have recently befriended before that country is betrayed as seems to be the case in all their relationships most leaders of countries that the Cheney and Kissinger types get friendly with and then betray. Panama, Iraq, Iran, to name a few.

George made a comment about how great it could be if Africans could be peacekeepers.
Our debt to China could be protected by a statement and policy that dissentors need to be removed from the streets and placed in all those new prisons that someone built around our own country - that might be a better way for China to make sure that laborers in this country keep working to pay our debt to them. Other motives could be an alliance with Cheney-Kissing people that was made a couple of decades ago.

Before laughing - think of this -

I believe the AEI is the think tank for PNAC. If they can sit around tables and come up with the horrendous things that are being revealed to us - then why can't we think just as protectively? We can project out anything we want to attempts to figure out where they are going next. Certainly - someone has to think out - because our Dem leaders don't even seem to keep up with Republican madness and when they do - say milquetoast things. At least some of them.

May I remind everyone - Russ Feingold was the ONLY Senator to vote against the Patriot Act.

He should be placed on a pedestal along with those in the House who were against it.

Our only hope is that what they are doing right now is protection against our own law to save themselves. But, it's obvious they have had a long term plan for our submissiveness and obedience and non-dissension and it appears they are moving full steam ahead.

[Prophet 451]

117. The military

Towards the end of the Watergate crisis, someone pointed out to Nixon that he was still commander-in-chief and as long as he was, he still had control of the military. Perhaps the best that can be said of Nixon is that at the tipping point, he stepped back from that.

Chimpy wouldn't even think hard about it. He would do it without a moment's hesitation. And so long as no-one they knew was disappeared, so long as they still had Desperate Housewives and ABC News to lull them back to sleep, the majority would let him. Oh, when you asked them directly, they might express disapproving views but they won't protest, the won't write letters or organise, they'll just bitch to their buddies in teh pub and go back to their lives.

And actually, there's an awful lot of profit in poisoning the Mid-East with nukes. You're assuming that the junta wants to sieze and sell the oil or the oil rights. That's profitible but if you're entirely cold-blooded and very cunning, a Machiavelli, for example or a Havelock Vetinari (Terry Pratchett's thankfully fictional consumate politico), there's even more profit in not selling it. Basic rule of supply and demand is that as a resource becomes scarcer, the price goes up. If much of the Mid-East is radioactive and it's oil is unclaimable, what happens to the price of oil then? It goes through the roof and suddenly, you're not looking at billions from Iraq or Iran's oil markets, you're looking at trillions from crude at five hundred or seven hundred or a thousand dollars a barrel. All you have to do is tie up the alternative supplies and you can name your own price and people will pay it.

[coalition_unwilling]

155. Chair of the JCoStaffs gave explicit orders that any direct orders to

subordinate commanders from the Nixon White House had to be vetted by him personally before being executed in the final days of the Nixon WH. Somehow I just can't see Peter (Pan) Pace issuing a similar directive. Actually, I am sorry I insulted Peter Pan by using his sacred name in the same sentence as that of the Joint Chief of War Criminals.

[angrychair]

220. USA is all but lost

Great post Prophet! I could not agree more. The advantages to the neocons is great. The Democrats would have not choice but to allow drilling the ANWR and off the east coast and it would help secure partnerships with our Asian allies and bring Russia back away from the edge and create a new OPEC.
It puts potential economic and military problem areas like China and India on a leash and sets the tone for the New World Order. The concept may not be far from the truth. It will likely come from Israel attacking Iran and we will fall inline to protect it. Throw in an attack that will allow * to shut-out congress and take control of the country (thank you patriot act), locking it down through NORTHCOM.

You have to love the little "hints" that are being thrown in. AG of the United States telling (for all intents and purposes) federal judges that they are to "defer to the Presidents will" on matters of policy is disturbing and shocking but you can't find that article anywhere on Yahoo news or CNN. The fact that this "surge" takes our troop level back to what it was in December of 2005 and depends on the Iraqis doing the job that they were already supposed to be doing. That plan is doomed to fail and they know it. There is more to it. They are dragging their feet, I wonder why? (see Prophet post and above).

