ChasingBlueSky 0 #1 January 18, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id//16668110/ Gonzales raps 'activist' judges Attorney general says federal jurists should defer to president's will The Associated Press Updated: 7:07 a.m. CT Jan 17, 2007 WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases. In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. He also raps jurists who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.” The text of the speech, scheduled for delivery at the American Enterprise Institute, was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. It outlines, in part, what qualities the Bush administration looks for when selecting candidates for the federal bench. “We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.” Challenges to Bush policies Gonzales did not cite any specific activist jurists, or give examples of national security cases, in his prepared text. The Justice Department is appealing an August decision by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit, who ruled the government’s warrantless surveillance program unconstitutional and ordered it stopped immediately. The Justice Department appealed her decision and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has ruled that the administration can keep the program in place during the appeal. Attorneys representing terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay are challenging the legality of a law, signed by President Bush in October, that authorizes military trials. Those challenges raise the possibility that trials will be struck down by a federal appeals court or the Supreme Court. Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court justice, has in the past warned about judges who inject their personal beliefs in cases. But his prepared remarks Wednesday mark his sharpest words over concerns about the federal judiciary — the third, and equal, branch of government. Judges who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences, they actually reduce the credibility and authority of the judiciary,” Gonzales says. “In so doing, they undermine the rule of law that strengthens our democracy.” Even so, Gonzales characterized efforts to retaliate against unpopular rulings as misguided, noting a failed South Dakota proposal to sue or jail judges for making unpopular court decisions. He also called for Congress to consider increasing the number of federal judges to handle heavy workloads, and to offer them higher salaries to lure and keep the best jurists on the bench._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #2 January 18, 2007 I suppose I must have been dreaming when I learned about three branches of government, and about checks and balances.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #3 January 18, 2007 >I suppose I must have been dreaming when I learned about three branches of government . . . . ??? We still have em. The president, the vice president, and the attorney general. They check and balance themselves so nothing gets out of hand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #4 January 18, 2007 I especially liked this portion of the article... Even so, Gonzales characterized efforts to retaliate against unpopular rulings as misguided, noting a failed South Dakota proposal to sue or jail judges for making unpopular court decisions. Misguided??????? Holy Shit the man is guiless.. I would have characterized it as something far more sinister than that...and the right wonders why so many people are worried about our constitutional rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #5 January 18, 2007 Take and deep breath and repeat after me: Just two more years, just two more years (make sure to click your heels)_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #6 January 18, 2007 Sounds like something you'd hear from Mugabe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #7 January 18, 2007 QuoteSounds like something you'd hear from Mugabe. hrmmm http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-01-16-voa49.cfm_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #8 January 18, 2007 Quotejudges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress ....... NO, they should uphold the law and the constitution He also raps jurists who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.” absolutely correct This guy runs extremes, doesn't he? Either EXTREMELY wrong, or EXTREMELY right. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #9 January 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteSounds like something you'd hear from Mugabe. hrmmm http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-01-16-voa49.cfm Brave ladyDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #10 January 18, 2007 Quote “We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our government.” Fixed it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #11 January 18, 2007 Quote I suppose I must have been dreaming when I learned about three branches of government, and about checks and balances. No one has been interested in the legislative branch for years. When there was States Rights, states had their own legislature that passed laws. Then, there were certain laws that were Federal. If people wanted a new law, they took it to their state legislature. If people objected to a law, they challenged it in State court. However, it took too long to accomplish an agenda if it required passing a law in 50 states, so groups just bypassed the entire process and went to the Supreme Court for a ruling. That bypassed the entire process and the new ruling became law. The enforcement of the SC rulings was done by holding your tax dollars hostage. The Fed govt returns some of your taxes to your state, if your state is an obedient servant. Using the SC to void the power of the other branches started in the 60s and has only gained momentum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #12 January 18, 2007 QuoteThe enforcement of the SC rulings was done by holding your tax dollars hostage. The Fed govt returns some of your taxes to your state, if your state is an obedient servant. Years ago when I lived in Indiana, the state instituted a periodic auto safety inspection program. Several years down the road, the Feds decreed that a state auto inspection was required to include a smog test. IN protested they didn't have funds for that. The Feds threatened to withhold highway funds. So the IN legislature repealed the inspection program. You see ,the Fed rules said an auto inspection must include smog testing. It didn't say an auto inspection program was required to exist."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #13 January 18, 2007 I believe that about 30% of the Florida school system funds are Federal. The other big program is roads. They can cut funding to either set of programs if you do not follow their decrees, where it is related or not. They don't call it a "fine" or punishment, they just "withhold funds until the issue can be resolved". So, your school system shuts down until you agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #14 January 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSounds like something you'd hear from Mugabe. hrmmm http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-01-16-voa49.cfm Brave ladyYeah. And she'll prolly disappear into one of those black holes soon.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #15 January 18, 2007 Quote Using the SC to void the power of the other branches started in the 60s and has only gained momentum. My god, what an informative post. Thanks. I love it when I learn something.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #16 January 18, 2007 Quote So the IN legislature repealed the inspection program. You see ,the Fed rules said an auto inspection must include smog testing. It didn't say an auto inspection program was required to exist. I love it! We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 January 18, 2007 QuoteAttorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, Wrong. Policy must be performed according to the operating instructions presented by the Constitution. QuoteIn remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. This is a bad idea. QuoteHe also raps jurists who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.” I agree with this comment. Quote“We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.” He is restating and twisting a fundamental issue of justiciability for federal courts - that courts shall not rule on a "political question," meaning either the Constitution gives the authority to another branch (i.e., declaration of war); the standards are not adequate (i.e., whether it was proper for Congress to declare war); or whether courts feel they should stay out of it. An example would be when Jimmy Carter unilaterally nullified a treaty with China. Senator Goldwater sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that it should be dismissed because the SCOTUS had no business determining issues between Congress and the President. The Goldwater v. Carter case also shows how it is being misapplied by Gonzales - this isn't about conflict between the branches. It's about whether policies are being forwarded in a Constitutional way. BIG difference. Quote“That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.” No, a judge is just in the best position to determine the Constitutionality of the government's activities in furtherance of national security policy. I have often stated my contempt for the processes used in the past to forward more "enlightened" and "progressive" policies. I have long believed, and continue to believe, that the constitutionally questionable methodology used in pursuit of the admirable policies of the past will come back to bite the prior advocates in the ass. It is. As dumb as people say Bush is, he is utilizing a "living, breathing" Constitution argument. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #18 January 19, 2007 QuoteI believe that about 30% of the Florida school system funds are Federal. The other big program is roads. They can cut funding to either set of programs if you do not follow their decrees, where it is related or not. They don't call it a "fine" or punishment, they just "withhold funds until the issue can be resolved". So, your school system shuts down until you agree. Federalism is a reality... and sadly so... perhaps elected leaders should be forced to write out the constitution BY HAND until it actually sinks in...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
