Attorney General of the U.S. tells courts what it can't do.

[Craig234]

I can't see the connection between my post and your question, Jaskalas.

 

[Craig234]

BUT... I think the outcome would have been no different.

LunarRay, we know what would have happened had all the votes where voter intent could be determined been counted, because that recount happened later in the year.

Several media groups paid an organization to actually do that recount, and it confirmed that Gore won the election.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I can't see the connection between my post and your question, Jaskalas.

Well, many are screaming Bush dictatorship, and in your post you explain how all 3 branches of government would be aligned to agree on a ruling like this. So I fail to see how a single man is ruling over all of us.

 

[Craig234]

Let's not play word games. Bush isn't a literal dictator - the word is used figuratively to describe his abuses of power, and the failure of the Congress to perform its duties to stop his abuses, because the same party is (was) unified to put their power first and the law second. And Julius Caesar, a dictator, had a Senate; they're not mutually exclusive.

The republicans have appointed some atrocious justices who are radicals gutting the constitution, making things worse.

The Congress and 4 members of the Supreme Court are not providing the proper check on the president, raising the 'dictator' issues.

The list of how they do so is long, for one example, when they lost a vote in Congress on a bill that would give $150 in windfall profit to their #1 donor industry, they did something unprecedented in 220 years of Congress, and held the Congress open all night, just ignoring the vote time being over, and went and twisted arms on the floor, waking the president and passing around a cell phone with him on the other end, asking members to name their price to switch their vote, and they pulled the votes needed.

 

[Thump553]

I wouldn't necessarily get so bent out of space about this. Quite frequently many litigants (and especially the Attorney General's office, due to the nature of the matters they handle) argue a court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction. The members of the Supreme Court are all well versed in this subject.

Nixon made a similar argument (on what I felt was a much closer call, from a legal standpoint), when he claimed he could not be compelled to disclose his secret tapes to Congress, even under subpeona.

Let's wait and see how the courts rule first. Emotional outrage and public pressure are effective against elected officials, not against courts.

 

[Craig234]

If the Nixon tapes happened to Bush, and the Supreme Court ordered him to turn them over, who doesn't think he'd refuse, and say 'you can't make me, and the Congress won't impeach me, so next topic'?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Craig234

BUT... I think the outcome would have been no different.

LunarRay, we know what would have happened had all the votes where voter intent could be determined been counted, because that recount happened later in the year.

Several media groups paid an organization to actually do that recount, and it confirmed that Gore won the election.

I've no doubt if the Intent was certified Gore would have won.. but the greater issue is the disenfrancised multitude... well over 15,000 by US Commission on Civil Rights.. they never did get to vote... It was massive..

The problem IMO.. is that there are deadlines to be met.. and Harris was within the law to send the certified election results.. IF she'd have allowed the challenge to go forth in the manner of recounting perhaps... but unlikely.. cuz she'd have caused the deadline to be missed in Congress...
But, I do see your point and have seen the tabulations and all. Some challenge the chad intent as do I... a uniform indication would be my preference - three corners gone - as well as written in votes which also had punches.. and the ballots them selves.. so many issues so little time..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Craig234
If the Nixon tapes happened to Bush, and the Supreme Court ordered him to turn them over, who doesn't think he'd refuse, and say 'you can't make me, and the Congress won't impeach me, so next topic'?

The only difference in all this is that there was old John Dean fessing up to all manner of misdeeds giving Congress the mandate.. but Sirica wanted them tapes too.. or mainly.. and imagine that.. Dean's recall of conversations and what not was almost verbatim... hehehhe Bush is covered.. no one is gonna charge him and or his boys... not any time soon.. and it is obvious to me at least that the US violated UN Charter by the Invasion of Iraq.. and that is a crime both for the International Court and the US Courts.. as well as an Impeachable Offense even if not charged... What really Irks me is that it is so blatant the utter disregard that Congress holds this matter in.. both the Right and the Left have not forced the hand and that sickens me..

 

[PrinceofWands]

There's a couple of problems with waiting for a SCOTUS save at the fence.

First of all the court really does grant enormous room for the executive to operate during times of emergency. Korematsu pretty much summed up the courts bent over stance when considering matters of national security. Granted this is a legislative action, but obviously done at the request of the executive to sidestep previous court interferences. Even if it gets heard there's a fairly good chance they'll err on the side of the government.

Speaking of being heard, the court is expert at dodging importing decisions. You might have to hold your breath a long time just to see a case actually get the review. Might not, but it's a possibility. Especially if they decline it as a political argument since it's so hotly debated (and so obviously partisan).

Lastly there's the question of implementation. The supreme court is constantly aware of it's limitations. Brown v. Board of Ed 1 was a wake up call that won't soon be forgotten. Making a ruling has nothing to do with getting it implemented. The risk of making a severely unpopular ruling with the neocons in near total power might be too great. Once the court is hamstrung/neutered it would be nearly impossible to revive it as a viable branch of government without a complete system overhaul. They may not be willing to take that chance against this kind of administration.