[brindis_desala]

144. Another amazing post from P.P.! Someone gets it!

Look around the world- who are our "strategic allies"? Religious states and/or dictatorships: primary among them- Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Israel and ...what for it... IRAN! (Current propaganda nonwithstanding)
There is a reliability to entrenched authoritarian regimes. Many remain unable to grasp that when it comes to making policy the politicians are merely the hired hands.

For instance, I found this overlooked tidbit extremely interesting:
"Ayatollah's grandson calls for US overthrow of Iran"

By PHILIP SHERWELL
12:51am BST 19/06/2006

"The grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, the inspiration of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, has broken a three-year silence to back the United States military to overthrow the country's clerical regime."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/18/ixnews.html

Contrary to popular myth the U.S. and Britain were long wary of the SHAH who was dead-set building IRAN into a modern power.

From declassified 1963 State Dept. memoranda:
SUBJECT: Discussion of Near East Developments and OPEC
"Mr. Roosevelt demurred saying that as for the Shah he had spent two hours with him a few days ago, and he had found that the Shah had a very clear understanding of the offer and of Rouhani's counter proposals. Mr. Parkhurst asked if the Shah understood why the offer is the maximum which the companies can make. Mr. Roosevelt said that he does. However, he noted that the Shah had said that bargaining is what the companies and governments will have to live with for a number of years to come.

Mr. Page noted that Faysal now says that the situation is a political problem for him. Page remarked that the problem is one of Faysal's own making. If too much steam is put behind the issue, it will get out of hand. If there is a final breakdown between companies and governments, it will be "real warfare", he said.

(From the POLK report):
the Shah's control over the repressive machinery of his government is tightened. However, the Shah now speaks for an even smaller proportion of the ruling elite than was the case here two years ago. There is notable dissatisfaction within the ruling circle,

Indeed, if the assassination of President Kennedy should be followed by the assassination of the Shah as everyone, including the Shah, thought possible, there is no single institution upon which the Iranian Government would devolve.


Policy Implications in the NEA area of President Kennedy's death./2/

4. The Shah will need fresh assurances.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/kennedyjf/xviii/26387.htm

I strongly suspect the 1979 hostage crisis was a covert CIA action orchestrated to embarrass Carter and install Khomeini. The last thing the barons of the petrodollar want to see is a vibrant Middle East democracy sitting on the last of the world's cheap sweet crude. Autonomous states with functioning democracies are an impediment to power and profit. With Global capitalism triumphant, we at home are simply no longer exempt.

[NewJeffCT]

62. A majority of federal judges have been appointed by Republicans

But, I guess Gonzalez won't let things like "facts" get in the way of him making his point.

[BlueJac]

63. Only the judges Bush does not appoint..........

the rest will be used to protect Bush and the crime family.

Hope seems to be slipping away as Bush continues his war against the American people.

Bush hates the Constitution, he abuses it everyday.

What happened to everyone in Washington DC that swore to uphold and protect the Constitution? Where in the hell are they and why aren't they fighting hard to do their jobs?

[Cheap_Trick]

66. two words for you, speedy

FUCK YOU

[MidwestTransplant]

67. Hey Alberto...everybody thinks you guys are a total joke. Nobody will

defer to you on anything.

[noonwitch]

68. So much for a separation of powers, in his mind

I guess he forgot his high school government class, and the lesson on checks and balances.

[mmonk]

69. Everyone posting on this thread email

The House Judiciary Committee today and request of them to uphold their oaths and protect the Constitution (use this Gonzales story if you want). Encourage others to do so.

http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx

[Frustratedlady]

87. Done

These characters need to understand that such attitudes and beliefs are not acceptable, and they will only understand that when the public rises up and states their disgust. If we can't protest in person, we can certainly protest through a flood of emails.

