Roberts Too Scary for Scalia?
Hey yall, read this:
PADILLA RULING, STORY FROM LA TIMES:
That could be anybody, YOU. Now we have no more rights than any terror suspect in Guantanamo. Why aren't the congressmen grilling John Roberts on how he stands on the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights? During Germany's Nazi regime one perogative of the powerful was to denounce enemies to the secret police. POOF! You disappear! Problem solved! Welcome to Amerika. The appellate court ruling goes to the Supreme Court next.
The irony is that Bush's naked power-grab at the Bill of Rights is unpopular across the political spectrum. Roberts could be defeated by arousing popular sentiment on an issue most people agree on (even right-wing militia gun-nut types don't like the Patriot Act or the idea of disappearing to Guantanamo in the middle of the night...) The Democrats are throwing the fight again, playing rope-a-dope and hey at least this guy ain't Scalia. BUT GET THIS: even Scalia doesn't like the direction of this Americans-as-enemy-combatants business. In a recent dissent to the Supreme Court's ruling that another American "enemy combatant"had no right to a jury trial, (joined by liberal justice Stevens) Scalia wrote:
When a policy is too draconian even for Scalia, we're in trouble. Roberts could turn out to be a fascist who makes Scalia look like Rosa Parks.
Your congressmen's emails and phone numbers at this link.
CONGRESSMEN CONTACT PAGE
Hold-out Democrats on the Judiciary Committee (who'll vote on Roberts) are:
Ben Nelson D-NE, Mark Pryor D-AK, Max Baucus D-MT, Kent Conrad D-ND
Screw Reid's 'everyone vote their conscience", punish Democrats who stick us with this right-wing dork.
PLEASE CIRCULATE!
PADILLA RULING, STORY FROM LA TIMES
PADILLA RULING, STORY FROM LA TIMES:
"A federal appeals court ruled today Jose Padilla, the so-called "dirty bomber," can be held forever in jail as an enemy combatant and never allowed to defend himself at trial, although he is an American citizen and was arrested in this country."
That could be anybody, YOU. Now we have no more rights than any terror suspect in Guantanamo. Why aren't the congressmen grilling John Roberts on how he stands on the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights? During Germany's Nazi regime one perogative of the powerful was to denounce enemies to the secret police. POOF! You disappear! Problem solved! Welcome to Amerika. The appellate court ruling goes to the Supreme Court next.
The irony is that Bush's naked power-grab at the Bill of Rights is unpopular across the political spectrum. Roberts could be defeated by arousing popular sentiment on an issue most people agree on (even right-wing militia gun-nut types don't like the Patriot Act or the idea of disappearing to Guantanamo in the middle of the night...) The Democrats are throwing the fight again, playing rope-a-dope and hey at least this guy ain't Scalia. BUT GET THIS: even Scalia doesn't like the direction of this Americans-as-enemy-combatants business. In a recent dissent to the Supreme Court's ruling that another American "enemy combatant"had no right to a jury trial, (joined by liberal justice Stevens) Scalia wrote:
"If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires, rather than by silent erosion through an opinion of this Court."
When a policy is too draconian even for Scalia, we're in trouble. Roberts could turn out to be a fascist who makes Scalia look like Rosa Parks.
Your congressmen's emails and phone numbers at this link.
CONGRESSMEN CONTACT PAGE
Hold-out Democrats on the Judiciary Committee (who'll vote on Roberts) are:
Ben Nelson D-NE, Mark Pryor D-AK, Max Baucus D-MT, Kent Conrad D-ND
Screw Reid's 'everyone vote their conscience", punish Democrats who stick us with this right-wing dork.
PLEASE CIRCULATE!
PADILLA RULING, STORY FROM LA TIMES
posted by Jobs for Afghans at 7:28 PM
1 Comments:
No Justice - it applies to my experience in court, every time. In theory, people have rights, and public outrage still shows effective power regarding the Roberts' french fry opinion. Unlike Roberts, the public saw an arrest of a 12 year old as an outrage and their outrage caused the necessary changes in the application of the law. Roberts on the other hand, although the procedure was fixed, welcomed the status quo and only sees status quo as his duty, in his featured Hedgepath v. the D.C. Metro case wherein he upheld her arrest and said her Constitutional 4th and 5th Amendment rights were NOT violated! "The Law is the Law" says Roberts. Upheld. Others have the proper wisdom of knowing the Constitution is supposed to GUARANTEE FREEDOMS provided, and are VERY able and willing to uphold the constitution and strike down the unconstitutional laws and other behaviors, wherever they occur.
Continue the GOOD FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM POLIS!
Post a Comment
<< Home