Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.

In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his trashing of the
Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope he so
well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his trashing
of the
Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope he
so
well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him



What a strange conclusion! I'm not sure who these neocons are you keep
mentioning (and I bet you don't know either, it's probably just a new catch
phrase you learned and like to use to avoid having to try to express complex
ideas) but the Supreme Court has ruled against the government many times
over the last few years. What makes this ruling so significant?

The ruling is pretty complicated. You can read some of the details he
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...3350_2004jun28

Jarg

Subject: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
From: "Jarg"
Date: 6/29/2004 9:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his trashing
of the
Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope he
so
well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him



What a strange conclusion! I'm not sure who these neocons are you keep
mentioning (and I bet you don't know either, it's probably just a new catch
phrase you learned and like to use to avoid having to try to express complex
ideas) but the Supreme Court has ruled against the government many times
over the last few years. What makes this ruling so significant?

The ruling is pretty complicated. You can read some of the details he

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../washpost/2004
0629/ts_washpost/a13350_2004jun28

Jarg

Bush's defense was that in time of war balance of powers no longer exist and
the president as commander in chief has final word on all issues. SCOTUS said
"war does not give the president a blank check to go outside the constitution
and the bill of rights.". That slaps down Bush's delusions of grandeur.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
From: "Jarg"
Date: 6/29/2004 9:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his
trashing
of the
Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope
he
so
well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of
him



What a strange conclusion! I'm not sure who these neocons are you keep
mentioning (and I bet you don't know either, it's probably just a new
catch
phrase you learned and like to use to avoid having to try to express
complex
ideas) but the Supreme Court has ruled against the government many times
over the last few years. What makes this ruling so significant?

The ruling is pretty complicated. You can read some of the details he

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../washpost/2004
0629/ts_washpost/a13350_2004jun28

Jarg

Bush's defense was that in time of war balance of powers no longer exist
and
the president as commander in chief has final word on all issues.


Could you provide a reference for this contention? I have never heard
anything like this from President Bush myself. The description of the court
decision doens't mention it either. The ruling was regarding the legal
rights of enemy combatants.


SCOTUS said
"war does not give the president a blank check to go outside the
constitution
and the bill of rights.". That slaps down Bush's delusions of grandeur.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
From: "Jarg"
Date: 6/29/2004 10:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
From: "Jarg"
Date: 6/29/2004 9:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his
trashing
of the
Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope
he
so
well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of
him



What a strange conclusion! I'm not sure who these neocons are you keep
mentioning (and I bet you don't know either, it's probably just a new
catch
phrase you learned and like to use to avoid having to try to express
complex
ideas) but the Supreme Court has ruled against the government many times
over the last few years. What makes this ruling so significant?

The ruling is pretty complicated. You can read some of the details he

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../washpost/2004
0629/ts_washpost/a13350_2004jun28

Jarg

Bush's defense was that in time of war balance of powers no longer exist
and
the president as commander in chief has final word on all issues.


Could you provide a reference for this contention? I have never heard
anything like this from President Bush myself. The description of the court
decision doens't mention it either. The ruling was regarding the legal
rights of enemy combatants.


SCOTUS said
"war does not give the president a blank check to go outside the
constitution
and the bill of rights.". That slaps down Bush's delusions of grandeur.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Read the caselaw


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
From: "Jarg"
Date: 6/29/2004 10:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


http://www.coastcomp.com

Read the caselaw


That's it? You make these claims and then you can't provide any supporting
citations? Your already limited credibility continues to drop.

Jarg

That slaps down Bush's delusions of grandeur.

The only one here with delusions of grandeur is you, Art.

And there is draft talk.

"From Democrats in Congress and a few Republicans, the administration
has said
repeatedly stated there is no need for a draft and they will not ask
for one.
According to a political analyst in Newsweek magazine (or was it
Time?), this
whole "draft scare" is the democrats trying to scare the younger males
into
voting for Kerry. But you know what Art, don't let facts get in the
way of your
"thinking"."

Preach on brother!!! I reading ya 5/5 flyboy.

No reason to mention the "D" word as long as "W" dips into the the IRR
pool via his PRCA and continues to extend sandbox deployments. His
some news from my neck of the woods:

Sunday, June 20, 2004
Barrel, scraping bottom of.
Fort Irwin 'not closing,' Lewis told, Claire Vitucci and Tammy Mccoy,
The Press-Enterprise, Friday, May 21, 2004


"About 150 soldiers of the 58th Engineer Company, which supports the
2,500-member 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, are scheduled to deploy
sometime in the next 70 days, said Maj. Chris Belcher, Fort Irwin's
public affairs officer.
....
But the Army is considering sending some or all of the regiment to
Iraq, Lewis said.

It's unclear when that decision would be made, Lewis said. But if it
does happen, reservists will first come and train with the unit, also
called the Army's Opposition Force, and then fill in when the regiment
is deployed.

That way, specialized training for armored units could continue at
Fort Irwin, Lewis said.

If the Army is cutting into their training facilities in order to
deploy troops then nobody can complain about their own tour of duty
being extended for a few years.

But it does bring up the question of whether the United States was
prepared to open this second front as Bush proposed and Kerry voted
for."

"CallsignZippo" wrote in message
om...

(Snip for brevity)

But it does bring up the question of whether the United States was
prepared to open this second front as Bush proposed and Kerry voted
for."

What is there to question since the whole world now knows that Bush and his
surrogates flat out lied and that the Congress and public were totally misled
because they believed the lies.

With perfect 20/20 hindsight, of course we shouldn't have, but it's a little
late for that kind of breastbeating, isn't it? The only real unanswered
question (right now at least) is whether or not we want another four years of
evasions, half-truths and outright lies or should we take a chance on the other
option in the hopes that we will mostly be dealt cards from the top of the deck.
The answer to that one will come in November, unless that exercise also ends up
being rigged.

George Z.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
From: "Jarg"
Date: 6/29/2004 9:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his
trashing
of the
Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope
he
so
well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of
him



What a strange conclusion! I'm not sure who these neocons are you keep
mentioning (and I bet you don't know either, it's probably just a new
catch
phrase you learned and like to use to avoid having to try to express
complex
ideas) but the Supreme Court has ruled against the government many times
over the last few years. What makes this ruling so significant?

The ruling is pretty complicated. You can read some of the details he

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../washpost/2004
0629/ts_washpost/a13350_2004jun28

Jarg

Bush's defense was that in time of war balance of powers no longer exist
and
the president as commander in chief has final word on all issues. SCOTUS
said
"war does not give the president a blank check to go outside the
constitution
and the bill of rights.". That slaps down Bush's delusions of grandeur.


You mean like FDR?

Pardon me if I don't quite understand, but wasn't throwing innocent Japanese
citizens into internment camps en masse, simply because of their race, a far
larger example of 'trashing the bill of rights' than anything Bush has
allegedly done? Why did you not protest this? What about FDR's attempts to
bypass and overthrow the judicial branch altogether?

I would be interested in knowing what you think Bush did that is so
unprescidented. Fact is, Franklin Delano Rosevelt was the closest thing to a
dictator we've ever had in this country. Don't misunderstand me; he was a
great man, and he was what the nation needed at the time. However, all of
this baseless and manufactured outrage directed at president Bush is
disgraceful, considering the relativly subtle and nuanced actions he has
taken---especially in comparison to the beloved FDR.