Comments on: Justice Kennedy Has Decided that He’s Going to Run Things for a While.

By: Sweating Through Fog

Sweating Through Fog — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:14:58 +0000

As I wrote on my blog, McCain could win the election on this issue alone. All he has to do is say that if he is elected, he will ignore this Supreme Court decision.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:36:19 +0000

Except that's exactly what he and the rest of the majority did, spoots. Never, ever in the history if this country have illegal combatants been given habeus rights. Now they have more habeus rights than you do. If that's not a power play, then the phrase has no definition at all.

By: spoots

spoots — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:05:53 +0000

"That’s not saying what the law is but saying that the law complies or does not comply."

Whatever, dude. Kennedy doesn't need a refresher course from you or anyone. "Say[ing] 'what the law is'" is a pretty vague phrasing, I admit, but given the immediate context, there can be no real question as to what he meant. He's obviously not making a play for the power of the other 2 branches.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:59:47 +0000

Wrong, spoots. The job of the judiciary in that regard is to ensure that the law does not conflict with the Constitution. That's not saying what the law is but saying that the law complies or does not comply. Nothing more.

Congress says what the law is when they pass it. That's why Congress debates the law in an open fashion, so we who have elected them can see the process and inject ourselves into it if necessary.

Laws are determined by the elected officials. They are measured agains the Constitution by the judiciary. That's basic black-letter Constitution.

By: spoots

spoots — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:48:12 +0000

"you could call me incompetent all day."

Good, then I shall. Writing laws is indeed the job of Congress, but saying “what the law is”, i.e. interpreting it vis-a-vis the Constitution– clearly the meaning in this context– is the job of the judicial branch. Kennedy, writing for the majority, knows his job and did it for 175 pages or whatever. If you want to argue the finer points of that opinion, fine, but willfully misconstruing what he said as you did is a silly waste of everyone's time.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:52:05 +0000

Of course. But you would at least need to bring some evidence to the table. Like, say, you had found that I had written that the Supreme Court said what the law of the land is instead of the elected officials the Constitution has specifically charged with that job.

Now if I had done that, you could call me incompetent all day.

By: spoots

spoots — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:43:58 +0000

"And knock off the name-calling."

May I at least accuse you of "rank incompetence" as you did him?

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:21:23 +0000

He has a funny way of demonstrating it. But what the heck. It's only the Constitution he's ignoring. You don't need that musty old document, right?

And knock off the name-calling.