Thread: Gonzales:Judges unfit to rule on terror policy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16668110/ -

Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on terror policy

Attorney general says federal jurists should defer to president's will


Updated: 8:07 a.m. ET Jan 17, 2007

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.

In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. He also raps jurists who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.”

The text of the speech, scheduled for delivery at the American Enterprise Institute, was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. It outlines, in part, what qualities the Bush administration looks for when selecting candidates for the federal bench.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.”

Challenges to Bush policies
Gonzales did not cite any specific activist jurists, or give examples of national security cases, in his prepared text. The Justice Department is appealing an August decision by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit, who ruled the government’s warrantless surveillance program unconstitutional and ordered it stopped immediately.

The Justice Department appealed her decision and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has ruled that the administration can keep the program in place during the appeal.

Attorneys representing terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay are challenging the legality of a law, signed by President Bush in October, that authorizes military trials. Those challenges raise the possibility that trials will be struck down by a federal appeals court or the Supreme Court.


Related story
Discuss: What do you think about this?
Gonzales: Gitmo delay not U.S.'s fault



Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court justice, has in the past warned about judges who inject their personal beliefs in cases. But his prepared remarks Wednesday mark his sharpest words over concerns about the federal judiciary — the third, and equal, branch of government.

Judges who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences, they actually reduce the credibility and authority of the judiciary,” Gonzales says. “In so doing, they undermine the rule of law that strengthens our democracy.”

Even so, Gonzales characterized efforts to retaliate against unpopular rulings as misguided, noting a failed South Dakota proposal to sue or jail judges for making unpopular court decisions. He also called for Congress to consider increasing the number of federal judges to handle heavy workloads, and to offer them higher salaries to lure and keep the best jurists on the bench.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Gonzales states:

In so doing, they undermine the rule of law that strengthens our democracy.”

Oh really! Don't you undermine the rule of law by not enforcing our immigration laws and not answering phone calls from 55 congressmen?!!!

This is what you get when you start allowing the government to cut corners. The fact is that nothing about this war, the war in Vietnam, or the war in Korea is constitutional. In none of these actions has there been a Congressional declaration of war. Had there been, Gonzales would be technically correct. Since there has not been, what we are clearly observing is proof of the fact that the Executive Branch often operates from a position of supraconstitutional authority. We have Lincoln and his successful quest for apotheosis of the office of President to blame. the authority used when "executive privilege" or "emergency powers" are cited is the sovereign power of the European monarchs and not any constitutionally delegated power conferred by We the People.

But hey, no one wants to hear this and they sure as Hell will not do a damned thing about it. They had rather pretend that the Constituion is still the sole source of governmental power and carp and moan over imagined excesses of "their" government. Complaining is easy. Actually challenging the usurpations that have been in effect since 1863 might cut into someone's TV time.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases

.
Alberto you are on unfit ....period