Fred! lowers the boom on the Boumediene decision
posted at 6:35 pm on June 13, 2008 by Allahpundit
His main complaint seems to be that they followed their political inclinations instead of the law, but I can’t tell if he’s being rhetorical about that or not. Does he think it’s ever been otherwise in political cases? Or is he simply feigning shock to stoke a little extra outrage at the majority?
Upon reading the opinion in Boumediene v Bush, one must conclude that the majority knew where they wanted to go and simply had to figure out how to get there. The trip was not a pretty one. How could it be when the justices seemingly wrote a map based on ideas cherry picked from over 400 years of established law and backfilled with justifications to create a new right for alien combatants that Americans themselves do not enjoy?…
The majority had simply decided that prior courts had denied such rulings based on “practical considerations.” In other words in prior cases and prior wars it had just been too inconvenient to bestow the right of habeas corpus upon non-citizens in foreign jurisdictions. So, by focusing on what they saw as “practical” instead of those pesky court precedents based upon the issues of citizenship and foreign territory … and the Constitution … the majority reached the conclusion they wanted to, since what is practical is subjective.
He’s right about convenience dictating the decision. If this was a traditional war between armies proper, with tens of thousands of prisoners on each side, they’d have been a lot more circumspect about granting habeas rights in broad strokes to enemy combatants. It’s only because most battles this time are fought in skirmishes against small pockets of jihadis (or without any battle at all, i.e. in snatch and grab operations like the sting Pakistan used to nab KSM) that they’re comfortable with the administrative burden of treating combatants as individual criminals entitled to court access. Which makes this another legal advantage Al Qaeda’s gained vis-a-vis regular soldiers from its M.O.
Follow the link for red meat near the end about the practical consequences of the court’s decision. I read some lefty blogger snarking at Scalia for suggesting similarly in his dissent that people might die as an indirect result of some Gitmo degenerate being sprung on a habeas claim, but I haven’t the slightest idea why. Yes, the rhetoric is alarming; so are the implications of the decision. Why the larf?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I’m positive that we’re going to have a traditional war with tens of thousands of prisoners in the future. And they’ll all still have habeas corpus rights.
The short-sightedness and disingenuousness of the liberal Supreme Court justices is
amazingtypical.misterpeasea on June 13, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Fred for Suprem Court Justice !
William Amos on June 13, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Fred Dalton Thompson
RushBaby on June 13, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Fred! is the man. Second look at writing in FDT.
HebrewToYou on June 13, 2008 at 6:49 PM
This will bring out conservatives in the general. We need to replace the liberals with one more conservative justice.
Theworldisnotenough on June 13, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Write in?
Fred!
infidel on June 13, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Fred! ya got my cash and I’m expecting a Christmas card!
Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Heh. You can tell when someone is mad when they are writing. It wasn’t the most cohesive piece but I like it!
terryannonline on June 13, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Ah Fred Thompson, the Conservative the GOP voting morons were too stupid to support! Like Rush said, he had too much depth to win!
Gatordoug on June 13, 2008 at 6:53 PM
So if they do not think this is a real war? They still should have been impartial to the fact or terroristic iccues facing Americans and America as a whole!
I agree with Fred on this too! They are using their opinions and not the fact they should have weighed it on the constitutional issue. So much of it is their opinon that they have seriously condemned this Nation to our own DOOM via Terrorists who have NO rights!
upinak on June 13, 2008 at 6:54 PM
People complained about a lack of fire in his belly.
Yet he’s one of the few whose conservative flame never seems to go out, and the heat is scorching over and over.
Fred 2012!
MadisonConservative on June 13, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Fred/Palin 2012?
:) I like it.. and I can dream.
upinak on June 13, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Yeah, Fred’s great at alot of things. Too bad running a campaign wasnt one of them. I was such a Fredhead, but I wont be back.
MITT 2012!
NickTx on June 13, 2008 at 6:56 PM
The voters who cried out for a “real Conservative” were shallow enough to act like Liberals and place style over substance. How DID that work out? OH YES! We got McCain!
Gatordoug on June 13, 2008 at 6:57 PM
I guess the only way for our troops to make sure these Muslim Jihadists get justice is to make sure they’re killed in combat. Instead of one or two rounds, they’re gonna empty the clip into ‘em. We won’t execute non-combatants but I think the tactics are going to be more aggressive than ever.
Go Fred! (The I-told-you-so-crowd)
Mojave Mark on June 13, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Keep looking for a great “campaigner” and not a great Conservative! I bet you are SOOOO happy we got McCain?
Gatordoug on June 13, 2008 at 6:59 PM
And wow, is that a dream team. Except maybe for Thompson/Jindal. Or, better yet, Thompson/Jindal 2012-2020, Jindal/Palin 2020-2028.
MadisonConservative on June 13, 2008 at 7:01 PM
On the contrary. McCain wasnt even in my top free. I was with Fred all the way to the end. And in the end, it just became apparent what a shoddy campaign that was run. My second choice was Mitt. I’m sticking with him in 2012.
I think Fred will be too old personally, and in retrospect, while he was the ideal candidate with the ideal values for a moment in time, he said himself he really didnt want to be president.
A half hearted campaign would not win against the cult we are facing. We need a new face of our own, and i believe that person is Romney.
I’m only voting McCain because I have to. TRUST me.
NickTx on June 13, 2008 at 7:07 PM
top THREE…sorry.
NickTx on June 13, 2008 at 7:08 PM
NickTx on June 13, 2008 at 7:07 PM
You copied my homework! ;)
Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 7:10 PM
A dream? Yes. Because the electorate is too willing to fall for a phoney, like Huckabee or is too willing to focus on anythimg that really matters, like depth! Hell, they are worried about “fire in the belly” or what hat a candidate puts on, or anything except principles aparently!
They will scream for “originalist” judges! But an originalist president? Guess they don’t care about that! Hell Ronald Reagan would not be nominated today given the shallowness of the GOP!
Gatordoug on June 13, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Even better! Or how about:
Thomson/Jindal
and Palin for United States Sec.! Ooooohhh I think that would be a hard pill for a Liberal to swallow!
upinak on June 13, 2008 at 7:13 PM
No he said he wanted TO be president, and for the RIGHT reasons! Not for personal gain but to SERVE! I do not want a campaigner, I want a President! I do not want someone to read me bedtime stories, I want a damned leader! Fred was the ONLY candidate in recent memory that sounded like he has actually read the Constitution!
Very sad, Hell if Madison were alive today, or Washington, they could not get nominated!
Gatordoug on June 13, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Because people are tired of being frightened.
P.S. From what I understand about the decision, I don’t like it.
freevillage on June 13, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Funny thing… its only been judges and lawyers who are defending this ruling… imagine that…
They just put the courts, and thus lawyers, in charge of war… can you imagine how much money the trial lawyers association is going to make off the Saudis?
Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Dont get me wrong…I TOTALLY agree with you. So if it doesnt work with our BEST case scenario, we have got to find a way to MAKE it work in order to prevail and for the future of the party if there is to be a future of the party.
NickTx on June 13, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Better Fred than dead!
VolMagic on June 13, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Otherwise be ready to bow down to our new democratic overlords for a very long time.
NickTx on June 13, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Cheers!
NickTx on June 13, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Indeed! Fred! is a true statesman in the mold of our founding fathers. He doesn’t have “fire in his belly” because he wants what is best for the country and not a political position. I honestly believe that conservatives let this country down by failing to jump on his bandwagon. He would have made mincemeat out of Obambi! And Jeri could have knocked Michelle off her high horse with a feather!
I’m bitter and clinging to teh Fred!
ihasurnominashun on June 13, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Where was that Fred during the primary?
Cicero43 on June 13, 2008 at 7:26 PM
I would agree! And please understand my statements were not meant against you personally. Instead they are born out of love of my country and what I see as a crucial failure to nominate a great man!
Gatordoug on June 13, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Fred writing over at TownHall is a good consolation prize. I subscribed to their publication because of it. My Yon book came in yesterday. :)
He is in a great place to influence public opinion, and boost the morale of the conservative base.
RushBaby on June 13, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Absolutely agreed!
