As if the Bush administration could not go any lower...

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Please explain how this is an example of judicial activism. Please note that the term "judicial activism" does not mean "ruling I don't like".

It seems only ONE judge has "called" their imprisonment unlawful.

So? It was the highest court to review the case. How many judges need to say something is illegal until it actually is?

Point being, I dont see anything about a "ruling" on this one, only a judge "calling" it illegal. Therefore, who gives a crap what the judge thinks, show me the ruling. Not to mention the fact that detanees at Guantanamo do not have the same rights as Americans.

Well then maybe you should go read up on the case before sticking your foot in your mouth. Why is it so hard to research the topic you are writing about before you do it?

The judge DID rule on it and determined the detention to be illegal but said that the court was unable to provide relief. In fact, it was probably if anything excessive judicial restraint, not activism. Of course you would know that if you spent even five minutes learning about the subject before you wrote something dumb.

Here, I did the legwork for you. Thank me later. Text

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There are actually several people in Gitmo who we can't set free because they have no place to go.

It is against or policy to release people to countries that will torture them. Because of this quite a few people are 'stuck' in Gitmo.

BTW we could fly them to Miami and set them 'free' and then have INS pick them up for being illegals and then we can detain them lawfully

:laugh: All that is official policy. Then there is extraordinary rendition in which we went against our own policy. But of course, American doesn't torture:roll:.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Please explain how this is an example of judicial activism. Please note that the term "judicial activism" does not mean "ruling I don't like".

It seems only ONE judge has "called" their imprisonment unlawful.

Pop quiz: How many federal judges does it take to declare an activity unlawful?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Spelling "eliteists" FTL!

Gee, everyone must seem like an elitist to you, what with their perfect spelling and all . . .

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well then maybe you should go read up on the case before sticking your foot in your mouth. Why is it so hard to research the topic you are writing about before you do it?

The judge DID rule on it and determined the detention to be illegal but said that the court was unable to provide relief. In fact, it was probably if anything excessive judicial restraint, not activism. Of course you would know that if you spent even five minutes learning about the subject before you wrote something dumb.

Here, I did the legwork for you. Thank me later. Text

I read the article posted in the thread. Not your article. Good to know though and I stand corrected. So like I said, too bad the detainees at Gitmo dont have the same rights as Americans or I would be worried.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Corbett
Spelling "eliteists" FTL!

Gee, everyone must seem like an elitist to you, what with their perfect spelling and all . . .

Oh please, it was one typo in my sig, some of us don't thrive on our e-reputation like you obviously do.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well then maybe you should go read up on the case before sticking your foot in your mouth. Why is it so hard to research the topic you are writing about before you do it?

The judge DID rule on it and determined the detention to be illegal but said that the court was unable to provide relief. In fact, it was probably if anything excessive judicial restraint, not activism. Of course you would know that if you spent even five minutes learning about the subject before you wrote something dumb.

Here, I did the legwork for you. Thank me later. Text

I read the article posted in the thread. Not your article. Good to know though and I stand corrected. So like I said, too bad the detainees at Gitmo dont have the same rights as Americans or I would be worried.

Well the judge ruled that these detainees DID have rights that were violated. Not to mention the fact that American citizens have had their rights shit upon in the exact same manner.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well the judge ruled that these detainees DID have rights that were violated.

And again I say, its one activist judge. Gitmo detainees are not subject to American laws or consitutional rights. If they were, we would shut down Gitmo and bring them here to the States.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well the judge ruled that these detainees DID have rights that were violated.

And again I say, its one activist judge. Gitmo detainees are not subject to American laws or consitutional rights. If they were, we would shut down Gitmo and bring them here to the States.

Please explain how it is a case of judicial activism. If Gitmo detainees are not subject to American laws, under what laws are we holding them? Do this in the context of the knowledge that the US Supreme Court (and Antonin Scalia, the arch conservative in particular) has repeatedly held that the detainees at Guantanamo are in fact subject to the US Constitution and US laws.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well the judge ruled that these detainees DID have rights that were violated.

And again I say, its one activist judge. Gitmo detainees are not subject to American laws or consitutional rights. If they were, we would shut down Gitmo and bring them here to the States.

with Bush in office? Ya got to be joking. It wont be closed till after he leaves office. I would lay odds on within 1 year with Obama in office, or 4+ with McCain.

And why is it always Conservitives that yell ACTIVIST JUDGE when the ruling isn't what they wanted? I never see Liberals do this.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well the judge ruled that these detainees DID have rights that were violated.

And again I say, its one activist judge. Gitmo detainees are not subject to American laws or consitutional rights. If they were, we would shut down Gitmo and bring them here to the States.

Elitists? Activist judges? What, is your entire lexicon based on the crap you hear on Fox News? In any event, I suppose you think the SCOTUS are also activist judges too, eh?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

Unfortunately for you and your retarded opinion, they ALSO ruled that the protections of the Geneva Code also extend to the prisoners at Gitmo. Even the DoD relented after that decision.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well the judge ruled that these detainees DID have rights that were violated.

And again I say, its one activist judge. Gitmo detainees are not subject to American laws or consitutional rights. If they were, we would shut down Gitmo and bring them here to the States.

with Bush in office? Ya got to be joking. It wont be closed till after he leaves office. I would lay odds on within 1 year with Obama in office, or 4+ with McCain.

And why is it always Conservitives that yell ACTIVIST JUDGE when the ruling isn't what they wanted? I never see Liberals do this.

Because people don't actually know the definition of judicial activism. The far right hates the judiciary with a passion because they so frequently strike down things they want to do. (Justice Sunday anyone?) Any time an adverse ruling comes down they just stamp "judicial activism" on it as a buzzword they can all get angry about it and move on. God forbid they even know what the term means first.