From: "Rich Gauszka" 

Nah - Ex Cathedra  proclamations are limited to the pope and the Bushies.


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:44a44229{at}w3.nls.net...
> Is the supreme court vested with infallibility like the Pope??
>
> I think not.
>
> Gary
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:44a418e1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Is Bush never wrong?
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/29/DI2006062
901125.html
>>
>> Anonymous: Reports I've read have usually emphasized the government's
>> argument that, as "enemy combatants," the prisoners were
not entitled to
>> the rights afforded the Geneva Convention NOR rights under the U.S.
>> Constitution. I recall that the government argued that since the
>> prisoners weren't on U.S. territory they weren't entitled to protection
>> under the U.S. Constitution. Was this because they were on overseas
>> territory (e.g., U.S. military base) or because we argued that Guantanamo
>> was still legally Cuban territory leased to the U.S? In that case, are we
>> arguing that Castro is right to say Guantanamo belongs to Cuba, or that
>> we still recognize the Batista government? I'm confused.
>>
>> Derek Jinks: From 2001-2004, the government argued, relying on a World
>> War II precedent, that US federal courts had no habeas jurisdiction over
>> persons detained as enemy combatants outside of the sovereign territory
>> of the US. Because the GTMO lease agreement makes clear that Cuba retains
>> ultimate sovereignty over the territory in question, the government
>> maintained that US courts had no jurisdiction over enemy combatants
>> detained at GTMO--even though the US exerices effective control over the
>> territory. The Supreme Court rejected this argument in 2004--which is why
>> the Hamdan case moved forward in the first place.
>>
>> _______________________
>>
>> Toronto, Canada: The Bush administration took the liberty of ruling, by
>> administrative fiat, that none of the Guantanamo detainees qualified for
>> any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
>>
>> Do you know if Bush or any executive branch spokesmen claimed the
>> detainees were not lawful combatants because they didn't satisfy the
>> article 4 criteria?
>>
>> Derek Jinks: Terrific question. The issue is a complex, technical one.
>> Article 4 does specify 4 criteria that must be satisfied for SOME
>> detainees to receive POW status. These criteria are: they must carry
>> their arms openly; wear a fixed, distinctive sign; operate under a
>> responsible command structure; and observe the laws of war. The Bush
>> administration has maintained that neither the al Qaeda nor the Taliban
>> fighters complied with ANY of the four criteria. Here is the rub, though.
>> These four criteria apply only to ONE category of enemy
>> combatants---organized forces not forming part of the regular armed
>> forces of a state party to the conflict. These criteria do NOT apply to
>> members of the regular armed forces. So, members of the regular Taliban
>> army are entitled to POW status irrespective of whether they meet the
>> criteria. Several detainees at GTMO fall into this category.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:44a4142e{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Breyer can have an opinion but the court didn't have constitutional
>>> authority to issue ANY opinion on this because congress took away
>>> federal court jurisdiction on this case in 2005.  5 of the Supremes
>>> decided to ignore that and pretend they did have jurisdiction to issue
>>> an opinion. However, the fact remains the decision, imho and the opinion
>>> of 4 justices on the Supremes, is that by continuing jurisdiction and
>>> expressing any opinion the court is acting in violation of the
>>> constitution.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>> news:44a3f8e8{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> In his own separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said,
"Congress has
>>>> not issued the executive a 'blank check."'
>>>>
>>>> "Indeed, Congress has denied the president the
legislative authority to
>>>> create military commissions of the kind at issue here.
Nothing prevents
>>>> the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he
>>>> believes necessary," Breyer wrote.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>>>> news:44a3f700{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> The court's ruling is unconstitutional.  The constitution gives
>>>>> Congress the power to determine the jurisdiction of the court.
>>>>> Congress passed a law in 2005 that clearly stripped
jurisdiction of
>>>>> this case from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's refusal to
>>>>> follow the law and constitution is a blatant power
grab by the court
>>>>> and an unconstitutional exercise that the President
has absolutely no
>>>>> requirement to follow.
>>>>>
>>>>> If only Bush was gutsy enough to tell the court to take its
>>>>> unconstitutional opinion and go to hell, but instead
he will likely
>>>>> get congress to amend a couple statutes and do away
with the effect of
>>>>> this unconstitutional opinion thereby.
>>>>>
>>>>> With this decision the Supreme Court takes another
step down the road
>>>>> towards its complete loss of moral authority to bind
the citizens of
>>>>> this country.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> "Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
>>>>> news:44a3f4fa$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:44a3f1a8$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5129904.stm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>  Phil Payne
>>>>>>>  http://www.isham-research.co.uk
>>>>>>>  +44 7833 654 800
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's that damn Geneva convention again 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The court's ruling that the proceedings violated
Geneva Conventions
>>>>>> is seen as a major blow to the administration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5