NickTx on June 13, 2008 at 7:27 PM
I think I can honestly say “I feel your pain”
Gatordoug on June 13, 2008 at 7:27 PM
I guess true conservatives from Tennessee with flawless federalist credentials have had their lobbyist heads so far up their buts for the last 40 years, or they have been too busy helping other Islamist terrorist (read, Libyan Lockerbee murderers) avoid justice in unbiased jurisdictions, that they have failed to notice that the SCOTUS has been a political football for a long time. Of course, the SCOTUS determines how they want to rule first then justifies it afterwards. Otherwise Gore would be president, right? ;-)
tommylotto on June 13, 2008 at 7:28 PM
The very most pernicious question to ask would be, why didn’t George Bush declare a national emergency after 911?
Anything from foreign habeas corpus to induction to drilling bans to new refineries to militarizing international boundaries, all would have been more than fair game.
Or maybe using the momentum of 911 to create a sovereign, independent, united, nationalistic, loud and proud America didn’t quite suit the agenda?
Speakup on June 13, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Exit question: In what capacity (other than POTUS) would Fred be most useful serving the country? The depth and poignancy of his observations is too great for him to be utilized only as a part-time columnist for townhall. He may well never be President, but we certainly need him to remain in the fold for us.
steadyrock on June 13, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Funny thing… its only been judges and lawyers who are defending this ruling… imagine that…
Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 7:20 PM
I wonder if it’s because lawyers tend to view law as an abstraction which, although they may not realize it, in their minds has become disembodied from reality. It’s like a sprinter who is excited about being the 1st guy to the 100 yard line but wears himself out and finishes last in the marathon. Lawyers may be elated about a new milestone of legal history but fail to realize the damage that has been done to the nature of our law, our system of government and our ability to defend ourselves.
FloatingRock on June 13, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Right in front of you
I think some good collective punishment for the Repubs and conservatives would be at least 4 years in the wilderness for the shameful fact that we didn’t nominate teh Fredz.
(Yeah yeah, I’m just writing that til I read the next Obama post, then I’ll go back to being terrified of an Obama Presidency. Sigh)
VolMagic on June 13, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Oh, yeah. That’s going to work.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 7:37 PM
One of the worst things that the West did in fighting al Qaeda and Company is to glorify them into something they’re not. A myth of an ever-powerful organization was created, while in reality they are nothing more, as far as capacity goes, than a loose network of mafias.
One positive thing that can come out of this decision is to reduce their status in the population’s mind from “warriors” to “common criminals”. While it is possible to create longer sentences for their class of “crimes”, and to fight them with the military, the organizations of this sort will lose prestige and so will hopefully lose followers.
AlexB on June 13, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Fred Thompson National co-chair of McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign
Chakra Hammer on June 13, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Consistent Conservative.
Chakra Hammer on June 13, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Hi Fred,
Nice to see you have woken up from your nap.
I know that campaigning tired you out greatly.
Just know that your buddy McCain is well on his way to ruining our country by getting behind the amnesty bill he tried to sneak by us last year. Seems he is getting another shot at it again.
Thanks for dropping by, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
RobertInAustin on June 13, 2008 at 7:51 PM
I am getting to the point that I believe that the party needs to die in order to be reborn.
RobertInAustin on June 13, 2008 at 7:55 PM
You just gotta believe, wise_man. Believing is half the battle.
HebrewToYou on June 13, 2008 at 8:14 PM
If McCain wins, perhaps Fred! will be in his cabinet somewhere. Secretary of State??
Mallard T. Drake on June 13, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Who joined Roberts & Scalia in the dissent?
jgapinoy on June 13, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Great so far, Fred.
Well, Fred, they’ll turn out, but for this to be the determining issue, there had to be some sort of clear-cut difference between the candidates on this issue that the average (non-politically addicted) voter could understand intuitively — and there was not.
Nichevo on June 13, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Don’t forget to take your vitamins. And drink your milk.
But don’t jump off the roof of the garage with your trusty blanket and think you can fly.
