Believe it or not... the SCOTUS will have to rescue us from these dictators...n/t

[Blackhatjack]

The White House 'marginalization' and deelevation of the power of the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch has now hit a critical point.

If the SCOTUS upholds Bush's assertion of absolute power in determining the limitless boundaries of 'executive privilege' then they might as well go home.

I have listened to judges and watched them act for over 25 years, and one thing that has been consistent is that judges consider themselves to be the final arbitrar of the law and what the Constitution means. Take away that role, and they have no real power and function.

Bush's claim today that he is the final arbitrar of what 'executive privilege' means and the limits of its application usurps the power of the SCOTUS.

I for one believe the SCOTUS understands this. It is a direct affront to their power and authority.

I hope they will act sooner than later, but I do believe they will act.

[BlackHawk706867]

1. I am pretty certain that you are a Lawyer/Judge and know what you...

are talking about and I respect that. Certainly hope that you are correct on this one... If not, I believe that the American people and probably the world are screwed..

ww

[Blackhatjack]

25. Yes I am, and I still have faith in the Judicial Branch on non-social/conservative issues...n/t

[sojourner]

2. hmmm.......think that's why * has packed SCOTUS with folks like Roberts and Alito?

I don't expect help from that quarter.

[Blackhatjack]

15. As bad as Roberts and Alito are on conservative issues, this goes way beyond that .,..

They have a lifetime appointment.

However, I still believe that the SCOTUS is an exclusive club with an idea to preserving the constitutional form of government that is the basis of their authority and power.

To accept Bush's argument that he alone can determine the limits of 'executive privilege' and order government officials not to cooperate with the Legislative Branch and to ignore duly issued subpoenoes is just a 'hop-skip-and a jump' from usurping the power to determine that the Executive Branch can ignore the Judicial Branch and its rulings as well.

The courts are going to have to put on their patriotic robes and reign in this power grab. They have no other choice.

[onecent]

3. Holy Shit! This is not good.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Scalia, Thomas, and Bush's hand-picked "Unitary President" twins...

That leaves Kennedy....

[Gman]

5. The literal weight of the world will be on Kenedy

to do the right thing. If it's 5-4 for Bush then we no longer have the United States of America.

[BlackHawk706867]

6. Thats a great point, and lets hope that he takes this very seriously...

and truly thinks about his vote before doing so.

ww

[havocmom]

10. Hope he is comfy with his security. I put NOTHING past cheney

Nothing. He is not gonna go down unless he is absolutely out of tricks.

[Knightly_Knews]

11. self delete

[Heidi]

7. Recommended.

:kick:

[Penndems]

8. Thus far, they've been part of the problem, not part of the solution

It may be up to We The People to save ourselves.

[Virginia Dare]

9. I put all of my faith in the Founding Fathers..

I still want to believe they left us an escape hatch here, any constitutional scholars out there?

[havocmom]

12. The Founding Fathers KNEW there would be times like this

They knew We The People would be the last barricade against the inevitable dictators.

[datasuspect]

23. WE are the only hope

all of our institutions have failed us utterly.

[Knightly_Knews]

13. And people criticized me for................

Writing Kennedy a year ago, when I asked him to help put a stop to this cabal.. I told him for the sake of his Brother's name ,
J. F. Kennedy, stand up for once and do something...

At the time I wrote that, I knew his father was one of the most well known mafia thugs in history.. I was doubtful, and still am that anything will result from my letter.. But one can hope...

Weird how I knew somehow, a year or more ago, that Kennedy would be the one in the end.

We're fucked!

[Whoa_Nelly]

14. Let's hope you are correct, Blackhatjack

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the law, and is charged with upholding Rule of Law and interpreting the Constitution. But, with so many recent SCOTUS decisions of 5-4, we have judges on the bench whose egos and loyalties lie with the BushCo/PNAC Regime.


These are dark days indeed. Let's hope that for once these Bushbot/PNAC cronies actually do their job as the final stopgap in keeping our Constitution and democracy alive.

Link to a very clear definition of the function of SCOTUS:
http://www.usscplus.com/info/interp.htm

<beginning snip>
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

"Equal Justice Under Law"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law, and thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. "The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans . . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written constitution still in force.

<shift>
The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

<snip>
The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court's history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. We're in trouble

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito will, in my opinion, side with bush. That leaves this in the hands of Kennedy to decided and I no longer trust him to uphold the law.

It's important to keep in mind, Bush is expecting and depending on the SCOTUS to go his way. He won't have it any other way.

[ThomWV]

17. How do you think any of the questions will come before the Court?

You see, that's the problem. How will any of it get in front of the Judges?

[Blackhatjack]

21. There are many avenues for getting this before the Courts....

Any action by the White House which is alleged to be based on 'executive privilege' automatically puts it into the Judicial realm since interpretation of 'executive privilege' has historically been left to the courts to decide.

Actions for injunctions, writs of mandamus, etc. can be the vehicle for getting these in front of the Courts.

However, the one unassailable power reserved exclusively to the Legislative Branch is the power to impeach and remove on trial in the Senate. No action by the Executive or Judical Branch required.

IMHO the way to kick off the cascade of events which will place this in the domain of the Courts is to impeach -- Gonzales. For failing to see that the duties of his office are executed and for lying to Congress. The WH would be right in the middle of it since they have formally announced that the DOJ would not act on matters it has determined are covered by 'executive privilege.'

It could be swift action based on limited facts, and the Courts could weigh in on the power of the Executive Branch to usurp such wideranging powers at the expense of the Judicial and Legislative Branches.

