Gonzales Cautions Judges on Interfering - The Orange Mane

Traveler · 10-03-2006, 02:15 PM

Gonzales Cautions Judges on Interfering
By Michael J. Sniffen
The Associated Press

Friday 29 September 2006

Washington - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.

He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. "The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center.

"Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review," Gonzales said.

And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism.

"Respectfully, when courts issue decisions that overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot - and should not - be shielded from criticism," Gonzales said. "A proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in mind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches."

His audience included legal scholars and judges, including Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the Bush administration's most reliable supporters on the Supreme Court.

The attorney general did not refer to any specific case or decision but only to wartime, military and foreign affairs cases in general.

Gonzales has sent Justice Department lawyers into federal courts from coast to coast defending Bush's detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, his plans to try some of them before military tribunals and his use of the National Security Agency to wiretap Americans without court warrants when they communicate with suspected terrorists abroad.

Over administration objections, the Supreme Court ordered that detainees could challenge aspects of their imprisonment in federal courts and overturned Bush's plans for military tribunals, forcing Bush to ask Congress to approve a new version of the panels.

A handful of federal district judges either ordered an end to the warrantless wiretapping or agreed to hear court challenges to it. Opponents of the plan argue the NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's requirement that the government get a warrant from a court that meets in secret before wiretapping Americans to gain intelligence information.

The administration contends that despite the statute's language, the president has inherent authority from the Constitution to order such eavesdropping without court permission. Justice lawyers also have argued that the challenges to the NSA program should be thrown out of court because trials would expose state secrets. Most of the judges' rulings and proceedings have been stayed pending appeal.

Gonzales also said he thought more states should move away from having judges stand in partisan elections to keep their seats. Gonzales himself as a Texas Supreme Court justice "had to raise enough money to run print ads and place television spots around the state in order to retain my seat." In such contested elections, "most of the contributions come from lawyers and law firms, many of whom have had, or will have, cases before the court," Gonzales said. "The appearance of a conflict of interest is difficult to dismiss."

He noted favorably that some states have adopted other ways of picking judges, including merit selection and appointment with simple up-or-down retention elections rather than contested campaigns. With polls showing many voters think judges can be swayed by campaign contributions, Gonzales said, "If Americans come to believe that judges are simply politicians, or their decisions can be purchased for a price, state judicial systems will be undermined."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2558676.story

Rohirrim · 10-03-2006, 02:57 PM

Well, it took 200 years, but we finally have evolved a man in Gonzales so brilliant that he has the intellectual power to waive Marbury vs. Madison by simple fiat. My, what times we live in.

bendog · 10-03-2006, 03:29 PM

I'm praying for kennedy and stevens.

defenseman · 10-03-2006, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bendog

I'm praying for kennedy and stevens.

Why?..dman

Bronco_Beerslug · 10-03-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Well, it took 200 years, but we finally have evolved a man in Gonzales so brilliant that he has the intellectual power to waive Marbury vs. Madison by simple fiat. My, what times we live in.

If I'm a judge and read this crapola I'm a little bit pissed!

defenseman · 10-03-2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

If I'm a judge and read this crapola I'm a little bit pissed!

Interesting...dman

enjolras · 10-04-2006, 12:49 AM

THIS is precisely why the founders gave us lifetime appointments for judges. They aren't obligated to pay one lick of attention to Gonzales.

baja · 10-04-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Gonzales Cautions Judges on Interfering
By Michael J. Sniffen
The Associated Press

Friday 29 September 2006

Washington - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.

He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. "The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center.

"Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review," Gonzales said.

And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism.

"Respectfully, when courts issue decisions that overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot - and should not - be shielded from criticism," Gonzales said. "A proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in mind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches."

His audience included legal scholars and judges, including Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the Bush administration's most reliable supporters on the Supreme Court.

The attorney general did not refer to any specific case or decision but only to wartime, military and foreign affairs cases in general.

Gonzales has sent Justice Department lawyers into federal courts from coast to coast defending Bush's detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, his plans to try some of them before military tribunals and his use of the National Security Agency to wiretap Americans without court warrants when they communicate with suspected terrorists abroad.

Over administration objections, the Supreme Court ordered that detainees could challenge aspects of their imprisonment in federal courts and overturned Bush's plans for military tribunals, forcing Bush to ask Congress to approve a new version of the panels.

A handful of federal district judges either ordered an end to the warrantless wiretapping or agreed to hear court challenges to it. Opponents of the plan argue the NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's requirement that the government get a warrant from a court that meets in secret before wiretapping Americans to gain intelligence information.

The administration contends that despite the statute's language, the president has inherent authority from the Constitution to order such eavesdropping without court permission. Justice lawyers also have argued that the challenges to the NSA program should be thrown out of court because trials would expose state secrets. Most of the judges' rulings and proceedings have been stayed pending appeal.

Gonzales also said he thought more states should move away from having judges stand in partisan elections to keep their seats. Gonzales himself as a Texas Supreme Court justice "had to raise enough money to run print ads and place television spots around the state in order to retain my seat." In such contested elections, "most of the contributions come from lawyers and law firms, many of whom have had, or will have, cases before the court," Gonzales said. "The appearance of a conflict of interest is difficult to dismiss."

He noted favorably that some states have adopted other ways of picking judges, including merit selection and appointment with simple up-or-down retention elections rather than contested campaigns. With polls showing many voters think judges can be swayed by campaign contributions, Gonzales said, "If Americans come to believe that judges are simply politicians, or their decisions can be purchased for a price, state judicial systems will be undermined."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2558676.story

Could it be any more clear we have a hijacked executive branch that is grabbing as much power as they can by whatever means they can.

defenseman · 10-04-2006, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enjolras

THIS is precisely why the founders gave us lifetime appointments for judges. They aren't obligated to pay one lick of attention to Gonzales.

Nor does any law prevent Gonzales from reminding judges they don't sit the bench to legislate their "personal" feelings on a particular subject. They need to keep their head in the game and tube stow their agendas. Sounds fair to me...dman

BroncoBuff · 10-04-2006, 08:00 AM

Gonzales should be arrested and charged with a crime: Title 18 - conscious deprivation or undermining of the Constitution under color of authority.

The judicial branch ALONE determines what IS and IS NOT Constitutional. Since 1803, as Rohirrim pointed out, in Marbury vs. Madison. Interfering with thtat function - even suggesting otherwise - is grounds for Bush to fire him. The three distinct branches of government serves their three distinct functions.

Period.

Or if he understands better, perioda.

defenseman · 10-04-2006, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Gonzales should be arrested and charged with a crime: Title 18 - conscious deprivation or undermining of the Constitution under color of authority.

The judicial branch ALONE determines what IS and IS NOT Constitutional. Since 1803, as Rohirrim pointed out, in Marbury vs. Madison. Interfering with thtat function - even suggesting otherwise - is grounds for Bush to fire him. The three distinct branches of government serves their three distinct functions.

Period.

Or if he understands better, perioda.

Good attempt at stretching it a bit. However, your opinion is certianly noted...dman

Bronco_Beerslug · 10-04-2006, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

Good attempt at stretching it a bit. However, your opinion is certianly noted...dman

What was "stretched"?

defenseman · 10-04-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

What was "stretched"?

Reminding someone of their sworn duties and responsibilities, de facto, is not a bad thing. It's reminding them of why they draw a pay check. There is no problem with any public or government official recieving a gut check now and again. That's about all Gonzoles did from where I sit. To believe that he is attempting to undermine, based on his speech, is a stretch at best. But, you know beerslug, that's just my opinion. And, to save you the typing, of course I'm pandering to the republican agenda. That's fine if you or others believe that, we all have an opinion, one of the wonderful things about our country..........dman

baja · 10-04-2006, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

Reminding someone of their sworn duties and responsibilities, de facto, is not a bad thing. It's reminding them of why they draw a pay check. There is no problem with any public or government official recieving a gut check now and again. That's about all Gonzoles did from where I sit. To believe that he is attempting to undermine, based on his speech, is a stretch at best. But, you know beerslug, that's just my opinion. And, to save you the typing, of course I'm pandering to the republican agenda. That's fine if you or others believe that, we all have an opinion, one of the wonderful things about our country..........dman

Your opinion has been noted..

defenseman · 10-04-2006, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

Your opinion has been noted..

Thank you...dman

BroncoBuff · 10-04-2006, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

Reminding someone of their sworn duties and responsibilities, de facto, is not a bad thing.

He's not "reminding them" of anything! They already know their role ... far better than this dim bulb Alberto ever will understand it ...

He's trying to intimidate them - to infer that rulings against the administration will be painted (by the administration and their contract hit-men) as Un-American ... and ... against our boys.

Maybe he shouldn't be arrested ... okay. But he should be FIRED for this.

defenseman · 10-04-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

He's not "reminding them" of anything! They already know their role ... far better than this dim bulb Alberto ever will understand it ...

He's trying to intimidate them - to infer that rulings against the administration will be painted (by the administration and their contract hit-men) as Un-American ... and ... against our boys.

Maybe he shouldn't be arrested ... okay. But he should be FIRED for this.

Noted for posterity..dman

Rohirrim · 10-04-2006, 09:03 AM

This is basically what I would interpret to be veiled threats against sitting judges. If you or I did that, the FBI would come tap, tap, tapping at our doors.

Bronco_Beerslug · 10-04-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

This is basically what I would interpret to be veiled threats against sitting judges. If you or I did that, the FBI would come tap, tap, tapping at our doors.

Exactly!!!!
Republicans trying to intimidate the masses is nothing new but they're out in the limelight now and don't have the sense to realize EVERYTHING they say and do now will be questioned, especially when making threats against the judiciary of this country!

TailgateNut · 10-04-2006, 09:17 AM

What else would we expext from anyone involved with the "slap on the back" administration. Arrogance has been re-defined since 2000!

defenseman · 10-04-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

What else would we expext from anyone involved with the "slap on the back" administration. Arrogance has been re-defined since 2000!

There has been some of that for sure, agreed...dman

bendog · 10-04-2006, 09:38 AM

Garrison Keilor

I got some insight last week into who supports torture when I went down to Dallas to speak at Highland Park Methodist Church. It was spooky. I walked in, was met by two burly security men with walkie-talkies, and within 10 minutes was told by three people that this was the Bushes' church and that it would be better if I didn't talk about politics. I was there on a book tour for "Homegrown Democrat," but they thought it better if I didn't mention it. So I tried to make light of it: I told the audience, "I don't need to talk politics. I have no need even to be interested in politics -- I'm a citizen, I have plenty of money and my grandsons are at least 12 years away from being eligible for military service." And the audience applauded! Those were their sentiments exactly. We've got ours, and who cares?

The Methodists of Dallas can be fairly sure that none of them will be snatched off the streets, flown to Guantanamo, stripped naked, forced to stand for 48 hours in a freezing room with deafening noise, so why should they worry? It's only the Jews who are in danger, and the homosexuals and gypsies. The Christians are doing just fine. If you can't trust a Methodist with absolute power to arrest people and not have to say why, then whom can you trust?
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatur...945&code=ctngk

And he's right, this never would've made it past Goldwater.

10-03-2006, 02:15 PM	#1
Traveler Traveling Man! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 4,410 Adopt-a-Bronco: Ryan Clady	Gonzales Cautions Judges on Interfering Gonzales Cautions Judges on Interfering By Michael J. Sniffen The Associated Press Friday 29 September 2006 Washington - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime. He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. "The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center. "Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review," Gonzales said. And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism. "Respectfully, when courts issue decisions that overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot - and should not - be shielded from criticism," Gonzales said. "A proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in mind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches." His audience included legal scholars and judges, including Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the Bush administration's most reliable supporters on the Supreme Court. The attorney general did not refer to any specific case or decision but only to wartime, military and foreign affairs cases in general. Gonzales has sent Justice Department lawyers into federal courts from coast to coast defending Bush's detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, his plans to try some of them before military tribunals and his use of the National Security Agency to wiretap Americans without court warrants when they communicate with suspected terrorists abroad. Over administration objections, the Supreme Court ordered that detainees could challenge aspects of their imprisonment in federal courts and overturned Bush's plans for military tribunals, forcing Bush to ask Congress to approve a new version of the panels. A handful of federal district judges either ordered an end to the warrantless wiretapping or agreed to hear court challenges to it. Opponents of the plan argue the NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's requirement that the government get a warrant from a court that meets in secret before wiretapping Americans to gain intelligence information. The administration contends that despite the statute's language, the president has inherent authority from the Constitution to order such eavesdropping without court permission. Justice lawyers also have argued that the challenges to the NSA program should be thrown out of court because trials would expose state secrets. Most of the judges' rulings and proceedings have been stayed pending appeal. Gonzales also said he thought more states should move away from having judges stand in partisan elections to keep their seats. Gonzales himself as a Texas Supreme Court justice "had to raise enough money to run print ads and place television spots around the state in order to retain my seat." In such contested elections, "most of the contributions come from lawyers and law firms, many of whom have had, or will have, cases before the court," Gonzales said. "The appearance of a conflict of interest is difficult to dismiss." He noted favorably that some states have adopted other ways of picking judges, including merit selection and appointment with simple up-or-down retention elections rather than contested campaigns. With polls showing many voters think judges can be swayed by campaign contributions, Gonzales said, "If Americans come to believe that judges are simply politicians, or their decisions can be purchased for a price, state judicial systems will be undermined." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2558676.story

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-03-2006, 02:57 PM	#2
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 48,814	Well, it took 200 years, but we finally have evolved a man in Gonzales so brilliant that he has the intellectual power to waive Marbury vs. Madison by simple fiat. My, what times we live in.

10-03-2006, 03:29 PM	#3
bendog Marginally Continent David Bowens, he'd be an upgrade Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 19,935 Adopt-a-Bronco: David Bowens	I'm praying for kennedy and stevens.

10-04-2006, 12:49 AM	#7
enjolras Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 6,940	THIS is precisely why the founders gave us lifetime appointments for judges. They aren't obligated to pay one lick of attention to Gonzales.

10-04-2006, 08:00 AM	#10
BroncoBuff *************** Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 25,433 Adopt-a-Bronco: QUANTERUS SMITH	Gonzales should be arrested and charged with a crime: Title 18 - conscious deprivation or undermining of the Constitution under color of authority. The judicial branch ALONE determines what IS and IS NOT Constitutional. Since 1803, as Rohirrim pointed out, in Marbury vs. Madison. Interfering with thtat function - even suggesting otherwise - is grounds for Bush to fire him. The three distinct branches of government serves their three distinct functions. Period. Or if he understands better, perioda.

10-04-2006, 09:03 AM	#18
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 48,814	This is basically what I would interpret to be veiled threats against sitting judges. If you or I did that, the FBI would come tap, tap, tapping at our doors.

10-04-2006, 09:17 AM	#20
TailgateNut Bleedin' orange! .......as much as tebonites Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mile High Posts: 20,018 Adopt-a-Bronco: Howard Griffith	What else would we expext from anyone involved with the "slap on the back" administration. Arrogance has been re-defined since 2000!

10-04-2006, 09:38 AM	#22
bendog Marginally Continent David Bowens, he'd be an upgrade Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 19,935 Adopt-a-Bronco: David Bowens	Garrison Keilor I got some insight last week into who supports torture when I went down to Dallas to speak at Highland Park Methodist Church. It was spooky. I walked in, was met by two burly security men with walkie-talkies, and within 10 minutes was told by three people that this was the Bushes' church and that it would be better if I didn't talk about politics. I was there on a book tour for "Homegrown Democrat," but they thought it better if I didn't mention it. So I tried to make light of it: I told the audience, "I don't need to talk politics. I have no need even to be interested in politics -- I'm a citizen, I have plenty of money and my grandsons are at least 12 years away from being eligible for military service." And the audience applauded! Those were their sentiments exactly. We've got ours, and who cares? The Methodists of Dallas can be fairly sure that none of them will be snatched off the streets, flown to Guantanamo, stripped naked, forced to stand for 48 hours in a freezing room with deafening noise, so why should they worry? It's only the Jews who are in danger, and the homosexuals and gypsies. The Christians are doing just fine. If you can't trust a Methodist with absolute power to arrest people and not have to say why, then whom can you trust? http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatur...945&code=ctngk And he's right, this never would've made it past Goldwater.