[diane in sf]

157. My letter to the committee:

Please prevent Bush, Gonzalez and the neocons from firing US attorneys because they are pursuing Republican racketeering.
Please get rid of the "patriot" acts--they are unconstitutional fascist garbage.
Please never vote again for bills proffered ny neocon criminals that you don't read first.
Please stop Bush, Cheney and friends from attacking Iran and escalating the useless war in Iran.
Please vote for legislation to get this counry and the world off oil--it would help global warming and all our other problems.
Please pursue removing these neocon thugs and crooks from office as fast as possible.
Thank you.

[ProudDad]

198. Done

I wrote:

Investigate and impeach now!

[w4rma]

71. Ashcroft looked great compared to this outright fascist and primary author of the Patriot Act. (nt)

[Straight Shooter]

72. How about Gonzales and bush stretching the law to execute condemned prisoners in Texas?

For example, the enormous stretch of the law where a defense attorney actually fell asleep at trial, yet bush allowed him to die. The enormous stretch where a mentally-incompetent borderline-retarded defendant was condemned to death, and bush did nothing to stop it. On and on, more than a few cases like that with bush and gonzales at the helm in Texas.

How about this stretch, where Henry Lee Lucas, a notorious serial killer, was the only one whose case came before bush and was granted clemency?

bush and gonzales have admitted in past interviews that they spent approximately half an hour deciding whether to let a prisoner be executed or not. You can bet that 25 minutes of that half hour was spent shooting the sh*t over unrelated items. What does Gonzales know of criminal law? Nothing, not really. Look at his background.

Yet these two people have the gall to tell judges who take their job seriously to whom they should defer? I've spent 20 years of my life in the criminal justice system and in civil courts. bush and gonzales make the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end.

[MarinCoUSA]

76. Gonzales is a fascist pig! Out with him!!!

n/t

[kestrel91316]

77. Where is Marat when we need him?

[coalition_unwilling]

174. Vive la France! n/t

[kestrel91316]

179. Vive la guillotine!

[The Witch]

79. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE

Judiciary inferior to Congress or the president?

You fuck! THREE! SEPARATE BUT EQUAL!!!

What were you doing in civics class, exploding toads with the Boy King out back by the creek?

:nuke: :mad: :nuke: :mad: :nuke: :mad:

[truth2power]

83. This is not a rhetorical question...

How do these people get through law school? I mean, really, how do they?

So, if you're a lawyer, you can make the most bizarre assertions, and if nobody calls you on it, well, you're home-free. Or maybe I'm just taking this asshat too seriously. There are stupid lawyers, just like there are stupid auto-mechanics or stupid plumbers. Just trying to wrap my mind around it, that's all. :banghead:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

171. I can't believe Torture Boy got thru law school

or that he was awake in government class in high school where they talk about the three branches of government. The judiciary is a check on the other two.

I don't know where he went to law school, probably University of Texas, but that is NOT where I went to law school. And they didn't teach him that the prez is superior to the other two branches in any school.


These idiots don't know about stare decisis (you don't change a previous decision of an appellate court unless there is good reason to do so, as in throwing out 'separate but equal'), they don't know about the concept of judicial review which we have had for two hundred and three years (Marbury v. Madison, 1803), or any of that BASIC STUFF you learn about in law school.

And then when they came out with the abomination of Bush v. Gore, and said "This decision is NOT a precedent", my head exploded. That drives legal types crazy.

AGGGGHHH!! It's a wonder I know my own name -- on a good day.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

172. I can't believe Torture Boy got thru law school

or that he was awake in government class in high school where they talk about the three branches of government. The judiciary is a check on the other two.

I don't know where he went to law school, probably University of Texas, but that is NOT where I went to law school. And they didn't teach him that the prez is superior to the other two branches in any school.