And don’t vote for a worthless protest vote that will be ignored when Obama is elected president and everyone else laughs at you when you tell them you believed that Fred Thompson as a write-in by a few thousand people, or Bob Barr could be elected from a third party with a few dozen thousand votes to be elected president.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 8:35 PM
You can read all about it here:
SEARCH HOT AIR
Search results: http://hotair.com/?s=Breaking%3A+supreme+court+says+
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 8:39 PM
HebrewToYou on June 13, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Impeach them. Time to restore the proper balance of power.
TheBigOldDog on June 13, 2008 at 8:44 PM
That should read…
That you think my vote worthless does not make it so.
HebrewToYou on June 13, 2008 at 8:44 PM
By that rationale, every vote not for Obama is a “worthless protest vote” if he wins.
Hollowpoint on June 13, 2008 at 8:53 PM
Does the judgement say the US government has to pay for the lawyers for the Gitmo guys? It probably doesn’t. The justice dept. should make them take it all the way back to the supremes before they spend all that money.
snaggletoothie on June 13, 2008 at 8:58 PM
I love how dumb liberals are.They never consider the secondary, tertiary, etc… effects of their actions.The long term impact of this ruling will be that soldiers will no longer have any reason to take prisoners alive. We can’t question prisoners with any rough means, we can’t put panties on their head, we can’t hold them incommunicado until they talk, and we must pay for their lawyers.Soldiers: Kill them all, let God sort them out.
americanranger on June 13, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Mafias don’t knock down the Twin Towers or punch a hole in the Pentagon nor do they publicly affiliate with those who do. It’s not that they proved themselves powerful that’s at issue. It’s that they proved themselves nihilistic and ideological, two characteristics that differentiate them strongly from mafias. Would a mafiosi try to acquire the ebola virus to release in an urban area? Would a jihadi?
Yeah, so that the population can let their guard down to enable the next attack designed to kill 50,000 Americans in fiery infernos of terror. Good idea.
shazbat on June 13, 2008 at 9:10 PM
You’re making the misake of thinking that liberals will be consistent.
If it’s a war that they approve of, the liberals justices will “discover” that the constitution requires POW’s to be beaten with rubber hoses twice a day. You can bet the house on that. This ruling only applied to the Bush administration.
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 9:13 PM
With this court the past doesn’t matter.
jerrytbg on June 13, 2008 at 9:33 PM
And to think, this guy could have been the Republican nominee instead of John “close Gitmo” McCain if we hadn’t listened to that “he’s lazy” twaddle.
Jimmie on June 13, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Nope. Doesn’t work that way.
If a bunch of Hillary supporters convinced a lot of Obama supporters to not vote for Obama, in the vague promise that another woman would win the next democrat primary, and then they split the vote between democrats voting for Obama and democrats voting for a ‘worthless protest vote’ in enough numbers that they allowed McCain to win because of their infighting and internal division …..
That would be an example of a democrat ‘worthless protest vote.’
But you probably knew that already.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM
LoL How smarmy.
wise_man, despite your insistence otherwise you seem to have missed the point. A vote is an acknowledgement of approval. Why would my vote be worthless? Simply for writing-in a man I actually do approve of? Just because you’re towing the party line doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
Your vote for McCain is an approval of his politics, even if it might only be tepid. I just can’t stomach that.
HebrewToYou on June 13, 2008 at 9:58 PM
No, you don’t even understand your own position. If the Clinton supporters suceeded in defeating Obama, then by definition that would not be a “worthless protest vote”. It would be a worthwhile protest vote.
Your problem is that you believe that all liberals should vote in lockstep for the Democrat, and all conservatives for the Republican.
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 10:01 PM
*standing ovation*
I’m really sick of friggin’ acolytes who claim that you need to vote for their candidate because it makes all the difference in the world, but if you vote third party it’s “worthless”.
MadisonConservative on June 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM
If they want my vote, they need to support the policies I care about about. That’s the way politics is supposed to work. Not this “you owe it to America to vote for McCain even if you hate him” garbage.
flenser on June 13, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Not just third party candidates but *any* suitable person for whom you would bestow the office. We have a serious class problem in this country: the political class. And I wont hesitate to work around it.