It would be on the same scale as the SCOTUS deciding that Nixon had to turn over the secret WHite House tapes.

[H2O Man]

18. I still have

hope that the federal courts will respect the rule of law more than party ideology. Certainly not in every case, but hopefully in the overall sense. And that includes the US Supreme Court .... though there are a couple Justices that I do not think are capable of meeting that standard.

[Blackhatjack]

24. Judges for the most part take their constitutional oath seriously...

They may have their own ideas as to social conservative issues like abortion, marriage, gay rights, capital punishment, etc. However, when it comes down to a President exerting 'dictatorial' powers that are not provided for in the Constitution, I believe most would rule against that President regardless of which party they came from.

As to installing Bush, I submit that the SCOTUS that made that possible had no idea how 'bad' Bush Jr. would be, and the danger he would eventually pose to this country.

[H2O Man]

26. I tend to agree.

When Judge Reggie Walton was assigned the Libby case, there were concerns -- valid ones -- that he might not be fair in his rulings. I was confident that he was actually the perfect judge for the case. Sometimes history calls upon imperfect people to step up to the plate .... including people in each of the three branches of the federal government. The role of the federal judges puts them in a position unlike any official in either of the other branches, and many times, they have taken brave and creative stances.

[blondeatlast]

27. "...had no idea how 'bad' Bush Jr. would be and the danger he would pose"

Interesting thought--had they known, would they--COULD they--have acted differently?

Could they have invalidated the election and had legal grounds to stand on if they somehow knew what a crisis this administration would cause to the nation?

Obviously this is all pure speculation, but I believe you are correct that judges take their roles very seriously. they are made of sterner ethical fiber than most of us, I really believe that, in most cases.

So seriously--had they known, what could they have done differently, if anything?

[Blackhatjack]

29. A simple ruling that Florida could complete its recount would have changed everything...

And that fact was not lost on the SCOTUS. The equal protection argument was a ruse.

If you want to see how threadbare the decision was, read the opinion and you find the opinion is not to be relied upon in deciding other cases --only this one factual scenario. That assertion in its opinion was truly significant.

It was not the best day the SCOTUS ever had --and you can bet they have rued it since.

[H2O Man]

30. Vincent Bugliosi's book

remains the best thing I've read about the controversial USSC selection of Bush as president.

[Selatius]

33. They could've recommended to Florida that all counties use the same counting standards.

The SCOTUS ruled that the recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and essentially ordered the ongoing recount halted because each county used a different standard in counting votes and that there couldn't be a fair standard established in time to meet the Dec. 12 deadline. The SCOTUS issued an injunction to stop the recount on Dec. 9th.

[Blackhatjack]

35. Which begs the question why different standards used to reach the first result was ok...

You cannot have it both ways.

Saying a recount would expose different standards being used does not validate the original count which exposed the use of different standards. Why validate one and not both? It was a ruse.

It stands as an embarrassment from a SCOTUS that is very protective of its legacy.

[blondeatlast]

19. I share your faith--just barely.

With the exception of Roberts, Alito, and Thomas, I think they will value the Constitiotion over politics.

[datasuspect]

20. this SC is more stacked than the one that installed W in office in 2000

i see no hope in the SC, i think they will aid and abet w's transition to lifetime dictator.

[Ghost in the Machine]

32. I don't think the Supremes would play along with *this* one..

They have to know, deep in the back of their minds, that if they were to side with Bush going for full dictatorship, there would be no more use for them. In other words, they would be out of a job and have to try to eke out a living somewhere else. No.... they aren't going to jepordize their cushy lifetime appointments...

[datasuspect]

34. why would they lose their appointments if they acted

as the cement to ensure the devolution of this country into a full blown dictatorship?

shit, they might even become gods if they did that for the cabal.

[Ghost in the Machine]

38. There would be no more *need* for the Supreme Court in a full blown dictatorship

... Der Chimpenfurher could do anything he damned well pleased and call it legal.. But I guess maybe I wasn't thinking it all the way through either, seeing as how they don't just rule on 'gubmint' cases... although who really knows how it would turn out. All the courts could be affected and just be used as their kangaroo courts..

[datasuspect]

39. there would still be need for an sc for litigious business entities

i wouldn't see any reason for them to continue keeping up appearances.

[Bluerthanblue]

22. uh,oh.... they are the ones who selected these dictators.

not very reassuring-

[Blackhatjack]

28. Every generation is faced with threats to our constitutional democracy...

... and while there have been missteps along the way, we have consistently avoided the threats that would destroy our constitutional form of government.

It is time for the Judiciary to play their role and I believe they will.

Remember that the only 'legitimate' government is a government that rules with the consent of the governed. We are getting dangerously close to this Administration ruling without 'the consent of the governed' as shown by public opinion polls.

So far everyone is still respecting the process by which our leaders are elected and carry out their duties.

However, if the White House rules it is above any check by the Legislative and Judicial Branches, and it continues to threaten the safety and constitutional rights of the citizens, then we will certainly have a crisis on our hands regarding whether this government is indeed 'legitimate' under our constitution and laws.

[GeorgeGist]

31. In case you forgot ...

SCOTUS selected idiot BUSH to be their President; and then BUSH selected idiot Roberts to be Chief Justice.

Congress or the People are all we have left.

[truebrit71]

36. In that case we're all fucked.

5/4

[Blackhatjack]

37. Strong social/conservative judges do not automatically welcome dictatorships...

THis goes way beyond their beliefs on social conservative issues.

IMHO they will not endorse the Executive Branch deciding it is the final word on 'Executive Privilege' and usurping the power of the Judicial Branch.