These idiots don't know about stare decisis (you don't change a previous decision of an appellate court unless there is good reason to do so, as in throwing out 'separate but equal'), they don't know about the concept of judicial review which we have had for two hundred and three years (Marbury v. Madison, 1803), or any of that BASIC STUFF you learn about in law school.

And then when they came out with the abomination of Bush v. Gore, and said "This decision is NOT a precedent", my head exploded. That drives legal types crazy.

AGGGGHHH!! It's a wonder I know my own name -- on a good day.

[ProudDad]

200. Gonzales is an example

of the "best" of law school graduates.

They learn the knack of taking any side of any case and then argue that side.

It's just a "bonus" when a fascist like this little turd gets to take the side he believes in...

[truth2power]

203. "taking any side"..

Yes, I was talking to an acquaintance who's a lawyer. She said they argue one side and then leave the room and come back and argue the other side. Gues it makes you better able to know what the other side is going to throw at you.

That being said, I still wonder why he'd want to whore himself to destroy his country. Money and power, again.

[ProudDad]

214. You said it, friend

Money and Power...


Absolute power corrupts absolutely... Lord Acton

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html

[onehandle]

84. What a dick. nt

[Janice325]

85. My first reaction when I read this here was "What the fuck??"

Now I have a migraine.
Fuck Gonzales.
I hope Keith Olbermann will do anyother "Special Commentary" tonight and it gets read into the Congressional Record again.
Fucking Repuke assholes.
k&r

[Jack Rabbit]

86. OK, I hate making this kind of comparison, but this one fits

The law and the will of the leader are one.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-- Rudolf Hess

[Vinca]

89. Gonzales must be honing a new career in stand up comedy.

Surely, he can't be serious.

[geiger]

90. Wait a minute DU'er responders, don't accept the premise in any regard

Basically, Gonzalez is saying "we're smarter than you are." If you buy into one iota of what he is dribbling, that means judges apparently dont have the training, common sense or intelligence to be able to discern national security issues.

Besides the fact that the average American citizen knows when their rights are being trampled on. This is the most outrageous statement I have seen from the Administration thus far, and there have been a lot of them.

[Tatiana]

92. Watch the Senate tomorrow. I hope Leahy nails this bastard.

NOTICE OF FULL COMMITTEE HEARING

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on “Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice” on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 106.

By order of the Chairman


Witness List

Hearing before the
Senate Judiciary Committee
on
Department of Justice Oversight

Thursday, January 18, 2007
Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 106
9:30 a.m.

PANEL I

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice
Washington, DC

[Laurab]

204. Thanks for that info. n/t

[jschurchin]

94. Alberto Gonzales is a traitor and

needs to be tried for treason against the United States. If he is found guilty, the gallows await.

[Zodiak]

102. Not a big fan of the gallows

BUT.....

I would go for life imprisonment in a McDonalds on the fry machine. Or the Hague treatment for endorsing torture.

[Mrspeeker]

95. Scared Yet????

Wait tell the door to door searchs start in the name of security!

[LSK]

97. and yet the current President is the MOST UNQUALIFIED IDIOT EVER

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

98. ITMFA

nt

[drm604]

99. Hopefully the jurists will disagree with him.

I have a feeling that, whatever their politics, they won't appreciate someone trying to make them irrelevant.

[magellan]

101. He's fucking joking, right?

According to BushCo, international law has no jurisdiction over our glorious president, the Supreme Court doesn't, Congress doesn't, and now federal judges and juries don't either? Who DOES have legal authority over this President anymore?

More important, when is someone -- ANYONE -- going to slap Bush** and his bitch Gonzales down hard and put them back in their place? A place, I'd remind fascism deniers, the preceding 42 presidents operated within quite comfortably?

[whistle]

106. No joke, fascism operates because good citizens who know better

....either too afraid to stop it. Fascists like Alberto Gonzales know this and just plow right through our constitution.