HebrewToYou on June 13, 2008 at 10:08 PM
The purpose of a protest vote is to express displeasure with both main party candidates- not a strategy to get a favored candidate elected next election.
But if it makes you feel better, I won’t cast a “worthless protest vote”. I’ll just leave that line blank- I’m a conservative, and neither candidate really wants my vote.
Hollowpoint on June 13, 2008 at 10:21 PM
americanranger on June 13, 2008 at 9:01 PM
It’s a savage thought, ‘ranger, and even scarier in that I tend to agree.
rtsidedragon on June 13, 2008 at 11:09 PM
And soon we’ll know the truth of that….
Maybe they did us a favor…
But that slaps the face of the rule of law.
I believe this was pure politics…makes me sick……
jerrytbg on June 13, 2008 at 11:24 PM
If you vote for a third person in a two man race, then you are guaranteed to loose.
If you don’t want the lesser of two evils but you fail to participate in having your name counted for one candidate as millions of other are voting for another candidate – and there are more who think and act like you, and your inaction might have tiped the balance, then your refusal to vote for the lesser of two evils guarantees you the greater of the two evils.
Calling someone who is attempting to get this simple concept through your thick *ing head is not an acolyte for anyone other than the truth.
You, flenser and MadisonConservative could be wayeard conservatives who are bound and determined to not vote for a candidate you disagree with, and know that you will be responsible for an Obama victory, and you don’t care, or you three and more could be posing as conservatives, attempting to get as many as you can go go along with you to help make sure that Obama is elected and disaffected conservatives dont cast their vote.
In either case, you are advocating a democrat victory.
This is the truth.
I will attempt to counter every lie and spam and trolling BS from you all to make sure a democrat isn’t elected in 2008. And I won’t hesitate to continue this for five *ing long months while you are most likely going to do the same.
Good night.
wise_man on June 13, 2008 at 11:45 PM
And so you perpetuate the oligarchy…
History will prove that we were correct.
jerrytbg on June 13, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Yep, I’m still writing Fred Thompson on my ballot in November. For those saying that I’m “wasting” my vote, I agree with the letter on June 9th to the editors of WorldNetDaily called “Vote with your conscience.” Like that letter states, why should I have to choose between one evil or another when there is a sane man of good character who shares my views running for the same office? I’m voting for whom I view as the best candidate for President. I’m so sorry this doesn’t fit with either party, but I don’t vote for parties. I’m voting my conscience, as a Christian, as a father, and as an American, not as a Republican or Democrat. It makes me wonder what would happen if more people did the same.
Send_Me on June 13, 2008 at 11:54 PM
With your own, I see. Hypocrite.
MadisonConservative on June 13, 2008 at 11:54 PM
I fully agree with Fred, plus more.
All state and federal judges work under a self invented doctrine of judicial independence, of which CAN NOT be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. I say BULLSHIT.
Enough is enough. The federal judiciaries time is way overdue for mandatory term limits. I suggest a Constitutional Amendment, for the SCOTUS, that every four years, on a presidential election, four new judges get appointed, and four exit. The only one to remain, is the chief judge, and his appointment would be for no more than eight years. No more, or less than a two term president. For appellate judgeships, half should get auto pink slips every four years.
byteshredder on June 13, 2008 at 11:55 PM
That’s fine, except I don’t feel like fighting this war for the next century. Here’s why I say this:
1) Dead enemies don’t talk, hence no human intelligence.
2) Tell me, how effective was it to kill Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi? Oh, yeah, someone else slid right into his spot and continued fighting, hence, arguably, no value added to the fight.
3) If you “kill’em all,” then why should the Iraqis work with us and not our enemies? What’s the motivation? We need to work by, with, and through the Iraqis if we are to win.
If you are to win any contest of strategy, you must consider the 2nd and 3rd order effects. To “kill’em all” is to work harder, not smarter.
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 12:00 AM
I might go for that if it also applied to congress…and why doesn’t it anyway?
jerrytbg on June 14, 2008 at 12:00 AM
The biggest danger is that terrorists no longer have any reason to ever fight wars in the manner outlined in the basic rules- wearing a uniform to make it known they’re in battle, not attack civilians, etc.
