Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (22930)	7/5/2006 4:31:04 PM
From: Suma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541465

IN context with this post in an alleged statement made by Cheney when talking about the Bill of Rights... he is quoted as saying, that's just a piece of paper.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (22930)	7/7/2006 4:25:07 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541465

Republicans have reacted to last week's Supreme Court decision striking down the administration's military tribunals in a way that makes clear that they themselves are divided about the rule of law in America. That strikes me as hyperbole and attack more than it strikes me as an accurate statement. Very few Republicans (or any other sizeable American group) has an issue with the idea or the rule of law. Belief that the Geneva conventions don't apply isn't unreasonable, when the other party is not a signatory to or follower of the convention, and even if it was an unreasonable idea it still would not be an argument against the rule of law but rather an interpretation of the treaty. Would you, or would Meyerson argue that the 3 judges who voted against the recent USSC decision (or Roberts who recused himself because he had opined on the case before) don't respect or support the rule of law? How about the judges on the appeals court level who ruled the other way, or the majority in Ex parte Quirin?