It's very likely that Bush or his surrogate has already discussed strategy with the Supreme Court Whores who put him in office and who are now tearing apart the constitution, precedent after precedent.
If they've already had those conversation-- and why shouldn't we make that assumption?-- the American people must face some very unpleasant realities.
The supposed Judicial branch of the USA has been, possibly irreparably, corrupted.
There is no ultimate recourse for justice in America.
The USA has been taken over and is no longer subject to democratic law.
Corrupt, partisan, illegal activities are no longer subject to legal attack.
It is very likely that there are many, many layers of corruption and illegal actions that will never be uncovered.
That said, the congress and the people of the US will have a serious decision to make.
If the SCOTUS blocks congressional oversight of Bush, t will be clear that the Supreme court of the US is no longer operating under good faith or integrity. The congress and the people of the US must do all they can to remedy this situation, including supreme court justices.
It is essential that the congress plan for the worst exigencies and develop strategies to handle them.
If Bush and his administration are protected by the SCOTUS from being held accountable by his Supreme Court, America will be face a situation like never before.
It will take courage and creativity, bravery and audacity, sacrifice and heroism that true patriots know.
We better be ready for it. I fear for the worst. Congress better get much tougher, sooner, or it will be too late.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
One of the most damaging of the legacies that g. w. will leave us is his SCOTUS. Does anyone think it's by accident that he's packed the judicial branch with loyal bushies? These shills are his get out of jail free cards.
Whatever chance we may have had to put the brakes of the fascist movement in this country ended with the 04' election theft. Once bush&co secured their control they continued, and even with the so-called oversight with the so-called opposition party (not), to pack the courts with people of their ilk.
There is no way that this SC will rain on bush's parade. It's why he is as brazen as he is in his blatant disregard of the laws of this land - he IS the law.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1260 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 8:22:40 AM
It's too terrible to consider on a Sunday morning?
You're absolutely right, Rob, but I have to challenge my judgement concerning reading it on a Sunday morning. I like to think that the Lord's day shuld be a time of spiritual uplifting and fulfillment. However, given the tenor of the times, Sunday may be the best time to fully ponder the perilous state of our democratic federal republic.
The key is what will Kennedy do? Bush's four; Roberts, Scalito and Dummy Thomas versus the champions of truth, justice and the American Way; Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer and Souter, are set. Congress has to get the very best constitutional scholars to argue their position or Kennedy will do what he did on the school integration case and side with the Bushies on very narrow legal grounds.
"These are not times for timid men." Edward R Murrow, See It Now, "A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy," 1954
by
Kenneth Barr (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 77 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 8:25:47 AM
Scalia Should Resign Or Be Replaced In light of all that has happened, Scalia should resign or be replaced. As the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1, so clearly mandates, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior...." His behavior is contrary to the conception of a Supreme Court. There is no room on the Supreme Court for those who enter with a preconceived agenda, and certainly no tone in which avarice and abusiveness is the motivating force. Cases should be heard and ruled upon by their inherent merit or lack thereof, not upon the abusive, emotional absurdities of the personalities of judges hearing them. For that reasons a certain degree of stability in reasoning, rather than Ideological fanaticism, is needed in judges, as well as a certain degree of unbiased judgment.
HOWEVER, THE DEMS HAVE NEITHER THE VOTES NOR THE STONES TO ATTEMPT IT.
Some smart Republican strategist, probably right before Reagan began his “welfare queens” refrain, figured out that waging Race War was passe because it had become unpalatable to a slim majority and because the same result could be achieved by waging a covert class war. Not a few people jumped on Reagan’s bandwagon of “catchy tunes.”
One of them went like this: Control of the dark-skinned among masses can best be achieved economically: This idea appealed to capitalists like capital because it also applied to “poor white trash.” There was money in them thar hills. Lower wages, lower taxes, greater profits and immunity from prosecution.
Well, the results for the last quarter century of Republican Corporate Rule are now painfully clear to most middleclass Americans. Downsizing, outsourcing and government “privatization” has not helped a lot people. Least of all to those “poor white trash,” who remain so steadfastly loyal.
On the other hand though, a few people have done extraordinarily well.
