As a result of the outrageous Supreme Court decision today conferring rights on terrorists held prisoner in Guantanamo Bay, Mark took a lot of emotional calls from his loyal listeners.
Those were some great calls, weren’t they? They are all good friends, as well.
.jpg)
It took more than a little restraint for me to call and limit it to what I did. But hey, I’m here now so let me add this.
I guess every infantry squad, tank section, Stryker platoon, intelligence exploitation team, and Special Ops A-team (and Navy SEAL Team) will now have a defense counsel lawyer assigned to drag along out onto the battlefield with them. They will not be there to advise the unit, only to observe for things they can use in the “detainee’s” defense.
Hey, ambulance chasers: any of you have the testicular fortitude to volunteer?
We may not be in Iraq for 100 years but we will be fighting liberals for a thousand. Since O’Connor left the Court Kennedy became the new puke.
Bush will return to Congress and attempt to get additional laws enacted. The problem is you need Constitutional Amendments to say what the Constitution says in the first place since the Supremes defy both the Executive and Legislative Branches. The first new Amendment we need is one that restrains these Justices.
If we had a normal group of Republicans and an educated public this would be fodder for election stump speeches all around the Country. In addition the bloody pulpit should echo with the drumbeat of an ML day in and day out. Unfortunately Bush is too weak and McCain is too stupid. This goes to emphasize that there is a lot more to fighting and winning a war and keeping Americans and America safe than just being an ex POW and wanting to stay in Iraq till the jib is done. If we don’t defeat liberals at home no enemy will ever be too weak for us to not lose a war abroad. Then it is just an amount of time before the chickens really do come home to roost. Between porous borders, a weakened Patriot Act and now this, we better pray the Heller decision goes well because we will all need to be armed.
If I were the enemy I would immediately change strategy. I would give up, allow myself to be captured and immediately ask for my right to counsel. This way America can’t win without losing.
Lets be realistic. If I tell you to jump, and you ask how high, then it is YOU who have made me the boss, not I. The natural inclination of most people would then be to tell you to fetch my slippers and cook me breakfast. Likewise, it is not the courts, but rather the laziness and cowardice of governors, Presidents, and legislators who have grown the notion of judicial supremacy.
Yesterday, radion talk show host Mark Levin asked me to be realistic when I suggested that the President show some back bone, do his job, and refuse to abide by this ruling of the Supreme Court. Okay lets: The conservatives are clinging on to 2 very unrealistic solutions to judicial tyranny:
1. You can avoid judicial tyranny by appointing good judges and hoping for the best. This is unrealistic for 2 reasons:
a. Human nature. The Framers never counted on self-restraint by anyone in power. In fact, they counted on the exact opposite: a tendency towards tyranny. That is why they created checks a balances, and why they left the courts powerless.
b. Human nature. Federal court appointments are life terms. Nearly everyone, as they get nearer to their death, becomes less loyal to job and country, and more loyal to personal ethics, religion and legacy.
2. The second, silly solution is the Constitutional Amendment: For some reason, conservatives believe that a judge who blows his nose with the Constitution will be prevented if you change the print.
When it was suggested to Mitt Romney that he defy the Mass Supreme Court and refuse to issue gay marriage licenses, he dismissed the idea as “acting unlawfully.” Rush Limbaugh used the same expression when the same defiance was suggested of Jeb Bush in the Terry Schiavo case. These replies are illogical. Either the court is violating the law, or the court IS the law. You cant have it both ways. If the court is violating the law, then it is the sworn duty of the other branches to protect us from tyranny. It’s not hard. The courts have no clause and no gun which empowers them to issue orders to the other branches. All they have are law degrees and a baliff. Mark Levin also told me (paraphrasing) that “This isnt (the time of) Andrew Jackson.” But we need not go back that far. All we need to do is google the name of the great Illinois Comptroller Daniel W Hynes, (a Democrat!) and how he handled his Supreme Court in 2003.
What will President Bush, or President Romney or Limbaugh, do when the Supreme Court orders him to vacate Iraq? He will stomp and cry. He will call for a Constitutional amendment that names the President as Commander in Chief.
No President wants to deliberately violate even a lower court ruling. It would take almost no effort for this Congress to implement impeachment proceedings because they have the numbers and a disdain for Bush, which is psychopathic. Kucinich is doing it right now and there are others in the House that always talk about it. When you speak of Jackson he himself did not violate a Supreme Court decision, he ignored enforcing the State of Georgia to abide by it. The State has a sovereign significance. It was not as though the Court decision specified (or could specify) that the Federal Government must compel, by force, Georgia to recognize Indian Nation sovereignty. In addition the Court had no army to do anything. That Congress had no inclination to impeach a President for his tangential position with the Supreme Court ruling. Rest assured that this present Congress would immediately do what they feel they can. They have the ammunition that what Mr. Bush is doing is unconstitutional. That translates to high crimes and misdemeanors.
BTW, what I said about an Amendment was done “tongue in cheekâ€Â. That is what we may need but check when we last had an Amendment passed. Just try and get 75 % of the States to ratify one as and also get a super majority of Congress to go along as well. No easy job.
It floored me today to listen to Bob Barr the Libertarian Candidate for president on Dallas Radio say how happy he was about the supreme court decision.
It’s depressing as hell — I had thought he would be a choice for president that I thought I could make but that is a deal breaker for me.
lloydh40, unfortunately, that’s what you get with true Libertarians. They are great on some things, but downright stupid on others!