ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:35 PM
Original message |
Did Gonzales Say They Would Not Obey The Court? |
|
Edited on Thu Aug-17-06 03:36 PM by ThomWV
I've been looking everywhere I could think of but can't find any sort of transcript or news item indicating that the Attorney General has said the Administration WILL NOT obey the order to stop wararntless wiretapping immediately.
If they have done that then it can be said with certainty that we are in a Constitutional Crisis.
If the Executive will not be checked by the Judiciary then all is lost.
Did he say it or just hint at it?
|
whistle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:37 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Yes, I believe that is exactly what he said |
rodeodance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:37 PM
Response to Original message |
2. see this thread. He just said that at a news conf. on cnn |
ananda
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
.. or what?
This morning, I wrote:
3. That activist snot. But I Alberto say it's OK, and I represent the justice department.
Everything's OK in bushworld, and my fearless leader can sign whatever law he wants whether congress voted for it or not, and he can change the law when he signs it anyway he wants...
... just because.
|
OrangeCountyDemocrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:38 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I Only Know What's Said Here On DU... |
|
But does anyone expect otherwise? Do you REALLY REALLY think they're going to obey a meaningless court order?
It's just another liberal activist judge trying to balance out their DICTATORIAL power. Like a fly on the wall.
|
sinkingfeeling
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:39 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I found this tid-bit... |
|
The ruling won't take immediate effect so Taylor can hear a Justice Department request for a stay pending its appeal. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/
|
JAYJDF
(322 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
12. this part of the rational doesn't hold water. because the taps |
|
started prior to 9/11. I believe that has been proven.
The U.S. Justice Department appealed the ruling and issued a statement saying the program is “an essential tool for the intelligence community in the war on terror.”
BTW, thanks for the site
|
rodeodance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:41 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Bennet on ccn right now. saying WH got a stay on it as they appeal. |
rodeodance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. Bennett bringing up the Brit foiled plot and we need this TOOL> |
Jacobin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Did he mention that Britain got warrants for its wiretaps? |
|
Lemme guess.
He did not mention that.
|
Popol Vuh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
refer to the U.S. Constitution as a "Suicide Pact"?
|
ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. Who Issued The Stay? Which Court Has The Authority To Do So? |
sinkingfeeling
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
13. I believe only the judge issuing the order can stay during appeal. |
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-17-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message |
11. We don't need no stinking laws ! |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 07:32 AM
Response to Original message |