The beginning of the end for BUSH?

[booster11373]

<p><strong><font size="4">US Guantanamo tribunals 'illegal'</font></strong> </p><p><em>maybe the return of some credibility for us overseas?</em> </p><p><font size="2"><strong>The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal. </strong></font><font size="2"><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5129904.stm" target="_self">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5129904.stm</a> </font></p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by booster11373 on 6-29-06 @ 3:38 PM</span>

[Furtherman]

<strong>booster11373</strong> wrote:<br /><p>&nbsp;</p><p><em>maybe the return of some credibility for us overseas?</em> </p><p>Us?&nbsp; Who us?&nbsp; Bush has hurt our credibility everywhere.&nbsp; I doubt many foreigners would even care what our&nbsp;Supreme Court says, it is Bush that is in power and his mug represents us as a whole.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

[Dougie Brootal]

<strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>booster11373</strong> wrote:<br /><p>&nbsp;</p><p><em>maybe the return of some credibility for us overseas?</em> </p><p>Us?&nbsp; Who us?&nbsp; Bush has hurt our credibility everywhere.&nbsp; I doubt many foreigners would even care what our&nbsp;Supreme Court says, it is Bush that is in power and his mug represents us as a whole.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><img height="205" src="http://www.rockagogo.com/image/c287-le-rock/c333-nofx/th-RK744-ftw-not-my-president.jpg" width="228" border="0" /></p>

[booster11373]

Maybe the rest of the world will realize that Bush doesn't speak for most Americans

[Furtherman]

<strong>booster11373</strong> wrote:<br />Maybe the rest of the world will realize that Bush doesn't speak for most Americans <p>I'd like to think that a majority of the world would think that... but I've never spent much time in other countries so I really can't say much on the subject.&nbsp;&nbsp;I know there are some folks here who have - speak up!&nbsp;</p>

[FMJeff]

<p>its good to know even though he appointed two judges to this court they still ruled against him....law's law...</p><p>let's see how they perform under more controversial topics like abortion </p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<p>THis is a VERY important ruling. From day one, the Bush adminstration has been trying to deal with Terrorism as a &quot;war&quot;, and not as a international criminal conspiracy to be dealt with by the US Legal system. Well now the courts have said they can no longer do so. <br /> </p><p>For the inmates at Gitmo, this means is now they will finally actually be charged with something, or will have to be released. <br /></p>

[narc]

<hr color="cococo" align="left"></font><strong>FMJeff</strong> wrote:<br><p>its good to know even though he appointed two judges to this court they still ruled against him....law's law...</p><p>let's see how they perform under more controversial topics like abortion </p><hr color="cococo" align="left"><p></p>

Not true. Alito voted to uphold the tribunals. Roberts was barred from participating because as a circuit court judge, he voted to uphold the tribunals. Even if he had participated though, it would have been 5-4. <br><p>
And this will do nothing in the long term or short term, I predict. Bush still has two years plus left in office and this doesn't change that. <br><p>
And, the court has already had to deal with things like abortion since Roberts took over. There was a decision a lot earlier this year called Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New Hampshire. It was a unanimous decision because they decided it on the narrowest grounds possible. I'd predict more of the same. I don't think Roberts and Alito would particularly be sprinting to overturn abortion or anything like that.

[high fly]

<strong>booster11373</strong> wrote:<br />Maybe the rest of the world will realize that Bush doesn't speak for most Americans <p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2">Yup.</font></p><p><font size="2">With poll numbers wallowing in the 30s for months now, the Texas Einstein is doing as well if not worse than &quot;That&quot; Dick Nixon during Watergate.</font></p><p><font size="2" /></p><p><font size="2">For his failure to tell the truth to the American people over the Iraq invasion, the man will be despised for generations and will go down as one of the worst presidents of all time.</font></p><p><font size="2" /></p><p><font size="2" /></p>

[Don Stugots]

<strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>booster11373</strong> wrote:<br /><p>&nbsp;</p><p><em>maybe the return of some credibility for us overseas?</em> </p><p>Us?&nbsp; Who us?&nbsp; Bush has hurt our credibility everywhere.&nbsp; I doubt many foreigners would even care what our&nbsp;Supreme Court says, it is Bush that is in power and his mug represents us as a whole.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>got&nbsp;a mouse in your pocket?&nbsp; (i love that one)</p>

[The Jays]

Come on, let's stop hanging onto 94, people. Bush has been over ever since Gwen came into the picture

[joeyballsack]

<strong>booster11373</strong> wrote:<br />Maybe the rest of the world will realize that Bush doesn't speak for most Americans <p>He speaks for enough Americans that he got elected....twice. </p><p>Its also funny to me the amount of Americans who use the &quot;the rest of the world hates us&quot; line, yet they have never even been out of thier own state let alone the country. </p>

[cougarjake13]

<p>what end ???&nbsp; he's already in his 2nd term, and unless he gets impeached he'll finish it so at this point he's a lame duck president just waiting to finish his term, and try to make his legacy, whatever he thinks that may be </p><p>thats the one thing i never liked about our election process... this may be a very broad statement but most presidents spend their 1st term do whatever they can just so they can get re elected and then if re elected&nbsp;try whatever they want to accomplish b/c they dont have to worry about re election</p><p>if they took out the term limit for presidents, how many would actually get re elected more than once ?? not many i would think, a few might get a 2nd re election and serve 12 yrs but i doubt any one person would spend more than 3 terms in the oval office, reagan prob would have been re elected to a 3rd but what i'm thinking is if the president didnt have to worry about only 2 terms then he might get motivated to do more for the country.. but i know the flipside would be he'll just be constantly worrying about re election and not get anything substantial accomplished</p>

[PapaBear]

<strong>TheJays</strong> wrote:<br />Come on, let's stop hanging onto 94, people. Bush has been over ever since Gwen came into the picture <p><img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/clap.gif" border="0" /></p>