See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Gonzales Cautions Judges Against Second-Guessing The President In Wartime
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-29-gonzales_x.htm
Published: Sep 29, 2006
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2006-09-29 12:33:06 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 325
Comments: 26
9/29/2006 12:01 PM ET 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. "Respectfully, when courts issue decisions that overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot — and should not — be shielded from criticism," Gonzales said. "A proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in mind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches." His audience included legal scholars and judges, including Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the Bush administration's most reliable supporters on the Supreme Court. Gonzales has sent Justice Department lawyers into federal courts from coast to coast defending Bush's detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, his plans to try some of them before military tribunals and his use of the National Security Agency to wiretap Americans without court warrants when they communicate with suspected terrorists abroad. Over administration objections, the Supreme Court ordered that detainees could challenge aspects of their imprisonment in federal courts and overturned Bush's plans for military tribunals, forcing Bush to ask Congress to approve a new version of the panels. A handful of federal district judges either ordered an end to the warrantless wiretapping or agreed to hear court challenges to it. Opponents of the plan argue the NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's requirement that the government get a warrant from a court that meets in secret before wiretapping Americans to gain intelligence information. The administration contends that despite the statute's language, the president has inherent authority from the Constitution to order such eavesdropping without court permission. Justice lawyers also have argued that the challenges to the NSA program should be thrown out of court because trials would expose state secrets. Most of the judges' rulings and proceedings have been stayed pending appeal. Gonzales also said he thought more states should move away from having judges stand in partisan elections to keep their seats. Gonzales himself as a Texas Supreme Court justice "had to raise enough money to run print ads and place television spots around the state in order to retain my seat." In such contested elections, "most of the contributions come from lawyers and law firms, many of whom have had, or will have, cases before the court," Gonzales said. "The appearance of a conflict of interest is difficult to dismiss." He noted favorably that some states have adopted other ways of picking judges, including merit selection and appointment with simple up-or-down retention elections rather than contested campaigns. With polls showing many voters think judges can be swayed by campaign contributions, Gonzales said, "If Americans come to believe that judges are simply politicians, or their decisions can be purchased for a price, state judicial systems will be undermined."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
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. good god almighty..there's the reason, as if i didn't already know this, for perpetual war--in reality a war against the american people.
gonzales is the one who wrote a memo during the first bush administration to legalize torturing people to death. The law was re-interpreted to literally legalize torturing people to death. I think it was gonzales who wrote that memo or one of them anyway. and the next generation nazi news media just kept it quiet, a few big newspapers reported it and that was all. and now we're to say 'yavolt heir gonzales'.
And with a neverending war against a shadow enemy that could be anywhere, including within the United States, all affairs are now foreign affairs. Ergo, per this logic, Bush is the new King and congress and the courts, superfluous. Yep, this has been the federalist societies' aim all along. A bloodless coup, a permanent Republican majority and a presidential dictatorship. So we have to hang 'em all, looks like.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
The views of the "STATE" that is just what we need. Why not do away with the judges and courts. Rabbi Bush could rule by decree.
King heck, seems he thinks he's G-d. Man this guy really has a problem, and it is OUR problem, unfortunately. Jerry Farwell tells his sheep that G-d put Bush in power and to disagree with bush is the same as not obeying G-d. This must be believed by hundreds of thousands of poor deluded Americans.
Precisely the basis on which the majority of the Supreme Court in Korematsu upheld the legality of FDR's internment of the Japanese.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
Thomas was the sole justice who accepted the administration's unitary executive arguments in Hamdi. His dissent is one of the most grotesque Supreme Court opinions I have ever read.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
Does anybody believe this president will make better judgments on these matters than federal judges?
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
The Supreme Court in the recent Hamdan case ruled that the president's power as commander-in-chief is not absolute: "In undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction." Moreover, the Court ruled that "he [the president] may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers." By the same reasoning, the president is bound by FISA.
It is a catch 22; it is war so we can't question the authority and decision making of the POTUS, and if we question whether he made the war status to make it so we couldn't question him, that doesn't matter because it's war and we can't question the authority and decision making of the POTUS. Alberto Gonzales can go screw himself. Impeach Bush and put him on trial for war crimes. He is N-O-T M-Y P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T. Period. Okay? End of discussion with this Attorney General. I'm not falling for it.
So, the president's opinions are "judgements" but the legal rulings of judges are mere "personal views". Shit, the Busheviks really do think Bush is some sort of deity.