[magellan]

110. So he and Bush** can just shit on everything?

I don't buy that. I don't buy that they can undo our Constitution and there's no remedy for it. This is why I've argued it's not about getting the people behind impeachment proceedings -- the people are for the most part out of the loop. Congress on the other hand knows full and well what these traitors are doing, and they're the ones entrusted with the DUTY to impeach in such circumstances. They need to get off their namby-pamby asses and DO IT. The investigations in the House will reveal to the "good citizens" that impeachment was the correct action.

edited, typing too fast in fury

[whistle]

118. BushCo is doing it and none of our elected officials are stopping them

....no one in the courts are stopping them, no groups of citizens are standing up to stop them! Certainly the system can not stop a president who blatantly defies law or worse makes up his own laws with signing statements. Our vote has stopped this president who is right now preparing to issue the 2nd phase orders to invade Iran.

So it looks like we the people must go into the streets to demonstrate solidarity against this president, his regime and the military and take back our country.

[magellan]

129. I just don't see that happening

Most of the people I know in my neighborhood for example haven't got a clue what Bush** is really doing. They don't like him or what he's got us into in Iraq, but they aren't aware of things like this, the underhanded, systematic unraveling of the government and Constitution that he and his cronies have been up to for years. And that's because the media doesn't cover these things properly, if at all, and because Congress hasn't called BushCo on these things in over six years, refusing even to call Bush** a liar about Iraq and WMD. As a result, most Americans give BushCo the benefit of the doubt. They'd never believe our government could go so awry without someone high profile saying something.

Americans have no impetus to protest. Most think the biggest problem is Iraq.

By the time enough people realize what's happened it'll be way too late. Heck, I think it's too late already for the reasons above.

But even if 10 million Americans swarmed DC, the press would under-report the numbers and focus on those who get themselves arrested, painting the whole thing as a product of the "extreme left" and making it easy for Bush** and the rest of the country to ignore. He doesn't care what Americans think anyway, he's made that plain.

That's why it's up to Congress to do something already.

[whistle]

135. In the spring of 1970 the people went into the streets to protest

...Nixon's and Kissinger's escalation of the Vietnam War. They demonstrated in NYC, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Berkley and ultimately at Kent State University in Ohio where National Guard units fired live rounds into a crowd of students killing four and wounding nine other students. It did not bring an immediate stop to the war, and actually did not result in the ouster of Nixon in 1972, but the press and world opinion was turned against the Nixon policies on the war. Nothing will happen overnight, but if the people get into Bush's and Cheney's faces, they will back away or make disastrous blunders which will bring them down..

[NotGivingUp]

190. you are right on all counts

[Blue_In_AK]

103. Hello? Inferior to the Congress or the president?

I thought we were supposed to have three separate but equal branches of government. Must have been some other constitution I was thinking about.

[Le Taz Hot]

104. Here are the Democrats who voted to confirm Gonzales:

Six Democratic senators also backed Bush's nominee: Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Bill Nelson of Florida, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ken Salazar of Colorado.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/04/MNG8TB5NLQ1.DTL

[mmonk]

126. usual suspects.

[mzmolly]

107. Yes, and that's what our founding fathers said!

Oh, wait ......... :freak:

[depakid]

109. And the Dems confirmed this man

who ought to be disbarred.

[Counciltucky]

112. So judges aren't supposed to do their job, eh?

So much for checks and balances...

[Tsiyu]

115. With NO due respect - because Gonzales, you DESERVE NONE

A twelve-year-old is in a better position than your Great LEADER to know what is in the national security interests of our country.

WHAT IS SECURITY? Our Constitution USED to provide every American with security - back when we were free from the fear of unreasonable search and siezure, back when the ENTIRE WORLD didn't look at us as a bunch of bloodthirsty sadists, back when The Bill of Rights MEANT SOMETHING.

