Do you think - now that his friends are in Supreme Court - he can pull this off as well - like when he was selected for the first time as the President by Supreme court - dont forget he was not elected by the popular votes by the citizen of USA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/washington/18cnd-nsa.html?hp&ex=1155960000&en=cc69b39520fe585b&ei=5094&partner=homepage
2006-08-18 07:35:19 · 13 answers · asked by Be-hive Baaaby 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
He was duly elected president by the system we have in place to elect presidents. If you don't like that system, you can elect people to the legislature that will sponsor an amendment to the constitution to eliminate the electoral college.
As to the wiretapping ruling, he has every right to take cases before the Supreme Court. I imagine you'd just prefer that liberal Judges/Legislatures/Presidents do whatever they want, but when a Republican gets his way - even under the rules - it's unconstitutional, by definition.
2006-08-18 07:48:15 · answer #1 · answered by Will 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It is about time some one in the government showed enough balls to put Bush in his place He acts like a tin god and thinks he can do what he damn well pleases. Bush once again has his head up his butt if he thinks he has the authority to overturn this ruling He man lives in a make believe world. Where he thinks he is the only one who has any say in anything and can do as he damn well pleases He has no authority to over turn the ruling against his policy on the illegal wire taps it is just one more reason his *** should be thrown out of office. This is the U.SA. not the land of Oz and the sooner Bush realizes that the better
2006-08-18 16:18:26 · answer #2 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uh, he didn't vow to 'overturn' the ruling. He is appealing it, and fully expects that the 6th Circuit Appeals court will overturn it. Noted legal scholars have found the ruling to be quite underwhelming regarding its judicial scholarship [see WaPo article].
And why do you continue to cling to that 'selected, not elected' hoax? It is simply not true. The Supreme Court, in that instance, finally stopped the Florida Court from supporting Al Gore's attempts to manufacture a win in Florida based on speculative interpretation of overvotes and undervotes. As for popular votes, that is not how a US president is elected.
2006-08-18 07:49:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
yes the Supreme Court will side with Bush, Why do you think he put Conservative bias judges on that court? The fix is in.
The constitution is very clear on this issue, it is not legal, Republicans know it is not legal, they don't care about the Bill of Rights or the Constitution they swore to protect and defend with their hand on the Bible. This makes them all subject to recall.
All Harvard Constitution professors have said it is not legal. Bush was even told it was not legal by many experts.
2006-08-18 10:57:34 · answer #4 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course he does.
The entire point of the exercise was to grab political power for the executive branch, as part of asserting his position that the executive should not be limited by either Congressional law nor the courts.
And I don't think the Supreme Court is going to overturn a ruling that says it's not ok for the executive to break the law just because he feels like it. It would destroy any concept of checks and balances if the executive branch could ignore the courts at will.
And given the number of times the current Supreme Court has slapped Bush down for constitutional violations and exceeding his authority, I don't think they're going to let him slide on this one.
2006-08-18 07:43:00 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
i do no longer have faith the ruling, yet i in my opinion do no longer care....the two activities have suggested that this is something that they might might desire to regulate anyhow. it form of feels as though they're going to alter the regulation to permit this type of wiretapping. the previous regulation isn't very particular as many of the kinds of communications used on the instantaneous weren't around together as the regulation became into written. so a ways as invasion of privateness, which isn't a surprising interior the type, the sole people who might desire to stress are those calling or receiving calls from widespread terrorists....the media fairly overblew the case.
2016-12-14 07:52:22 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well... His second, Current, term he was elected by popular vote. and he was put in with electoral college the first term, not by the supreme court.
I think the NSA wiretapping court case will be overturned. and i support it fully. i will start a petition to keep it legal even if it didnt get overturned. But, i know it will.
2006-08-18 07:45:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
What I don't understand is why he just doesn't follow the law. The FISA court has been a lapdog of the NSA since its inception, approving something like 95% of all warrant requests, and even allows retroactive warrants.
If laws are to mean anything, they must apply to all. If we want to make one person above the law, we should all learn our 1930's German and Italian history.
2006-08-18 07:46:38 · answer #8 · answered by Steve 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No matter how it turns out, the American people will be exposed to the corruption of this government. If they win, we will know that the Supreme Court is partisan. If they lose, they will be exposed for their violations of the constitution. And I think Americans are getting pretty sick of it all...
2006-08-18 07:42:36 · answer #9 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. GW's gotta learn that even presidents have to follow the rules of the constitution. Theres good and bad that comes with such a great document...tough titties Georgie.
2006-08-18 08:30:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