The Supreme Court says Bush CAN'T!! do what he wants when he wants:
1. That the President's conduct is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty (see, e.g., footnote 23, and the Kennedy and Breyer excerpts that Orin Kerr quotes).Listening to Al Franken this afternoon: word had it Clarence Thomas, as vinegary a douche bag you wouldn't find in an abandoned whorehouse, and who never -- Never! -- utters a peep from the bench, read aloud his virulent dissent.
2. That Congress's enactments are best construed to require compliance with the international laws of armed conflict, absent contrary legislative direction.
3. That Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. (See also the AMK concurrence: "The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes,' punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel.
"War crimes" ehh... ?
4 comments:
so much for your bleating that the Court shills for the GOP. Howze that crow taste?
the exception that proves the rule, chumley...
let's go see mr. whoopee!!
Are you gonna be pissed off when the country gets a Dem-appointed bench and the Court doesn't undo years of jurisprudence?
u mean like they did w/brown v board of education undoing plessy v ferguson... ?
or are you still obsessing on bowers v. hardwick... ?
hard to swallow... ?
leave a bad taste in your mouth... ?
Post a Comment