How DARE you question any judge who still believes in that Constitution? How dare you?????? You have destroyed my nation, you and your band of thieves and liars and sick, greeedy violent NEOCONS.

If you'd get up off your knees and get your mouth off Bush's you-know-what, you'd see that IF HE KNEW A GODDAMNED THING ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY, WE'D STILL HAVE THE WORLD TRADE CENTER.

May you rot in the hell you have created. I honestly don't know how you evil people sleep at night.


YOU DISGUST ME BUT YOU DON'T SCARE ME!!!!! KARMA'S GONNA GET YOU, DUDE!!!!!!!

[Norquist Nemesis]

119. Gonzo swore to Congress during his approval hearing

that he would be independant. He made sworn statements before them that he would act as the Attorney General for the people, not the president.

Gonzo has time and again provided evidence that he lied to Congress with statement like this. IMPEACH him!

[thunder35]

120. Gonzales thinks Bush is a dictator

[McCamy Taylor]

122. Impeach Gonzalez now!

[niyad]

124. but 5 UNELECTED judges made bush the president--guess THAT part was okay, eh, bertie?

[dicknbush]

125. At his core Gonzales just doesn't understand the law..For instance check this out..

Regarding the brouhaha about Stimson and the lawyers who defend Guantanamo detaines... ALberto says:

-----------------

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales pointed at the detainees' attorneys himself yesterday, telling the Associated Press that their numerous challenges have delayed trials for their clients at Guantanamo Bay.

In an interview with The Post later yesterday, Gonzales said the remarks were "not intended as criticism of defense attorneys doing their jobs" but were "a statement of reality."

"We had to fight many legal battles to get where we are today," he said.

AND HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THIS? THE FACT THAT THE LAW IS BEING FOLLOWED SCRUPULOUSLY? HE"S THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THIS?

[dicknbush]

127. Hmmmmm here is a place to look for rebuttal of this Idiot.

The Supreme Court and the Powers of the Executive: The Adjudication of Foreign Policy
Kimi Lynn King, James Meernik
Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Dec., 1999), pp. 801-824
doi:10.2307/449187

View Article Abstract


Enlarge Page Size


Abstract
Few substantive areas have merited as little empirical scrutiny as the Supreme Court's decisions on the conduct of United States foreign policy. Many scholars have seemingly accepted as axiomatic that Court decisions on foreign policy have been rare and almost always supportive of the President. We challenge these twin assumptions and demonstrate that the Supreme Court has repeatedly issued decisions on the substance and process of American foreign policy, and that while generally supportive of the executive branch, the High Court has often ruled against it. Moreover, we model the outcomes of these decisions emphasizing the importance of the constitutional basis of laws and issues raised in judicial decision-making. We find that the executive branch is least likely to be supported when a case involved civil liberties, and when the executive powers claimed by the President were neither expressly permitted nor prohibited by the Constitution. The executive branch is more likely to emerge victorious when the case involved the supremacy of federal over state law, foreign actors, or the President's constitutional powers.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1065-9129(199912)52%3A4%3C801%3ATSCATP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

[Roland99]

132. Excellent find! You should create a new thread with that!!

[Canuckistanian]

187. Your link needs fixing

Dang, and that looked interesting...

[Roland99]

131. The Judicial Branch is so quaint

[TexasThoughtCriminal]

133. Can't wait to see the first court case to bitch slap this haughty administration

and tell them "STFU, we are co-equal branches of government!"

[deepthought42]

134. I seriously want to slap this a**hole....

Silly me...asking questions and thinking for myself. I should know better! From now on, I'll just mindlessly believe everything the gov't tells me. As if I were a child. :sarcasm:


I guess that's what I get for going to college...and a woman's college at that! I should be ashamed of myself! Tsk tsk...:sarcasm:

[BluePatriot]

137. Ack.

"...unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments"

Um, I thought all 3 branches were equal? These guys are delusional.

[xxqqqzme]

138. ra raw! I feel another Olberman 'special comment' coming on.

