Pray For Our Country

[JustDoIt 10]

Pray that we elect a president that will appoint originalists (that would not be Obama).The worst decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court was handed down today. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.The ramifications of this is far reaching. The Liberal wing of the court even over rode precedence in this decision. Amazing what they will do when it suits them, guess this means the precedence in Roe V Wade can be overturned.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_...otus_guantanamo

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

And while we're at it, can you all pray for the Chicago Cubs. This year is their 100th anniversery of them last winning the world series, and Alfonso Soriano just broke his hand, and will be out for 6 weeks, and the cubs fairy tale season it about to hit a rough stress. They could really use your prayers, and God's support. Thanks guys!

[hblask 1]

The worst decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court was handed down today. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

Yeah, god forbid that the US should respect individual's inalienable rights. What kind of a precedent would that set for the world?For the record, this is the 4th time the court has shot down Bush's & Co's illegal holding of prisoners without due process, yet Bush continues to believe he is above the law. If anything, this SC decision is a nudge in the direction of voting for anyone BUT a republican.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Pray that we elect a president that will appoint originalists (that would not be Obama).The worst decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court was handed down today.

Worse than Plessy vs Ferguson?

The ramifications of this is far reaching. The Liberal wing of the court even over rode precedence in this decision. Amazing what they will do when it suits them, guess this means the precedence in Roe V Wade can be overturned.

Isn't it the exact the job of the Supreme Court to override other court decisions?

[nutzbuster 7]

GO OBAMA CUBS!

[JustDoIt 10]

Worse than Plessy vs Ferguson?Isn't it the exact the job of the Supreme Court to override other court decisions?

That was a pathetic Decision!! Ranks right up there. "Separate but Equal" Really bad.

[JustDoIt 10]

Isn't it the exact the job of the Supreme Court to override other court decisions?

Supreme Courts job is to Interpret the Constitution and Law.

[JustDoIt 10]

Yeah, god forbid that the US should respect individual's inalienable rights. What kind of a precedent would that set for the world?For the record, this is the 4th time the court has shot down Bush's & Co's illegal holding of prisoners without due process, yet Bush continues to believe he is above the law. If anything, this SC decision is a nudge in the direction of voting for anyone BUT a republican.

I hold you in high respect and really enjoy your posts. But I totally disagree with you on this one.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Supreme Courts job is to Interpret the Constitution and Law.

Right. In fact, they are the final word when it comes to interpretation of the constitution and law.If a lower court makes a ruling, one is able to challenge the ruling and bring it as far as to the supreme court. The SC can then rule contrary to the lower court's decisions, thus overturning the president that the lower court may have set. It can also do the same for earlier SC decisions. Everybody knows that Roe vs Wade, for example (that you brought up) isn't set in stone, but exists as valid under law so long as it is the current standing opinion of the Supreme Court that it is a proper interpretation of the constitution.Right?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Yeah, god forbid that the US should respect individual's inalienable rights. What kind of a precedent would that set for the world?

No, they don't have rights if they're not from the US. They're terrorists if we say they are, and we don't need to build a case against them (even if we've had over six years in some cases to do so).

[hblask 1]

No, they don't have rights if they're not from the US. They're terrorists if we say they are, and we don't need to build a case against them (even if we've had over six years in some cases to do so).

And even if they are legal US citizens who were running businesses in the US, but happen to have the wrong skin color and/or religion, well, they're still terrorists.I really don't understand any moral or philosophical system that says "these people are so dangerous that we can't even be bothered to make a case against them." WTF?

[ricardob 0]

No, they don't have rights if they're not from the US. They're terrorists if we say they are, and we don't need to build a case against them (even if we've had over six years in some cases to do so).

If you believe in democracy, then you recognize the right for every man to defend themselves, regardless of what he did or where he comes from. There is simply no other way to perceive this issue.Anyone that thinks otherwise...well, I just hope you never have your rights taken away from you.People aren't terrorists because YOU say so; they are terrorists if there is evidence incriminating them in terrorist activities. If proven, lock them for life. But a faulty, moral driven legal system would put a lot of innocents in jail.

[JustDoIt 10]

And while we're at it, can you all pray for the Chicago Cubs. This year is their 100th anniversery of them last winning the world series, and Alfonso Soriano just broke his hand, and will be out for 6 weeks, and the cubs fairy tale season it about to hit a rough stress. They could really use your prayers, and God's support. Thanks guys!

Give Jerry Yang a call, he handles the sporting events. He also gets good results!!

[JustDoIt 10]

If you believe in democracy, then you recognize the right for every man to defend themselves, regardless of what he did or where he comes from. There is simply no other way to perceive this issue.Anyone that thinks otherwise...well, I just hope you never have your rights taken away from you.People aren't terrorists because YOU say so; they are terrorists if there is evidence incriminating them in terrorist activities. If proven, lock them for life. But a faulty, moral driven legal system would put a lot of innocents in jail.

They have been treated better than any detainee in history. They are being represented by ACLU lawyers and military lawyers in Military courts where this belongs, outside of this country. By the way one of ACLU attorneys said the military lawyers are great attorneys. Average Joe in America gets a Public Defender who is probably carrying 30 or more cases.

[hblask 1]

They have been treated better than any detainee in history. They are being represented by ACLU lawyers and military lawyers in Military courts (where this belongs). By the way one of ACLU attorneys said the military lawyers are great attorneys. Average Joe in America gets a Public Defender who is probably carrying 30 or more cases.