Why abide by any of the rules of war when the court of the land in the world’s lone superpower says you don’t really have to?
TheBlueSite on June 14, 2008 at 12:04 AM
For what it’s worth, I felt the same passion as you’re feeling now when I voted my principles and cast my vote for Perot.
We got 8 friggin’ years of Clinton and our military was gutted, among many many other things.
Hell yes, I regret my decision, even though at the time, I very much wanted change. Actions have very real consequences.
I was a Fred guy. As poorly as he ran his campaign, I still think he would’ve been and done much better than McC, simply because he can communicate and isn’t afraid to do so.
But he’s not on the ballot. With some of the idiotic things that McC is out there saying about global warming, reining in the profits of private companies, his amnesty leanings, hs attitude toward the Conservative base… yep. It’s a damned hard pill to swallow.
I’m with Lim. I don’t see any Reagan’s coming along to resurect the party and the country once the marxists sieze power and change the rules (see recent SCOTUS decisions).
It’s like being faced with the decision of wheather to cut off my right arm or my left arm, but either way I’m gonna lose one of them. I need both.
I think we have a better chance of fighting McC than we do Comrade Obambi’s mobbed up marxist puppetmasters. I definitely could be wrong, but doing the equivalent of a political splodeydope just doesn’t seem to be the wisest decision to me.
I don’t understand the willingness to trust the gop, even after the dems crash the bus. They’ve repeatedly proven themselves unequal to the tasks, weak, and corrupt. Not all of them, but remember, we had all three friggin’ branches of government and could’ve done a hell of a lot better job, but we pissed the opportunity away.
I don’t trust the gop anymore. It’s going to take years to cobble this thing back together and rebuild the trust we squandered.
At this point I’m just fighting the marxist coup.
techno_barbarian on June 14, 2008 at 12:14 AM
I am speaking the truth. You can’t or won’t accept it.
wise_man on June 14, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Yes.
They do.
wise_man on June 14, 2008 at 12:22 AM
It’s too bad that more didn’t do the same when it mattered, in the republican primaries.
wise_man on June 14, 2008 at 12:23 AM
wise_man on June 14, 2008 at 12:20 AM
see above
jerrytbg on June 14, 2008 at 12:27 AM
which are you?
Can’t or won’t?
wise_man on June 14, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Yeah. History has proven that I am correct.
At least some people have learned their lessons.
wise_man on June 14, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Me, too. For that reason, I’m supporting the following:
1) Repeal the 17th Amendment. Give the power back to the states to choose/recall their own Senators. Otherwise, U.S. Senators will remain loyal to no one but themselves. This will also force folks to pay attention to state and local politics a heck of a lot more than they have because they’d know it’s these folks who’d choose their Senators.
2) If neither party is doing what so many would like them to do, why not do what has been done in the past and form a new party? Sure, I agree, this close to the election is probably too late for this time around, but if more folks, not just one or two, but every follower of Fred Thompson, or anyone else wanting someone with true conservative principles to get elected, then we need to get the word out and quickly. Why do we doubt ourselves? You’d think with as many pissed off people after the 2000 and 2004 elections, after voting for the lesser of two evils both times, that people would think about voting for the best guy, not just from the two we’re told from whom we can choose.
3) More conservatives need to run for office and get others to support them. Congress has a lot of folks that need to go, and there are plenty of folks who feel the same way. We don’t need big names, big money. If I wasn’t in the military, I’d run myself, but I can’t. I have a different calling for now. But seriously, is this, speaking of the current crop of politicians, the best we can do?
I just pray someone with some brains, strength, and honor gets elected. I want someone for whom I’d be willing to take a bullet.
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Like with global warming.
Johan Klaus on June 14, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Unfortunately, not in our lifetime….or mine anyway…
I’m thinking generational.
jerrytbg on June 14, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Dude, I can’t believe that you asked that.
Jaibones on June 14, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Hmmm, yeah, the primaries: another one of those ideas meant to make people think we have a choice in the matter. Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” showed the flaws in that system. By the time the primary for my state came around, all that was left were Romney, Paul and McCain. How about having the state legislators, by party, pick the candidates? Or how about using a preferential voting system?