[SemperEadem]

140. Oh, for real?

I thought the judiciary was equal to the executive and legislative branches.

He needs to remember that the only reason he's where he is is because of the clowns that just got their asses handed to them in the last election.

If the legislature would write good and fair policy, there would be no need for judicial interpretation. If the president didn't sign in to law bad policy, the judiciary would have no need to interpret. If one branch is deficient, then all branches are deficient. Funny how it wasn't a problem until he got there.

Well, Mr. Gonzales: pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before the fall.

[Kurovski]

143. The impeachment of George and Cheney would take care of that problem.

K&R

[Bluebear]

146. Yes, indeed. nt

[Overseas]

178. And an attorney general who believes in an imperial presidency needs to be impeached too !! /eom

[Kurovski]

219. Pack up the whole crew. They've earned it.

[derby378]

145. Oh, no, he didn't...

Alberto Gonzales is now officially a worse Attorney General than John Ashcroft. Someone needs to smack him with a copy of the Constitution repeatedly.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

153. Gonzalez announces Bush's intention to stage a coup d'etat

Apparently, if the Supreme Court declares Bush policy, actions, signing statements, or his interpretation of the law to be Unconstitutional, he's announcing the Bush Administration's intention to ignore the Supreme Court.

This is akin to the signing statements that Bush attaches to bills, completely altering their nature and offering his own interpretation. This Administration is prepared to reinterpret any Supreme Court decision that doesn't suit them, under the pretext that it touches upon matters of national security.

If Bush intends a defacto coup d'etat that circumvents both the legislature and the courts, it leaves the entire matter up to the citizens of the United States. Their immediate power is that of paying or not paying the taxes that keep Bush afloat.

[Sequoia]

156. Defer to the fool?!

Look Gonzales, you are the inept person who is so totally not qualified for anything except to parrot what your boss tells you. You sold yourself down the river long ago and sold you soul to the devil in the same boat. So shutup already.

[Homer Wells]

160. Sometimes Godwin's Law does NOT apply

sometimes comparisons to the Third Reich are dead-on, and are not designed to be inflammatory!!

The BushCo operation is doing its' level best to emulate the Hitler years, and many are just too damn dumb to see it

:mad: :puke: :grr: :nuke: :scared:

[The Wizard]

196. There is no nice way to say

NAZI

[madrchsod]

163. well that takes a load off my mind

i do not have to worry about who to vote for in the next election because bush plans to stay in power until he decides to leave. dam things will be so much easier....

actually i think the judges are scared to death about what he has said.

[B Calm]

164. Bush: Who in hell are you to judge me?

[jimshoes]

165. Well fuck that...

I wouldn't ask the twit in chief directions to the nearest liquor store let alone defer to his decision making abilities.

[katty]

166. Who's Unfit, Gonzales?! Lapdogs like YOU are unfit!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

167. Was Gonzales from Pinochet's Chile by any chance?

Mr Gonzales, Congress will be keeping a watchful eye on you.

[ikojo]

168. Does Mr Gonzales realize that the Nazis

weren't too fond of anyone who was not white? Why is he sounding like one?

[Initech]

170. So are we NOW living under a dictatorship?

Really, this fucking "My way or the highway" attitude has got to stop. Seriously.

[Rex]

173. Hell, just revoke their judicial review powers!

I mean, they just invented it to give themselves power! :sarcasm:

Shit Habeas Corpus is dead, so is Posse Comitatus. When did we ever need them? :sarcasm:

[jwirr]

175. Has this idiot never heard of the three branches and checks and

balances? God they scare me. They keep saying that there is something wrong with our schools - they are the best proof of that we have.