LOL, over half a decade locked in a foreign country, without being told what they are being charged with, no access to lawyers, no access to their families, their finances and those of the families they left behind frozen, and still no charges in sight, no trial in sight, and for many, not even an accusation in sight. This is how we want the world to learn about liberty and justice?This whole thing is an embarrassment to our nation, and is one of the main reasons Bush will be remembered as one of the worst presidents ever.(NOTE: There are a few who have been allowed access to the outside world and to lawyers, but they are the exception, not the rule.)

[gobears 0]

They have been treated better than any detainee in history. They are being represented by ACLU lawyers and military lawyers in Military courts where this belongs, outside of this country. By the way one of ACLU attorneys said the military lawyers are great attorneys. Average Joe in America gets a Public Defender who is probably carrying 30 or more cases.

LOL1. Defendants cannot have a lawyer present, 2. Government evidence is presumptively valid,3. Defendants are prevented from challenging (and sometimes even knowing about) much of the evidence against themHowever if you're ok with US citizens facing these type of situations in foreign countries than at least you're consistent in your position. Basically, a person has no rights in a foreign country if the government of the country says so.

[checkymcfold 0]

LOL1. Defendants cannot have a lawyer present, 2. Government evidence is presumptively valid,3. Defendants are prevented from challenging (and sometimes even knowing about) much of the evidence against themHowever if you're ok with US citizens facing these type of situations in foreign countries than at least you're consistent in your position. Basically, a person has no rights in a foreign country if the government of the country says so.

my roommate just graduated law school and is an aide on a guantanamo case that his firm is working on, and he told me that his experience with that case has run entirely counter to everything he knows about the law. his firm is actively blocked from obtaining information about the detainee it is defending (basically, they're resorting to google with the guy's name to obtain evidence), the "prosecution" doesn't have to turn over its evidence for the case, and no one from his firm has ever met the guy they're trying to defend in person. and finally, the case has gone on for over 5 years without any indication that the government actually intends to take it to trial and risk ending the defendant's incarceration.absolutely disgusting, imo. and not in my name, indeed.

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

I agree with the OP, people shouldn't have rights. Even if it's against the law!SWOP you're a moron.

[AmScray 355]

The only thing this changes is that now, more actions taken by the military in the name of "fighting terrorism" will be extra judicial and under the rug. One thing that's always bothered the hell out of me is that SCOTUS doesn't have some sort of 'enforcement arm' in the event of conflicts with a law-breaking executive branch. The moment Jackson uttered "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it", that was a cue right there that SCOTUS needs some sort of mechanism to implement their decisions in the face of a recalcitrant executive that insists on defying a lawful decision. IMO, a battalion sized group of very elite fighters who answered only to SCOTUS and could be deployed on their command to enforce the law, even against other government agencies, is what's needed. They would effectively be able to force the hand of the legislative branch and make them act and take peaceful measures to resolve the matter. "At some point in the next 14 days, the Supreme Court Enforcement Division will be deployed to Guantanamo Bay with orders to forcibly remove all detainees being held without trial, unless actions are taken by legislators to seek an accord with the law on their behalf..."At the end of the day, Mao said it best. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". Everything else is just theater.Of course, this would make the appointment of SCOTUS justices a far more "important" issue in the eyes of the public than they seem to take it today...

[Sportsmack 0]

Whenever liberals bring up Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib I usually just drop this little beauty ...just saying

[BigLebowski 0]

If I had to guess I would say OP is without question in the teenyweeny% that believe Bush has done a good job while POTUS. I do agree that extending our laws to non-US citizens in non-US territories when convenient is questionable.The real problem here lies in the fact that these people should not be there in the first place. That was the only mistake. The rest of what has happened is just pure tragedy.

[Sportsmack 0]

If I had to guess I would say OP is without question in the teenyweeny% that believe Bush has done a good job while POTUS. I do agree that extending our laws to non-US citizens in non-US territories when convenient is questionable.The real problem here lies in the fact that these people should not be there in the first place. That was the only mistake. The rest of what has happened is just pure tragedy.

I totally agree, especially when:1. FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year...2. Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea . North Korea never attacked us. From (1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.3. John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.Vietnam never attacked us.4. Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.5. Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.(sw)

[All_In 0]

If you believe in democracy, then you recognize the right for every man to defend themselves, regardless of what he did or where he comes from. There is simply no other way to perceive this issue.Anyone that thinks otherwise...well, I just hope you never have your rights taken away from you.People aren't terrorists because YOU say so; they are terrorists if there is evidence incriminating them in terrorist activities. If proven, lock them for life. But a faulty, moral driven legal system would put a lot of innocents in jail.

well said.

[AmScray 355]

I totally agree, especially when:1. FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year...2. Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea . North Korea never attacked us. From (1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.3. John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.Vietnam never attacked us.4. Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.5. Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.(sw)

Do people seriously use relativism in a debate and expect others to take it seriously?I was well into my 20's before I realized that partisan politics is retarded, partisans are equally retarded and so often, they can't justify anything they believe in without having to resort to pointing out what the other guy is doing.So, if you're a republican, OK. You're a republican. You do realize that what liberals have done or even are presently doing in no way alleviates responsibility for the actions of other Republicans? If a Democrat makes some horrendous decision, that doesn't somehow negate the terrible decision-making of Bush... You understand that, right?If not, LOL at you and your IQ.If so, then one has to wonder why you keep making everything a relative matter? Democratic presidents and wars, Ted Kennedy, etc.

[BigLebowski 0]

I totally agree, especially when:1. FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year...2. Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea . North Korea never attacked us. From (1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.3. John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.Vietnam never attacked us.4. Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.5. Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.(sw)

Wow..not sure what I did to deserve that. I didn't realize I knocking republicans in any way. I knock idiots. I could care less what color, shape, or political affiliation you have. And yes, if you think Bush has done a good job...you are in fact, an idiot.