Reply #15: this is where we differ [View All]

[sgxnk]

you say

"Apparently, this Federal judge has written a 43 page decision showing that the execution of "bushco's policy" also violates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights"

she has written rubbish. that's my point, and that's the point that legal analysts on BOTH sides of the debate (iow even those who think bush's policy is unconstitutional STILL think the decision was , to put it bluntly - rubbish

dailykos is not "reichwing" nor were some of the attorneys i cited who have plenty of "leftwing" cred.

cause the issue is not POLITICS. it is rule of law.

this decision fails to follow rule of law. it's not coherent, it's ridiculously ideological and not on point on constitutional case law

and mark my words, you will see continued criticism from legal experts that this decision is just plain BAD, even if the RESULT is right

constitutional law analysis is based on process not results analysis

i'd rather not devolve into tangents. i am making a very specific point and i provided ample evidence for the point: that this decision is flawed AND that critics on BOTH sides of the debate (whether or not the policy is constitutional) have criticized the opinion as seriously flawed

those who disagree with the above have NOT provided evidence - they have provided ad hominems, irrelevant tangents, etc. the cites are pretty compelling. as is the decision. like i said, i've read 100's of court decisions in full. and testified to 4th amendment issues on scores of occasions. this decision is SERIOUSLY flawed

and mark my words. that will be a near consensus opinion among all but the most ideological legal analysis