No its not its not shorthand at all. Is simply what it is
The cases were not heard by the court.
Lets track the spin progression on the Eyewitness News SPIN TRACK 5000! ( and Doppler radar)
1. First the spin was that the Bushies are above the law , because the Supreme court "has his back." Oh those macho Justices!
During time of war, the president is given far-reaching executive authority to prosecute the war. Even the Bill of Rights do not supersede this authority.This is why George W Bush has won every showdown with Democrats. This is why the Supreme Court has his back.
2. When called on this bit of spin, reminding him about the math of the legislature and the thin majorities, it morphed into the old tried and true "
It's in the Constitution" defense.
Fred, shall I recount the number of times that Bush has won in showdowns against Democrats on issues related to the war? They roll over to him every time. The Supreme Court backs him every time.When we are in the middle of a war, the Congress is supposed to back the president, and allow him to prosecute the war.It's in the Constitution.
3. Challenged to show where exactly (where the rule that states that the Congress must do exactly what the president says during a time of war) was in the constitution, rulings or other documnets( Ken has yet to respond) I, me, myself, mentioned the Unitary Executive Theory that , by the way, Ken had never heard of before. Suddenly, like a life ring to a drowning man ,the spin transformed into this laugher: the Bush Administration has quietly asserted Unitary Executive...Democrats are trying to politicize the war (!!!!) and thwart the war effort.
This is why Democrats have consistently lost on issues like FISA, Geneva, torture, Gitmo, habeas corpus, rendition, etc, etc, etc. This is why the Bush Administration has quietly asserted Unitary Executive, while Democrats have loudly protested. Bush is trying to defeat al Qaeda while maintaining the prerogatives of the Executive. Democrats are trying to politicize the war and thwart the war effort.
4. When reminded about the facts in regard to the Unitary executive among other things, and question on exactly how the Democratic Congress inserted itself in the court system: back to the Supreme court , like a a kid runs to his mama : beating them down like the unconstitutional political hacks that they are.
Democrats have repeatedly failed to defeat the Bush Administration on issues like FISA, Geneva, torture, Gitmo, habeas corpus, rendition, etc, etc, etc because the Supreme Court is beating them down like the unconstitutional political hacks that they are.
5. When asked exactly how the evil Democrats accomplished all of this magic, the argument morphed yet again to the ever hilarious Judicial Activism ( Gasp!) Defense...(Wait a minute, didn't the Supreme Court have "Bushes back"? What liberal activist judges are we talking about? The liberal activist judges that upheld the "Bush victories" and therfore were not reviewed by the courts? Those "hacks"?)
Whenever Fred says "not heard by the Court", that's just his shorthan
d for "The Supreme Court refused to hear the case and upheld the lower court ruling, thereby confirming the legal concept of Unitary Executive, and rejecting the liberal notion of judicial activism".
Finally, congratulations are in order, to myself and my esteemed opponent.
In 4 posts we have "confirmed the legal concept of the Unitary Executive", a feat that 230 years of legal briefings, historians, scholars, and the Courts themselves can't consistantly define or even agree on.
Damn I'm good.
by
MRFred on
05/12/2008 06:44:57 PM EST
[
Parent ]
