Bush is in trouble with SCOTUS - Sparks flew as they shredded his case

Oh, snap, reports the NYT-



He said, flying around the room, robes trailing. Then Clement stupidly tried to draw a distinction about the writ as applied to enemy combatants outside US territory-



Bless his heart! It's dizzing to hope that some sanity will be imposed on the bushbots. To think that these five could rule on the legality of suspending *giggle* habeas corpus, or *guffaw* the Geneva Conventions is too too delicious.

What I want to know is how did Justice Ginsberg keep a straight face?-



http://users.deltacomm.com.nyud.net:8090/rainbowz/laughter.JPG

It really did seem to cause sparks to fly!

And I wish I'd heard the audio on CSPAN!

Why do I get the feeling some of these judges have just been WAITING for this opportunity?

:rofl:

to dance on his head for a little while. :rofl:

as soon as the dems take back the house.. before bush, it's easier to do than the president anyway..

bent over backward to side with the BFEE on this. No big surprise there I guess. Everyone knew that "Scalito" would do whatever backed up the bush administration's position. I'm SOOOO glad the Democrats "kept their powder dry" and didn't filibuster Alito. :sarcasm:
The man is a carbon copy of Scalia. Let's just hope longevity doesn't run in his family or Scalia's.

"I'm SOOOO glad the Democrats "kept their powder dry" and didn't filibuster Alito"


We need more mainstream decisions such as allowing Alito to the bench. Only us "fringe" people would want to keep Mr. "unitary executive" off the bench.

You know that the powder stored under the Maginot line was dry for years afterwards?

i listened to this morning on C-Span on line...

i'll have to listen to it again later, i rather enjoyed it.

by the way, i just absolutely loved this imagery:

He said, flying around the room, robes trailing. Then Clement stupidly tried to draw a distinction about the writ as applied to enemy combatants outside US territory-

In the little box on the top the main c-span page, it has links to video/audio to recent highlights. If the hamden one isn't there, try clicking on the little arrow and see if it comes up for you.
They have a video, which is essentially the audio with some pictures c-span has provided.

Correction: FIRST click on Supreme Court in the left margin.

Also, I responded to the wrong post; mean to respond to the one that said "I wish I'd heard the audio."

I want to see their faces, particularly the looks on the faces of the justices while Souter and Ginsberg were making their statements.

:) Thanks (The pic is Judy Garland -that laugh is full of just the sort of release this court exchange made me feel)

Those Justices read the news, too. They could make a broad interpretation, and with Roberts off this case, my heart beats faster. We have to remember how nervous the admin has been over some of their flakier arguments.

snip>
One lawyer involved in the interagency debates over the Geneva Conventions issue recalled a meeting in early 2002 in which participants challenged Yoo, a primary architect of the administration's legal strategy, when he raised the possibility of Justice Department war crimes prosecutions unless there was a clear presidential direction proclaiming the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. The concern seemed misplaced, Yoo was told, given that loyal Bush appointees were in charge of the Justice Department.

"Well, the political climate could change," Yoo replied, according to the lawyer who attended the meeting. "The implication was that a new president would come into office and start potential prosecutions of a bunch of ex-Bush officials," the lawyer said. (Yoo declined comment.)

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=Convict_Memos

This is good news.

The Justices' voices drip with sarcasm and cynicism. It sure as hell doesn't sound like they're buying any piece of the Bushoilini bafflegarb. Will their 'loyalty' to the Judicial Branch outweigh their cronyism? Time will tell.

listening closely and with excitement as I listened to the arguments. Neal Katyal is a law professor at G-Town University. He is fantastic and I have a relative who works with him at G-Town and have actually exchanged some emails with him. I was embarressed once because I wrote an email to my relative saying how I thought Neal Katyal rocked and she forwarded it to him...He actually responded....

Your absolutely right Tahitinut that the Justices' voices were dripping with sarcasm and cynicism...it couldn't have been more obvious from the questions (even from Scalia) that their disgust and disdain for the bullshit eminating from Clement the Solicitor General was that his arguments were a crock of shit.

I think even Scalia realized that the arguments were such a stretch that he couldn't side with it and keep any credibility...

Can't wait for the decision and opinions on this one....

when he appointed Roberts as Chief.

I listened to the audio on Npr and loved every minute of it.

little lord pissy pants i believe is going to be taken to task for breaking our laws..by the supreme court..without roberts and alito!!

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

finally!!!!!

and justice for all

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

fly

:kick: :kick: :kick:

I saw the original adverb in your post & I thought you were mocking a new freeper misspelling find.

This story is HUGH!

I'm going to dare to be hopeful here.

Just like Justice Souter said, "The writ is the writ."

Here's The Witch's thread on the hearing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=774448&mesg_id=774448

remained silent during the entire dog and pony show. He was deep in thought, no doubt. :eyes: Scalia will tell him how to rule and that will be that. Thomas is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. His intellectual laziness and downright disregard for the rule of law make him the biggest buffoon to ever grace the chambers of the Supreme Court. The man is as dumb as a post and just sits there pretending to know what they're talking about. Like I said, Scalia will tell him how to rule, if he hasn't already and that will be the end of it.

he's a republican whore who votes with Scalia - they are both scum

Next up: The Illegal Spying by NSA and the Neo Fascist Bush Regime?

He don't need no stinkin' questions..

If it's the 5-4 defeat I've been expecting, it means that Bush need only get one more pick on the Court for it to go his way in the future. :scared:

If one or more of the Four Horse's Asses of the Apocalypse (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) votes against the government, it will be a pretty strong signal to Bush that his claims of executive power are so extreme, they won't even be able to get past conservative Republican jurists.

he decided on it in the appeals court when he was there. To hear it again here would put him in the position of ruling against (or for, duh) himself = conflict of interest.

We all know what's waiting in the wings. I can't help think about
"Pelican Brief" every time I think of the SC's potitical make-up.:scared: I really want to hear this case on C-SPAN. I hope they replay it this weekend when I have the time to listen to it.

That last Ginsburg exchange is unbelievable! WTF? Does the Government know how stupid they sound/look talking out of both sides of their mouths? sheesh!

name the judges. They do legislate from the bench in favor of the Republican Presidents and administration policies. But then, there is no opposition so why complain?

legal into english for me? i am listening and even Scalia seems skeptical, but i don't know why, lol.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014404.html

and here the ACLU defines the stakes-

http://blog.aclu.org/index.php?/archives/23-Whats-at-Stake-in-Hamdan-v.-Rumsfeld.html

Basically, the govt has put the court in the position of defending its jurisdiction. Scalia, Alito and Thomas may resent the hell out of it but it's unlikely that they'd ever find against their king.

from serious health issues and wingnut assassins, because their slim majority in the SCOTUS is all that stands between us and legalized theocratic fascism. THey are all being pressed hard to retire, and at least some of them have received death threats. The Bushies want the SCOTUS in their corrupt pocket and have made it very clear to their ravening hordes that the non-wingnut judges stand in their way of promoting their version of a "Christian" state.

The courage of these sane justices is inspiring. They know very well what they risk by standing up to the cabal and its lawless hordes.