…
You do realize that you are saying that an unelected judge should have the ability to veto the choices of the people through their elected representatives. …

That’s what the enforcement of Constitutional Law over Statute is about. It prevents a short-term political movement of one generation from overthrowing long-held valuable Law without giving it a bit more thought.

An unelected judge, if given this magnitude of authority to “protect” the constitution can just as easily violate it. The problem is that there is little possibility to remove a renegade judge.

One judge can’t change anything. It takes a Federal appeals judge AND probably the Supreme Court’s majority to do that.

They’re not elected because the founders of this country knew from experience that elected judges are pulled to the wishes of the electorate (as are senators and representatives) rather than to just uphold Law.

An appeals court can overturn a lower court’s decision and the Supreme Court can overrule a Statute, but it doesn’t make policy.

That the Court can violate the Constitution is a fact and a worrisome one at that. See the States Rights issue involved in Bush v. Gore 2000 and it will give you a headache.

Elected officials, if they go wrong, can be kicked out by the people in the next election. It seems a whole lot safer to me to leave the decision making power in the hands of elected politicians because, even if they make bad choices, there is still a way out.

Elected officials, if they go wrong, can create enormous problems and then be kicked out of office — only to leave us with nobody to blame or punish. It’s not a “way out” it shows the hopelessness of really holding “Washington” to account for it’s bad behaviors.

Think of it this way for a moment: the judges still performing badly remind us of the politicians who inflicted them on us and that’s a reminder to not elect people like that again; the politicians who give us bad law may be gone and who remembers them? Do you remember the Republicans who gave us the Enron loophole or who labeled catsup as a vegetable or who snuck legislation into a huge bill late at night without telling anyone?

Remembering who did what is part of knowing who to NOT vote for now.

There could be a whole book written around Soufan.

Another story as good as the “Plame Affair”.

So, before the “war” what was the procedure when someone in a foreign country tried to kill a U.S. soldier? Would they have been captured and remanded to Gitmo without trial or a hearing or a lawyer?

As I see it Yoo and Bush are arguing they have the right to pick up anyone anywhere, including a foreign head of state, and hold them and perhaps interrogate them forever, without a lawyer, a hearing or a trial or release. Even now they’re saying that if one of these enemy combatants is found not guilty by the court that they might not release them!

Yoo just doesn’t like the Law! Strange he’s found his way into teaching it.

I would think the same if a lawyer redered a similar opinion telling me it’s fine to go and rob your house

many believe torture is worse then murder, everyone believes torutre is worse then robbing your house

I disagree with you entirely, yoo us eminantly disbarrable

and again, I am not a lawyer but if your opinion is correct then you can tell me to go out and steal, use the cover of your barr association and you will be exempt from charges and disbarrment

I cannot believe that is the case

we must discredit yoo and embarrass anyone who gives him any play

After all, this was a guy who routinely ignored laws passed by Congress–including laws passed during the Vietnam war–to rationalize things like domestic surveillance and torture. But he has found one law–the Military Commissions Act–that he believes should be protected above all else.

I have said this from the beginning, yoo MUST be disbarred so nothing he says will be considered as having any kind of weight what so ever