.
by
rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 9:34:00 AM
There seem to be politically informed folks on this site like the author and the professor for example, so I'm going to ask some questions I feel relevant but have not seen in the media or the blogs. Since there are retired generals who are beginning to speak out against the current administration, you know there are more who are remaining mum who feel the same way but who are active military, not retired. Now, doesn't the U.S. military have the right and the responsibility to relieve of duty ANY commander (which would include the CIC) who fails in his duties, or is neglectful, incompetent, or traitorious? If so, then doesn't the military have the right and the responsibility to forcebly remove said commander? If so, what is preventing this? Is the real issue that we simply don't have enough generals with guts enough to take action? Perhaps there are generals who are powerful enough but who are leery that if they proposed such a thing they would be jailed for treason themselves? Still, isn't it obvious to the military that this administration has committed high crimes and misdemeanors and that they now have a green light as never before and are OBLIGATED as it is their SWORN DUTY duty to take action in the face of such incompetence, thievery and TREASON? Can someone more knowledgeable than myself in these matters explain why this is not possible? It would be a bold, ballsy move to be sure, overthrowing the U.S. government militarily, but the military is SWORN TO DEFEND AND UPHOLD THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, and the CONSTITUTION IS BEING SYSTEMATICALLY GUTTED, so surely they would be acting legally and morally in upholding their duties as soldiers, and surely there is no better time to act than NOW! Am I missing something? Why isn't a military coup an option? Is it possible that the majority of the military actually AGREES with the current agenda of the CIC? Please, I would like to hear any and all arguments regarding a military coup of the U.S. government...
by
nikolai (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 1:11:01 PM
It sort of sounds like you are encouraging a military coup.
That seems like an idea fraught with danger.
But the thought of military leaders having the stones to stand up to Bush and Cheney and tell them their ideas are totally effed up--- that would be good.
by
Rob Kall (762 articles, 3850 quicklinks, 321 diaries, 1642 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 2:08:42 PM
The reason is a very well thought out Constitutional principle called "posse comitatas (it may be spelled comitatis, my Latin stinks)." It is a principle that states that the military may not interfere in purely civilian matters. However frustrated you may be, the ends, however noble, never justify any means. This is a nation that has never succumbed to a military coup d'etat. For some perspective, read the novel Seven Days in May, which was also made into a movie.
by
Kenneth Barr (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 77 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 8:18:45 PM
If the military interceded, whose side do you think they would intercede on?
Do you think Dick Cheney has the strength in the Administration he has because the military dislike him?
Understand, Cheney was a tremendously popular Secy of Defense and enjoys vast prestige in the military, even when he makes a mistake, he makes it the way they would if they were in his position.
If the military interceded, we would get back to constitutional government in the second republic about sixty years from the date of their intervention.
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 557 comments)
on Monday, July 9, 2007 at 5:54:40 AM
If Supreme Court exhibits a preference for preference in oversight, there is more broken than the Liberty Bell.
Technically, it would, in theory, subject all to impeachment proceedings if the Constitution still exists. By refusal to provide their obligatory judicial oversight duty, they might be confirming that they don't recognize the Constitution either.
Either way, the nation is in big Constitutional trouble. How many Constitutional crises does one nation need to see itself on quicksand?
Isn't this where most nations are when they are subject to takeovers by outsiders? Can America really be considered different, or stronger in that without having to use force?
by
pbr90king (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 1:43:06 PM
I think the decision in Bush v. Gore in 2000 showed that the court was broken even BEFORE the changes that have occured.
They were willing to create a partisan decision that created a political result and then, KNOWING that it wasn't good law, were willing to define it as a single case, not having precident.
At THAT moment, the "Rule of Law" and the legal concepts upon which this nation was built and survived for 200+ years was shattered. (Thank you Sandra Day O'Connor, and don't you DARE try to "rebhabilitize" your legacy for the books -- YOU did that.)
Every else was merely postscript. A long, ugly postscript.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 638 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 5:38:47 PM
Rob's point of what will happen when the Supremes side with Bush is well founded and focuses the action on Congress, in that event. What's even scarier to contemplate is that in the unlikely event the Supremes should side with Congress, who is there left to enforce the court's decision?
The Justice Department is tasked with seeing that the law is enforced, based on the Supreme's decisions, but with Gonzales in charge, it is now a branch of the White House, under Bush's total control. The Supremes don't have any enforcement power, they don't even have guns. The military is now under Bush's control as commander in chief. We can see now why Bush declared war, to become commander in chief.
Bush has arranged it so that even if the Supremes rule against him, there's no one left to do anything about it. He ignored the Supremes' decision that the Gitmo detainees were to have their day in court, and nothing happened to him, he's still president.
The question then becomes: What happens if the decision goes against Bush and he chooses to just ignore it? Is there anything anyone can do about it?
by
Ed Martin (116 articles, 0 quicklinks, 31 diaries, 133 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 2:31:29 PM
The Sargent at Arms of the Congress has a small police force, I believe. What is to stop the Congress from using its operating budget to supplement it by 10,000 or so armed troops? These are easy to hire freelance (see the current articles on Blackwater).
I would prefer it to a Miltary Coup. Though, I must admit it is a little ironic to realize that many of us are now talking about "the intelligence and honor of the military" as something that might save our nation.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 638 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 5:41:21 PM
Correction: Bush did not declare war -- no can he. The Constitution (that "damned scrap of paper" GWB) stupulates that Congress must declare war which, by the way, it hasn't done since December 8, 1941.
Furthermore, as many have correctly noted, a "war on terror" is a literal absurdity. Like the "war on drugs" and "the war on poverty," the "war on terror" is nothing more than a metaphor.
But Bush and his handlers use this "war" metaphor to justify Bush's trashing of the Constitution and seizing extraordinary power as "a war president" and "commander in chief."
As for a military coup, I am very dubious. When has a military coup resulted in the restoration of a democracy? I suppose it has, but I can't think of a case, and surely the vast majority of military coups have had the opposite result. The best that we can hope for, I think, is that the military stand aside in the event of a popular (and hopefully peaceful) revolution.
Rob raises some crucially significant issues regarding SCOTUS. While I am not convinced that there is no recourse to judicial tyranny, any such recourse will be very difficult to pull off.
I'm working on a piece about this very problem, which should appear at OpEdNews about mid-week.
by
Ernest Partridge (92 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 6:33:56 PM
I've heard it in a variety of places but if Bush has actually said it he hasn't said it on the public record that I can see. Its sounds like the sort of throw away line reported as hearsay.
Personally, I think his actions have been consistent with the sentiment attributed to him, (I think he has treaty the Constitution like a nuisance) but to make a case requires persuasing those who don't already agree and good sources help.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Men and women of the armed services are in a difficult position of having sworn both to the Constitution and to obey the orders of the President.
It is unlikely that they could honorably lead or take part in a military coup against the President if it was not manifestly clear that the people and the peoples representatives in Congress did not think that things had gotten so far as to amount to supporting either the President or the Constitution under attack by the President. If the President is attacking the Constitution THAT CASE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE MADE.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Monday, July 9, 2007 at 9:00:18 AM
Yes a military coup would be fraught with danger, but is it not the DUTY OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC? And is it not worth a little (or a lot) of danger in the face of what has happened and is happening to the Constitution, the American people, and the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq? Are thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani lives, and destruction of the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life NOT WORTH A MILITARY COUP??? Maybe a military coup sounds extreme, but these are extreme times, my friend!!
by
nikolai (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 3:01:45 PM
Kenbarr, the administration gutting the constitution could be considered a civilian matter, but what about lying to not only civilians but the military in regard to WMDs, manipulating CIA evidence (or lack therof), attacking a sovereign nation with no provication, etc, etc? I would say the military has plenty reason to oust these scoundrels, and are probably the only ones who could do it considering the powerful elite who are behind these carpetbaggers...
by
nikolai (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 10:19:12 PM
Everyone should answer this question for him/herself: At what point do you stop talking as if their is a democracy, and when do you say, "if such and such is true, by definition, it's not a democracy", even if such and such happens already to be true?
Optimism, extolled by all in all situations, nevertheless, sometimes keeps reality blurred.
by
Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 175 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 4:33:25 PM