[Faryn Balyncd]

176. This is the #1 reason why the Senate MUST NOT APPROVE ANY BUSH COURT NOMINEE UNTIL 2009

Gonzalez makes it crystal clear that Bush will not nominate a judge that does not believe in the "Unitary Executive" theory. This newly coined proposition is the a radical judicial philosophy which negates every element of American jurisprudence (masquerading as, but contradicting, strict constructionism). It reverses the long expansion of liberty which, beginning with the Magna Carta in 1215, has held that no man, king or otherwise is above the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta


The Supreme Court can survive a 2 year vacancy, but our democracy cannot survive a judiciary packed with those who worship the "unitary executive".

Any Supreme Court vacancy must remain unfilled as long as criminals occupy the White House.

[goforit]

177. Way to go gonzales.....Rally the left to rise up against TYRRANY!!!!!!

[YankeyMCC]

180. I think perhaps we need a new Constitutional Office created

One elected separately by the people or perhaps appointed solely by the House of Representatives not by the President. Like the separately elected Secretary of State here in Mass and other states. One who's job it is to represent the people only not the government.

[Deja Q]

185. Does that mean the judges are gay?

:wow:

Anybody deferring to a man's will, as far as I know, means one of two things...

[muntrv]

188. So what does gonzo think of Alabama Justice Moore? He's activist too.

[gasperc]

189. impeachment fast track

I'm sensing a strategy by Bush/Rove/Cheney to willfully and purposefully genertate a serious constitutional conflict/crisis to either consolidate more power or galvanize public opinion in some warped fashion to "complete" what ever hell they hoped to finish before they leave office

[Zambero]

191. Checks and balances? Who needs 'em ?!?

The Founding Fathers are turning in their graves. This arrogant posturing and absolute abuse of power bordering on dictatorship is the reason we have a judiciary to begin with. You have it wrong Mr. Gonzales, the other two branches of government defer to the judiciary, no exceptions. Try reading the Constitution if it's not too much of an inconvenience.

[ProudDad]

192. Gonzales is a fascist piece of shit

[NotGivingUp]

193. we cannot put up with this shit any longer. we must demand dems impeach now.

[Canuckistanian]

197. I'll look forward to the day when Conyers calls on Gonzales to testify

UNDER OATH.

This slime weasel deserves to be raked over the coals for everything he's ever said or done.

[proud patriot]

202. the AG is contra Constitutional when he says this

:grr:

[Joffan]

205. Deliberately so.

He knows that the judiciary is constitutionally an equal branch of government but he doesn't want it that way, so he makes pronouncements like this to run them down. Say it often and say it confidently, and a surprising proportion of people will believe it, no matter how clearly wrong the statement.

[young_at_heart]

206. Would he say this if Clinton was the president?

Somehow I think his approach might be different!

[illinoisprogressive]

209. The Bushbot speil: total obedience to our Dear Leader

[Fovea]

210. I think we need a new law

when anyone in government says something that is indistinguishable from an Ann Coulter quote, that person should be led off under industrial strength tranks.

[Bozita]

211. Don't ya love it every time the AG puts on his cheerleader costume?

9/11 must have really changed EVERYTHING!

Grab your pom-pons, Alberto.

Jump up and down.

[Major Hogwash]

212. Gonzales' legacy is Abu Ghraib since he said the Geneva Conventions are "quaint"

So, why would anyone like him expect any Federal judges to agree with his narrow-minded point of view?

The NSA spy program was illegal - and we know it!!

[Golden Raisin]

213. The Dems better put impeachment "back on the table"

and seriously rein in these Fascists before the Democratic Congresspeople start getting their doors knocked down by jack-booted stormtroopers who will haul them away to Halliburton domestic internment camps. Because that is where this is all leading to.

[donheld]

218. Like hell they should!

:grr:

[smb]

221. Since When Is Being "Unqualified" A Problem?

I mean, George of the Bungle is clearly unqualified to administer anything more complicated than a Mickey D's franchise, and yet he gets to be the Deciduator or whatever he's calling himself these days....

[wordpix]

223. How about an unelected AG who's inferior in making policy judgments?