Federal judges are jeopardizing national security by issuing rulings contradictory to President Bush's decisions on America's obligations under international treaties and agreements, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Friday.
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.
anyone care to tell me why we shouldn't draw parallels between post-911 america and 1933 germany? this band of shitheads wants to do away with the built-in division of power in our government. i'm gonna slap the next person who claims liberals 'hate' america upside their thick fuckin' heads.
[link via bigskiphazzy at daily kos]
1 comment:
ha ha, you said "poop."
the federalist society is full of poop, actually. we just had a solomon amendment debate at school, and the federalist society took a pro-solomon amendment stance. the solomon amendment is possibly one of the most coercive federal statutes in existence. it takes away federal funding from an entire university system even if only one branch of the university (like a law school for example) chooses not to allow the military to recruit on campus. most accredited law schools have a non-discrimination policy that includes non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; thus, disciminatory employers are not allowed to recuit on campus. anyhow, that's the short version.
my beef is: the federalist society claims to adhere to the principles of federalism, but in practice, adheres to these principles... only when it fits their political agenda - and they claim not to have an agenda.
i decided to open my mouth rather loudly before the debate and ask why the federalist society was PRO-solomon amendment, which i said was one of the most draconian exertions of federal power over private institutions. i thought the federalist society was all about telling the federal gubment to "sit, boy, sit!"
"aren't you guys federalists, since it says so in your title?"
the only response i got was from the attorney representing the plaintiffs in FAIR v. Rumsfeld (a group of law faculty members are suing, calling the solomon amendment unconstitutional on first amendment grounds), and she said, "ya know... i don't know why either. it is contradictory, isn't it?"
the federalist society members present declined to respond.
so yeah... anyone? bueller?
Post a Comment