Friday, November 12, 2004

Ashcroft Condemns Judges Who Question Bush

In his first remarks since his resignation was announced Tuesday, Ashcroft forcefully denounced what he called "a profoundly disturbing trend" among some judges to interfere in the president's constitutional authority to make decisions during war.

"The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war," Ashcroft said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers' group.

Add "rule of law" to the Geneva Conventions and those other "quaint" concepts the Bush Administration wants to dispense with.

The very first case taught in law school, the bedrock on which our entire system of government operates, is Marbury v. Madison, an 1803 case that established that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."

Chief Justice Marshall did not say anything about a "time of war" exception. And for 200 years that case has prevailed. Is this seminal decision now considered "judicial activism?"

I am just fascinated to learn that the 'intent of the framers" was totalitarianism. If the right would just come out and say so, it would sure streamline the indoctrination process.


Post a Comment

<< Home

see web stats