Roberts and Gonzalez

With the death of the rehnquist, the bush appointed roberts to chief justice. Now the gonzalez is being rumored to be on the short list to replace O'Connor. I know there will be hearings, and all sorts of things will be asked; abortion, privacy rights, etc. Well, OK. But let's cut to the bottom line.

These men should never be placed on the Supreme Court, in fact, they should never have been given consent for their current positions by the Senate at all. And one overiding reason for each of them trumps anything the bushistas can spin up.

While he was being interviewed for the job of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, roberts joined in a 3-0 decision before the US Court of Appeals in DC. (real ethical)

The ruling was such a sweeping acceptance of the administration's position that one journalist wrote that "Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections."

see Presidential Power, Congressional Authority, And Role Of Courts from SaveTheCourt.org

Basically, what roberts reasons is that the president has the right to lock up anyone, including American citizens, indefinitely, without charges, and even keeping the fact secret, for whatever reason he decides on. American citizens? Oh yeah. think Jose Padilla. And remember, one of the provisions of Patriot II that's being sneaked in, says that the president has the right to strip any American of their citizenship for whatever reasons he decides. And all this without any right of judicial review.

And the gonzales? The torture man? What else needs to be said.

"I"[George W. Bush] determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world."[43]

He also stated in the document that he had:

"[T]he authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the U.S. and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise the authority at this time."[44]

In order that his readers clearly understood, Sy Hersh pointed out that Mr. Bush was determining the detainees had "no inherent protections under the Geneva Conventions" and therefore whatever happened to the detainees, "good, bad, or otherwise," was solely at the discretion of the President of the United States.[45]

Significantly, Alberto Gonzales, (Mr. Bush's choice for Attorney General in the Bush second term), made a false statement to the press and to the American people during the height of the torture scandal in which he asserted:

"The President had "made no formal determination" invoking the Geneva Conventions before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq."[46]

Mr. Gonzales' falsehood was caught when his Memorandum for the President surfaced.[47] The memorandum was dated January 25, 2002, more than a year prior to the invasion of Iraq"

see Bloodguilty Churches by Katherine Yurica

Remember that this is also the man who called the Geneva Conventions "quaint and outdated". How anyone could even think this person should be allowed to even serve as the US Attorney-General is beyond me.

So where are the patriots in the US Senate? Have our Senators become so craven that they can even entertain the thought of these two people sitting on the Supreme Court? Torture and an American dictatorship? Are they insane? The only moral answer to the roberts' appointment and the gonzalez appointment, should it come, is NO FUCKING WAY, find someone else. There are hundreds of thousands of lawyers and jurists in this country, and this drek is the best the bush can come up with?