Okay, let's just be honest and start calling Bush a dictator openly. Dictator Bush says this, or says that, or renders a "judgement" (so Biblical, don't ya think), or maybe he "decides" things. I'm just going to start referring to him as Dictator Bush because I think it is IMPORTANT to get this reality INTO people's heads. That's what this man wants to be and that's what he is BECOMING.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
up is down black is white war is peace
You forgot: freedom is slavery. Also: ignorance is strength.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
So, the president's opinions are "judgements" but the legal rulings of judges are mere "personal views". Shit, the Busheviks really do think Bush is some sort of deity. You're right, that is impressive. I'll bet it makes Smirk feel real special though.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers Say what you will about the ruling, you must concede that Congress had issued a declaration of war at the time of the internment of Japanese, which in turn gave FDR considerable leeway and made him de facto, a wartime President. Arbusto has not received a formal declaration of war from Congress yet to allow him the same breadth of wartime presidential powers. So Gonzales is introducing a request of acquiescence to the powers of the Oval Office by asking federal judges to consider GWB a wartime president, when this description of GWB has no legal basis - a formal declaration of war has not been issued by Congress. A "WOT" President is almost laughable for the federal judges to consider seriously - what countries are named "terror"?
I hope you don't think I think the Supreme Court made the right decision in Korematsu. I don't think so. Almost all lawyers don't think so. I said Gonzales's argument was the same as that of the majority in Korematsu because I thought it would serve to discredit it.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
I said Gonzales's argument was the same as that of the majority in Korematsu because I thought it would serve to discredit it. I didn't think you believed that the right decision was made in Korematsu. But I admit I was confused about the point you were making by citing the Korematsu case. I hope you are right - that Gonzales will have the allusion to wartime Presidential powers that he cites to federal judges backfire in his face.
Was there an actual declaration of war by Congress? Was there an actual declaration of war by the Senate? When a declaration of war has been made, then I would say we are "At War". Right now, it looks like we've just got troops everywhere but where they need to be, and pissing off people left and right. I'd rather our troops were on our borders with Canada and Mexico to keep terrorists out, than to have them in harms way in a third world toilet fighting for big oil and Israeli interests in the region.
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.
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
#3. To: christine (#1)
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.
#4. To: Brian S (#0)
judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.
#5. To: bluedogtxn, red jones, christine (#3)
Bush is the new King and congress and the courts, superfluous.
#6. To: Brian S (#0)
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.
#7. To: Brian S (#0)
His audience included legal scholars and judges, including Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the Bush administration's most reliable supporters on the Supreme Court.
#8. To: christine (#1)
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.
#9. To: Brian S (#0)
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,"
I've already said too much.
#10. To: christine (#1)
#11. To: Brian S (#0)
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.
#12. To: Brian S, all (#0)
#13. To: alpowolf (#11)
the president's opinions are "judgements" but the legal rulings of judges are mere "personal views".
#14. To: angle (#13)
#15. To: alpowolf (#11)
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.
#16. To: aristeides (#6)
Precisely the basis on which the majority of the Supreme Court in Korematsu upheld the legality of FDR's internment of the Japanese.
#17. To: scrapper2 (#16)
#18. To: aristeides (#17)
I hope you don't think I think the Supreme Court made the right decision in Korematsu. I don't think so. Almost all lawyers don't think so.
#19. To: Brian S (#0)
 | What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#20. To: christine (#1)
What is the standard for determing "During a time of war"? An clear enemy? Nope. A formal declaration of war? Nope. Just enough people and pundits in posisitons of power saying we are "At war". Does this war have any definition of victory? Nope. Is the enemy even transparent? Nope. It is a war against mist. Never ending. In other words- this Gonzales is arguing that the President is a legal dictator position.
#21. To: Brian S (#0)
These judges are in place to keep usurpers such as yourself, Mr. Gonzales, within the limits of constitutional authority.
Gonzales Cautions Judges Against Second-Guessing The President In Wartime
“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper
#22. To: scrapper2 (#18)
The public may not understand what it means for the government to adopt the same position as in Korematsu, but federal judges certainly understand.
I hope you are right - that Gonzales will have the allusion to wartime Presidential powers that he cites to federal judges backfire in his face.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
#23. To: aristeides (#22)
How lucky for GWB that he stumbled across two federal judges (Alito and Roberts) who must have been absent from law school classes on the days when the merits of court's decision regarding the Korematsu case were debated and found wanting.
The public may not understand what it means for the government to adopt the same position as in Korematsu, but federal judges certainly understand.
#24. To: All (#0)
Also see:
#25. To: Red Jones (#2)
Actually it's si, si, Don Alberto....
and now we're to say 'yavolt heir gonzales'.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
#26. To: scrapper2 (#16)
Terror firma????
A "WOT" President is almost laughable for the federal judges to consider seriously - what countries are named "terror"?
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest