Supreme Court in 2004 will Expand or Shrink the Power of the President - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-30-2004, 06:04 AM   #31
love, blood, life
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,876
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Danospano
---I love how most threads get sidetracked into discussions about related, yet tangent subjects. (sigh)

---Concerning the upcoming cases before the Supreme Court I believe that old laws will be respected. Getting a president into office is one thing; giving him unilateral powers concerning illegal detainment is another.
Somehow it seems we do get sidetracked. It is a shame that they all seem to lead into the same debate. You almost have to not say certain things that are on your mind for fear that it will lead to the same discussion.

What if the Old Laws are not Respected. Lets say the Court Rules in Favor of some of these cases. This will have an impact for years to come.

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-31-2004, 03:23 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
deep's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,008
Local Time: 03:22 PM
some judices are the lapdog of the administration

2 Democrats Criticize Scalia's Refusal to Quit Cheney Case

Reps. Waxman and Conyers cite the 1995 recusal of a judge with ties to President Clinton.
By David G. Savage
Times Staff Writer

January 31, 2004

WASHINGTON Two House Democrats added to the pressure on Justice Antonin Scalia to withdraw from a pending Supreme Court case involving Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday, saying a recent duck hunting trip the justice took with Cheney posed the same kind of conflict of interest that had forced an Arkansas judge who was a friend of President Clinton to withdraw from a 1995 case.

Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) cited that precedent in a letter to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and urged him to establish a procedure for "formal review" of justices' possible ethical conflicts.

The case before the Supreme Court could compel Cheney to release documents relating to his energy task force.

Scalia's relationship with Cheney has come under scrutiny because he flew to Morgan City, La., with the vice president on Jan. 5 to hunt. The two were also seen dining together outside Washington in November.

In the Arkansas case, then-independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr pressed U.S. District Judge Henry Woods to step aside from a matter that grew out of the Whitewater investigation. Starr argued that a "reasonable observer would question [his] impartiality" because of the judge's friendship with Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The judge had balked at withdrawing because charges in the case were brought against Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and did not involve the Clintons directly. Nonetheless, Starr persisted, saying that the "public perception" was that the Whitewater investigation involves the Clintons, at least indirectly.

When Starr took the matter to a higher court, the U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis agreed and ordered Woods, now deceased, to step aside.

The law requires a judge to remove himself when there is "the appearance of bias," the appeals court said. It does not require the showing of actual bias.

"We make this request because it appears that Justice Scalia is following a different standard than the lower courts in deciding recusal questions," Waxman and Conyers wrote in their letter to Rehnquist.

"The federal statute requiring a judge to recuse himself 'in any proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned' applies to Supreme Court justices and other federal judges alike," the lawmakers wrote. "We do not believe that one standard should apply to judges who are friends of the Clintons and another standard should apply to judges who are friends of Mr. Cheney."

On three occasions in late November and early December, the Supreme Court considered an appeal filed by Bush administration lawyers that sought to preserve the secrecy that surrounded Cheney's energy task force.

The Sierra Club and Judicial Watch had sued the vice president, alleging that he violated an open-government law by meeting behind closed doors with corporate lobbyists. A judge ordered Cheney to turn over documents to the lawyers for the two groups, and the U.S. court of appeals upheld that order.

But on Dec. 15, the high court voted to take up Cheney's appeal. The court is due to hear arguments in the case in April.

In response to a Times inquiry, Scalia said this month that he did not see a need to remove himself from the case because Cheney was being sued in his "official capacity, as opposed to [his] personal capacity."

"I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned," the justice said.

In their letter Friday, Waxman and Conyers argued that Cheney is the central figure in the lawsuit: "It is no exaggeration to say that the prestige and power of the Vice President are directly at stake" in the case.

deep is offline  
Old 01-31-2004, 03:55 PM   #33
Blacksword's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Just a word on presidential authority. The Executive branch of government varied in strength depending on the president but was relatively weak (by today's standards) until the Industrial revolution made American politics give up the small government notion and give the Executive a bureaucracy large enough and powerful enough a long with greater powers to control things. In the Progressive period streching through the later 1890's up to WW1 that the Executive branch really gained its powers. The people wanted this because Congress was een to be too powerful and corrupt, and a series of strong Presidents were willing to push through reforms which were dying in Congress (which was corrupt). But in the end this was a reballancing as a larger exectuive was needed to hand the growing welfare state needed in and industrialized society. In the end however the US system of government has always been based on a balance of power between the Executive, Legislative and Judical branches of government. If one gets too powerful there's tyranny and this was the intention of the constitution. By the 1890's the Legislative branch was too powerful so the table was balanced, right now it's the Executive and if America doesn't want despotism the table has to be balanced yet again.
Blacksword is offline  
Old 01-31-2004, 04:04 PM   #34
love, blood, life
melon's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 06:22 PM
If the courts become corrupt, though, due to the Legislature and Executive branches consciously appointing biased judges, then we're screwed.

melon is offline  
Old 02-01-2004, 01:35 PM   #35
Blacksword's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Yup, things were really screwed in the 1870's and 1880's when all the courts were doing was passing pro corperate legislation. That happens again it's over.

Blacksword is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ©