Judge Rejects Bush's Stance On Wiretaps »
Posted by: bubba2 2 months agoA federal judge said that President Bush does not have the constitutional authority to overstep the law establishing the government's ability to conduct warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. FISA, in 1978, established the 'exclusive' means for engaging in wiretaps, and the president in his capacity as commander in chief can not evade that law.
Read Full Story at cbsnews.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 59
-
debtcollectionorComment removed: User banned.5 Replies
-
-
0%
protoham2 months ago
??? It will certainly end for Bush, his term will be over. As for Congress they are already controlled by the Dems. So if you want change, the congress will return to Rep control, as for the President it will change no matter what you want.
I agree that these wire taps are illegal, but it was your congress that wrote the law. This is just like "no child left behind" which did not come from Bush, but Ted Kennedy.
All the President can do is approve or disapprove a law.
So I you want real change look to see how your Congressman voted on this law. You might be surprised.
Reply-
0%
PsychoHosebeast2 months ago
Congress may have a majority of dems, however, you don't mention that nearly HALF of the senators and representatives are Republicans. Don't behave as if they may as well just go hom because they have absolutely no say whatsoever in what goes on, to claim so would be the claim of a fool.
Returning control to the dimwit Republicans won't be change, it'll just be a return to and a bolstering of the unconstitutional insanity good-ol'-boy sycophantic administration that's been foisted on us for the first six years.
Reply
-
0%
AnteUp2 months ago
nikkibabe ~
I wish. My gut still twists in a knot when I think about
the rumblings of another terrorist attack before the
elections are held. It has never happened here - but it has
in plenty of other countries...........What if "something"
happened?
Could Bush suspend the national elections for national
security reasons? Would it have to go to the Supreme Court?
How long would that take? Considering a different time frame
- what would happen if that "something" happened AFTER the
elections in November, but BEFORE the inauguration in
January?
I'll grant you, it seems too far-fetched to contemplate -
but then again, SO much of what these characters have
accomplished is unprecedented.
Reply
-
-
0%
CrusaderRabbit2 months ago
At least one judge has the guts to take the lead on this issue. This is only one of many issues that this administration has subverted the Constitution on. Maybe more members of the judicial branch will step up and begin the process of returning our constitutional freedoms that have been destroyed by the Republicans.
Reply-
-
0%
Grrr2 months ago
Does it really matter what laws Congress writes, tries to pass, or tries to enforce? Bush just vetoes or executive privilege-s his way around anything that deviates from his script, anyway. The president is directly at fault for killing most of the productive legislation to come out of the current Congress. There has been some.
And it's not like this administration follows the laws that have been passed, anyway. It's not like even the Patriot Act, as miserable of a hack job on the Constitution as it is, makes this stuff okay. That's what this is all about, and yes it is up to the judiciary to reign in the executive branch by ruling that they do indeed have to follow the laws.
ABOUT F#CKING TIME.
But Congress should have impeached before the end of the first term. We knew enough of this crap then. Neither party should have stood by for this fascist empirical garbage.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
truthiness2 months ago
more proof of impeachable criminal acts.
-for those pointing to the patriot act- a) it doesn't approve this b) even if it had, it wouldn't matter because legislation can not trump the constitution, nor can it trump other legislation unless it SPECIFICALLY AMENDS that legislation. you can not just make contradictory laws and then choose the one that works. nothing in the patriot act amends the FISA laws.
Reply -
0%
mackiemesser2 months ago
The plaintiffs have a document that proves their case but can't use it because the document is classified? Reminds me of Oliver North's 'confessions' which were ruled inadmissable because he had immunity. In both cases, guilt is obvious but vacated because the circumstances proving the guilt are inadmissable. Is justice being served?
Reply -
-
0%
ZippySpincycle2 months ago
Stupid old Constitution. Who needs it when we have George Bush at the helm?
Reply -
0%
CRYMTYPHON2 months ago
Don't you HATE how hateful they are?
Makes me want to grab them by the collar and slap them silly and shout 'what is WRONG with you people? Why do you HATE so much?' and then we could do to their thumbs what the spanish used to do to prisoners, you take a cork and a pin and, -
uhm, anyway, they are very hateful. And that's just wrong.
Reply -
0%
Goppy2 months ago
LOL!
A Neo-Con apologist claimin LIbbies have a simplified world view!
(!)
That is pretty ding dang funny!!
Like our 'Complicated' Neo-Con View. Let me give you an encapsulated view of how our Neo-Cons deal with 'issues'.
"Problems in the world? CALL OUT THE MILITARY!"
"Problems in the economy? GIVE TAX REBATES TO THE WEALTHY!"
"Problems with dissent to our ideas? CALL OUR OPPONENTS ANTI-AMERICANS!"
"Impediments to our right wing agenda? FIRE THE EXISTING ATTORNEYS GENERALS AND INSTALL OUR LACKEYS."
"The Golbal Warmin issue gettin too hot to ignore? RAMP UP THE HATE CAMPAIGN ON AL GORE!"
"Problems with our Republican candidate for presdient? CALL THE BLACK DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE A RACIST!"
I could go on and on ... I mean ... I am just laughin so hard at your comment and my response bluey ... I need to go get a glass of water.
LOL!!
'blinded by hatred and simplification of the world."
Reply-
0%
Goppy2 months ago
Hey, I just realized!
We the Neo-Con Ideeologie could use this as our Brand Marketing Statement!
"BLINDED BY HATRED AND SIMPLIFICATION OF THE WORLD!"
------ HEY! ------
We could develop a trendy alphabetized version! That's the cool thing in marketing these days!
Liek: instead of Kentucky Fried Chicken - you get KFC.
Instead of 'What Would Jesus Do - you get WWJD.
Instead of 'Blinded by Hatred & Simplification of the World ... we would have ...BBH-&-SOTW.
Reply
-
-
0%
Grrr2 months ago
I still can't decide who is more surrealistically over the top in their irony, Goppy or bluenote. That is intended to be some kind of facetious remark, right, bluenote? Or do you really expect anyone to buy double-speak of such blatancy? If you believe this crud you spew, you're an idiot. But you don't type like an idiot, so you must just be a liar. But then, where does that leave you, intentionally giving the CON a black eye, or unintentionally exposing the hypocrisy that is a Bush apologist? I just can't decide which side you're really on...
Oh well, just one of the paradoxical mysteries of Universe that keeps things interesting, I guess.
Reply
-
-
0%
kedirian2 months ago
Apparently, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has not been "astute" enough to get his law Degree from Regency University...
Reply -
0%
mmrhe2 months ago
It's been the subject of much speculation. Revealed here for the first time....; )
Reply -
0%
bluenote15222 months ago
You guys need to read the Constitution. Not the abridged edition with all the pictures, but the real one. The Kennedy's were spying on everyone in the Sixties and Bobby wasn't even President. You guys go out and play and the adults will watch out for the bad guys. You are one paranoid bunch to say the least. You want to give the enemy individual trials because a handful of Lib judges say so. If Bin Laden is captured does he get a trial ala OJ with the presumption of innocence. Let's run everything through the courts, they are quick, efficient, and inexpensive. Wake up gang!
Reply-
0%
truthiness2 months ago
Article 3
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made...
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
-you mean that constitution?
Reply
-
-
0%
mmrhe2 months ago
Who's war is this? Who's tax cuts have us swimming in red ink? Who's monetary policy has gutted the dollar?
Even four year olds know Blue!
Reply -
0%
bluenote15222 months ago
Economy was doing okay until the housing runup crashed. And in your simplified world Bush caused that. Sadly you guys always wanna get the rich. But what you have to realize to a Dem, we are all rich. So before you light the torches and charge down the street after the rich you might want to intrespect.
Reply
Submitted By:
bubba2
I'm OUTTA here! The new format S-U-C-K-S! (Recent activity due to some online time while staying with my mother in the hospital ...)
========
I have ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - Palin’s National Guard faces manning woes
- 1.0 - Army says soldier suicide rate may set record again
- 1.0 - Christian Right Summit Still Wields Clout
- 3.8 - McCain's Palin Choice - Bold or Reckless?
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
TimALoftis
Helixbuilder
ciera-marie
berkeley
bonaroo- rebner
chuck-the-canuck
Eagle_Eye
engineer- dandydebwhitener
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
