Justice Department ignoring the courts

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-11-01 03:28am

Uuuhhhh..... hell is going to break lose? Or something?

Post by **Edi** » 2004-11-01 04:00am

Shinova wrote:Uuuhhhh..... hell is going to break lose? Or something?

No, it just means that unless challenged, and if Bush and the fascists in his administration are allowed to get away with this, you can kiss goodbye to your "Land of the Free". It hasn't been for a long time, really, with this kind of shit being pulled at every turn, the liberties of citizens restricted and outright false assertions that non-citizens are not entitled to those portions of the Bill of Rights that apply to them (2nd doesn't, the ones dealing woth voting don't, but the rest do).

Edi

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-11-01 05:18am

Par for the course for this lawless White House.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-01 05:36am

Isn't your citizenship automatically revoked if you join/fight for a foreign military

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-01 05:43am

MKSheppard wrote:Isn't your citizenship automatically revoked if you join/fight for a foreign military

My mistake. it was like that until 1967. I think we can all guess what happened.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-11-01 07:40am

can your citizenship be revoked at all without your approval?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-11-01 07:55am

salm wrote:can your citizenship be revoked at all without your approval?

Not to my knowledge. ANd even foreign nationals are guaranteed constitutional rights if they are on our soil.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-11-01 10:06am

Activist judges! Don't they know we're at war?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-11-01 10:35am

All those surprised by this article, please shoot yourselves for being too stupid to live

.

For a man who was put in office by the Supreme Court, Bush sure has a lot of gall to completely ignore their rulings on whether what he is doing is allowable under the Constitution.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-11-01 10:38am

salm wrote:can your citizenship be revoked at all without your approval?

afaik the only crime someone can commit over here to get their citizenship revoked is commiting treason.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-11-01 12:13pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
salm wrote:can your citizenship be revoked at all without your approval?
afaik the only crime someone can commit over here to get their citizenship revoked is commiting treason.

And fighting for a foreign government against the United States isn't precisely that? "Aid and comfort to the enemy." Hmmmmm...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 12:15pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:
salm wrote:can your citizenship be revoked at all without your approval?
afaik the only crime someone can commit over here to get their citizenship revoked is commiting treason.
And fighting for a foreign government against the United States isn't precisely that? "Aid and comfort to the enemy." Hmmmmm...

Don't be a fucking idiot. You still have to be tried and convicted of this crime in a constitutional manner. John Ashcroft can't just declare you a traitor and then immediately start treating you like one.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-11-01 12:18pm

Did I say that he could?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 12:21pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Did I say that he could?

No, because as usual, you stated little of consequence. However, you did imply that Ashcroft's bullshit accusations might actually meet the criteria for revocation of citizenship.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-01 12:25pm

Does the Supreme Court have any sort of check on the Executive Branch simply ignoring their rulings?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 12:37pm

Durandal wrote:Does the Supreme Court have any sort of check on the Executive Branch simply ignoring their rulings?

Isn't it just the hypothetical notion that the people who enforce the government's edicts (ie- police, the military) will be conscientious enough to refuse their orders if they are illegal?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-01 12:39pm

Durandal wrote:Does the Supreme Court have any sort of check on the Executive Branch simply ignoring their rulings?

See President Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears. The height of Imperial presidential arrogance when he told the Supreme Court to enforce its ruling because he wasn't going to.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-01 12:54pm

Stravo wrote:
Durandal wrote:Does the Supreme Court have any sort of check on the Executive Branch simply ignoring their rulings?
See President Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears. The height of Imperial presidential arrogance when he told the Supreme Court to enforce its ruling because he wasn't going to.

That's what I mean. Is there any remedy to that situation? Can the Supreme Court hold the president or the Judicial Department in contempt for blatantly ignoring their ruling?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 12:56pm

Durandal wrote:
Stravo wrote:
Durandal wrote:Does the Supreme Court have any sort of check on the Executive Branch simply ignoring their rulings?
See President Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears. The height of Imperial presidential arrogance when he told the Supreme Court to enforce its ruling because he wasn't going to.
That's what I mean. Is there any remedy to that situation? Can the Supreme Court hold the president or the Judicial Department in contempt for blatantly ignoring their ruling?

Even if they did, who's going to arrest the President?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-11-01 12:56pm

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" -Andrew Jackson

John Marshall being the Supreme Justice who nixed the Trail of Tears.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-11-01 12:57pm

Durandal wrote:
Stravo wrote:
Durandal wrote:Does the Supreme Court have any sort of check on the Executive Branch simply ignoring their rulings?
See President Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears. The height of Imperial presidential arrogance when he told the Supreme Court to enforce its ruling because he wasn't going to.
That's what I mean. Is there any remedy to that situation? Can the Supreme Court hold the president or the Judicial Department in contempt for blatantly ignoring their ruling?

Not really. Oh, they can ban them from doing anything related to the Supreme Court.. But that's it. And in this situation, I doubt Bush will be going to the Court for anything but installing more of his cronies. The whole system depends on the illusion all sides have power.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-11-01 01:00pm

They probably could, but it would depend upon Congress's reaction as to whether or not it'd do any good. The checks and balances system relies on two of the three branches teaming up on the third if the third one gets out of line.

You'd potentially have the US Marshalls (directly controlled by the courts) shooting it out with the Secret Service on the White House lawn in an attempt to arrest GWB for contempt.

This kind of bullshit is exactly why I'm not supporting GWB. Unfortunately I don't believe Kerry would be much better.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 01:02pm

Glocksman wrote:This kind of bullshit is exactly why I'm not supporting GWB. Unfortunately I don't believe Kerry would be much better.

What reason do you have to believe that Kerry would use the Constitution for toilet paper the way Bush has?

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-11-01 01:02pm

Good that the surpreme court in Germany works different. When the Bundesverfassungsgericht says that a law isn't compartible with the constitution, the constitution gives them the right to simply nullify that law.

Looks like that in America this is different.