Gonzales Cautions Judges on Interfering

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-09-29 03:03pm

Holy shit.. Did I miss the declaring of War..

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.

He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. "The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center. "Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review," Gonzales said.

And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism.

Forbes

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2006-09-29 03:14pm

"The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center

Tools enough to tell the Bush Administration that their present policies are illegal and unconstitutional.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-09-29 03:54pm

Yep, Monarchists.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » 2006-09-29 04:27pm

Gonzales, the U.S.A. is a democratic republic, not a theocratic monarchy.

Take your bullshit and shove it up your ass.

It is the courts job to interpret the law for its constitutionality and to clarify it.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-09-29 04:30pm

Abu Ghonzalas can go fuck himself.

Post by **Simplicius** » 2006-09-29 05:09pm

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.

How about if they just force your power-mad employer to obey the law? is that good enough, Your Idiocy?

He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. "The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center. "Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review," Gonzales said.

What Stormbringer said.

And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. The justices are insulated from popular will for a reason.

Mr. Gonzales is 0-for-3. Ouch.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-09-29 05:42pm

The President is the Commander in Chief. Yes, if he says 'Troops do this', the court can't touch him from my understanding. BUT. The key is, he has 'tools', in the form of 'laws'. And those are what the Court deals with. Laws.

Slimy little bastard. Trying to make the court into the official geriatric spellchecker squad.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2006-09-29 06:19pm

I think one of the things included in the Torture Act was a retroactive declaration of war to go along with the retroactive immunity for war crimes.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2006-09-29 07:43pm

Elfdart wrote:I think one of the things included in the Torture Act was a retroactive declaration of war to go along with the retroactive immunity for war crimes.

Funny thing that a AG with a beef against Judicial Review also has a chubby for Bills of Attainder. Aren't those prohibited specifically in the Constitution?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2006-09-29 07:56pm

Indeed they are, but like cruel and unusual punishment they are now legal unless the courts overturn the Torture Act.