The Liberal Five

Recently the Supreme Court of the United States made two controversial rulings, both by the count of 5-4. Both rulings overturn centuries of law and practice, and essentially turn those laws on their heads.

The first ruling ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. What? Seriously? These people are war criminals. WAR CRIMINALS… What makes these five liberal judges think that non-US citizens, captured and detained as war criminals have constitutional rights, reserved for citizens of the United States? Even John McCain, who was a POW, and is against Club G’itmo, is outraged by such liberal legislating from the bench. Regarding the ruling, he said: “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

These are criminals that have killed US troops and innocent civilians, these are criminals that have planned homicidal attacks against Americans and American installations, these are people that torture and kill those they deem “infidels.” Really? They deserve constitutional rights? They are war criminals!!! Tell me, what happens if we capture Osama? Say he hires OJ's old crew, and the glove doesn't fit, must we acquit? Would we let Osama go, because the evidence wasn't sufficient, to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Perhaps I didn’t pay enough attention in my American Civics class, but I understood the Supreme Court’s role, in the whole checks and balances system, as deciding whether or not a certain law was constitutional; preventing the other two branches from stepping outside the bounds of the constitution. That poses two problems: first, where is the constitutional basis or reference that states not only non-citizens, but prisoners of war are protected under the constitution.

Second, where do you draw the line for the Supreme Court, between protecting our constitution, and stepping well beyond it to push a liberal agenda from the bench? The Supreme Court is completely overstepping it’s bounds. Since the founding of this country, military matters were left in large part to the executive branch. Now, flying in the face of 230+ years of law and tradition, the Supreme Court has decided IT will decide who is considered a war criminal, and what rights they have.

In the other controversial ruling “the court ruled 5-4 that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States,” while still here. So essentially the Supreme Court is saying it’s ok to immigrate here illegally. Awesome. This is just another example of the Supreme Court overstepping it’s bounds, and pushing it’s liberal agenda from the bench, instead of doing it’s job, interpreting law.

Immigration has always been the duty of Congress; but the Court seems to feel it knows better.

Let this serve as a reminder of the importance of the Presidential and congressional elections. It is pivotal to get conservative justices on the bench, and that is impossible without a President and Congress willing to do so.


Post a Comment

I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.

While you're at it, visit our message boards!