Next step: UNITARY EXECUTIVE.

[rhett o rick]

Tell me if i am wrong on this. The SCOTUS might use the torture law challenge to decide that the President is not subject to the rule of law during war time.

At long last CJ Roberts gets his Unitary Executive.

[shance]

1. That is why this should not go to the courts.

Let a Democratic Congress deal with it.

[C_U_L8R]

2. a purge is in order

a giant flush of all these corrupt republicans
especially all the career operatives they've
imbedded over the years.. they are a cancer.

[AX10]

3. I agree.

[rhett o rick]

5. We all agree, but HOW? They have all the power and money. nm

[rhett o rick]

4. That sounds so easy, but many democrats support the President

and the Neocons. Just because the Democrats get a majority in the HOR, doesn't mean they can carry the votes.

And more important, the Neocons aren't going to give up power peacefully. They have a lot of tools at their disposal, especially now that they can torture literally anyone they want.

Dissident = terrorist = torture

[shance]

7. However, think about overturning a Constitutional Amendment.

Think about that.

[rhett o rick]

9. I'm just sayin. nm

[AX10]

8. John Conyers will control the Judiciary Committee in the House.

[kansasblue]

6. Constitutional flaw?

The more I think about it this 'war powers' part of the Constitution seems to be a big flaw. It rewards power to a president that starts a war.

Jump in the way-back machine and go tell the framers.

[rhett o rick]

10. There is nothing the Constitution can do to prevent the American

people from voting themselves into tyranny.

[rhett o rick]

11. Will SCOTUS uphold torture law?? nm

[POAS]

12. I think they will but I was wrong about

Hamden so I hope I'm wrong again.

[treestar]

13. They have a duty to apply the rule of law

I am more optimistic. At least as appointed for life they cannot be removed for making a legal decision that some politician doesn't like.

They've done the right thing so far (decided against indefinite detention, etc) and that is the reason for this bill.

But something blatantly wrong, for someone on that court, is going to get to their conscience. They all know it is wrong, except for maybe Scalia, who is certifiably insane and not qualified to be on any court in a nation run by laws and not men.

There is case law from the past that they would have to overturn and explain. They can't just use slogans in a legal opinion. That's why it is so dishonest when the MSM contains these headlines for their rulings like "Bush loses on tools to protect us from terra" rather than "the Constitution wins." The MSM of course doesn't just print the opinion and let the reader make up their own minds, they are too busy trying to control people.

But people who have been appointed as justices of the US Supreme Court will hopefully and optimistically, be too ashamed to write an opinion which would have to torture (pun intended) the language of the Constitution and all prior case law so blatantly.

[rhett o rick]

14. But Roberts believes in a unitary executive. nm