Leaving that aside, in the end, I guess I’m just asking folks to be brave enough to vote their conscience, and not choosing a guy in the attempt to mitigate the risk of the worst-case scenario.
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 12:55 AM
yes… that’s what it’s all about!!
Bring back the Whigs….
jerrytbg on June 14, 2008 at 1:05 AM
I want someone like that too. Unfortunately this play doesn’t seem to have any of those particular characters written into it.
I’m not trying to discourage you, just relate historical fact, but what you’re saying above is almost verbatim what was going through my mind when I was supporting Perot. If all the people would just support the third party candidate… My Dad used to say, “And if a frog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his ass when he hopped.”
I want this fixed right now too, but the reality is that it’s going to take time to do all those things you’re suggesting, however, it’s very difficult to lend the kind of personal and financial support that’s necessary when you don’t have any business coming in or are otherwise out of a job because the economy is tanked by the massive taxes and restrictions and bureacracy that will drain us when the dems get all three branches of government.
Obambi, pelousi, and reid. Will we survive the rule changes?
It’s going to take a lot of work and more than a little time to turn this battleship around. I prefer to deal with the what is, rather than what if when the stakes are this high.
I’m not voting for the party. I’m voting for the best among bad choices, for survival. I’m voting against Comrade Obambi.
Thank you for your service, btw. I appreciate it.
Time to sleep.
techno_barbarian on June 14, 2008 at 1:33 AM
What does he mean by this? Is he saying that Americans have no right to habeas corpus?!
Mark Jaquith on June 14, 2008 at 1:55 AM
A priest, prophet, and Alex Jones all could not have said it better.
MadisonConservative on June 14, 2008 at 3:19 AM
Only Congress has the power to declare war, according to the Constitution. Yet they abdicated that responsibility and gave it to the Executive branch.
Now you expect them to stand up to the Supreme Court?
Dream on.
B26354 on June 14, 2008 at 4:18 AM
David Rivkin seems to have a good take on this.
-
deesine on June 14, 2008 at 5:54 AM
The progressively increasing reach of this Court is becoming a Constitutional crisis, and I don’t see any way to resolve it. Resolving it will require a Constitutional Amendment; no way that will pass (although a Constitutional Convention is worth a try). Assuming we could make a change, what then? Requiring a supermajority to declare something unconsitutional might work, and it creates a presumption against activism.
Another possibility is something like this: every time the court overturns an act of one of the other branches on the basis of the Constitution, score a point against one of the justices who voted to overturn it (selected randomly). Then, at each Senatorial election, pick the justice with the most points, subtract the number of years served, and throw a 12-sided die. If the number of points less years is greater than the number on the die, the justice is out. It would be interesting to see which justices engage in contortions (by abstaining when their votes are not needed for overthrow), but it combines a price for activism with enough uncertainty that it would be hard to game well. And it would make the justices consider the depth of their principles when throwing their weight around freely, which now they need not do.
njcommuter on June 14, 2008 at 5:55 AM
The saddest part about this is that many people simply accept the decision because they trust mantle of wisdom that Justices have been afforded since time in memoriam.
In truth, irrespective of how I personally feel about this, the final judgment on the “wisdom” of this ruling will be left to the future. And I think that will be very soon.
My wife (who is not a wonk like all of us are), figured this out the second she heard it. Her response was that she guessed that not a single “enemy combatant” would make it off the battlefield every again. I have to assume by her response that the “wisdom” of the Justices will be proven once again to be political activism when American patriots will do what is required to protect us all from the “wisdom” of the Geraldo Rivera’s of our times.
csdeven on June 14, 2008 at 7:00 AM
So, at what point do we concede that:
the soap box (blogs have minimal impact on the majority of people)
the ballot box (the GOP and Dem candidates have been chosen by the media, not the people)
and now the jury box (“Imperial” justices legislating from the bench in clear violation of the Constitution)
options have all been exhausted in the fight for Liberty?
I think it may be time to open the ammo box, and refresh the Tree of Liberty.
wearyman on June 14, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »