Article

2007-11-15 India-Pakistan

'Some people released by SC attacking forces'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-11-15 00:10|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 Pak courts are Islamized, so I don't doubt they are releasing known jihadis for political purposes.

Do you trust unelected judges? Here's why I don't. In 1804 SCOTUS ordered reinstatement of a public official, Marbury, in spite of both a lack of legislative power to do so, and the fact that President Madison backed the sacking (Madison was named as a respondent party in the petition). SCOTUS decided the case on nominal principle: "remedy" must follow a finding of "right." Sounds good, except for one thing: Marbury was a fellow judge; SCOTUS looked after their own.

Fast forward to 1857, when Dred Scot petitioned for freedom as an escaped slave on free territory. With SCOTUS in the hands of Chief Justice Taney's slaver-interest group, they found that remedy was moot. Why? Because, on the issue of rights they upheld the colonial view that the Negro was: "an inferior sort of being." The Dred Scot case led the South to invoke all-state settled law, as a basis of their right to re-constitute (secede) on maintenance of the slave-trade. While hundreds of thousands of bodies piled up in the Civil War, the "Emancipation Proclamation" undid an atrocity committed by an unelected and unprincipled judiciary.

More cause to question reliance on judges: in the eighties a mini scandal arose when it came out that former SCOTUS clerks were citing sole authorship of high court cases, some of which were of extreme importance. SCOTUS geezers were in no position to deny said claims. Although the favor (who won) of SCOTUS determinations are decided by said geezers, the text of what is cited is usually written by Law Clerks in their early twenties. SCOTUS is not a fount of wisdom. I would reduce their power to an advisory role.

Posted by McZoid 2007-11-15 03:19|| 2007-11-15 03:19|| Front Page Top

23:52 OldSpook
23:27 McZoid
23:14 g(r)omgoru
23:12 g(r)omgoru
23:08 g(r)omgoru
23:05 g(r)omgoru
23:02 3dc
23:00 g(r)omgoru
22:59 g(r)omgoru
22:55 g(r)omgoru
22:53 Grunter
22:52 Sherry
22:45 Cyber Sarge
22:44 3dc
22:42 Sherry
22:42 KBK
22:37 Zenster
22:33 Eric Jablow
22:33 Zenster
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:29 JosephMendiola
22:28 Zenster
22:21 JosephMendiola
22:20 JosephMendiola