Bush Appointees Bucking Obama On Terror Policies

Politico:

President Barack Obama's claims of broad executive authority to carry out the war on terror are drawing fire from an unexpected source: federal judges nominated by President George W. Bush, who asserted the sweeping powers in the first place.

In recent weeks, three different Bush appointees considering cases relating to war-on-terror detainees have rejected arguments from Obama's Justice Department, which adopted virtually unchanged the positions the Bush administration had staked out.

Read the whole story: Politico

Comments

[naschkatze]

Some people here keep making a tired argument for equal time: because Bush exceeded his legal authority for 8 years, g-ddam it, it's only fair that Obama now get to do the same thing! Obama does not want to face trying the preceding administration for war crimes and stealing our civil liberties , but it seems to me that these rulings will put pressure on him to do just that.

[dwright]

it will and I believe that is why he is going about it in this way - he is 10 moves ahead of them.

[tigerakabj]

It still amazes me that folks still want Obama to say 6 months into this, "Ok folks. I am going to prosecute Bush and his entire cabal straight up."

Faved.

[motoGpifupleez]

If it were Democrat appointed judges blocking a Republican President, they would be "activists".

[kapalabhati]

It's "democratic" appointee, but otherwise, agree.

[sviolette]

Only conservative judges are allowed to "make law from the bench".

[mmgbizgirl]

Time to Buck Back.

[nibblybits]

A must read is TPM's article on how Republican ideological appointees are roadblocking the Federal Election Commission.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/the_commission_has_been_road-blocked_republicans_w_1.php?ref=fpa

[nance72]

Help me out her. Please!
These judges ruled in favor of the same policies when President Bush (Republican) was in office but now rule against the same policies when President Obama (Democrat) is in office.

I feel like I just steped into the mental ward where the inmates are running the asylam.
Shaking head in disbelief !

[BabblingBrooks]

No, the same judges DIDN'T rule in favor of the same policies when Bush was president. Does that help?

[dynwitch]

Hmmmm.... I may have to reconsider my earlier criticisms of the 11-dimensional chess argument. My apologies to the Spock crowd.

[BabblingBrooks]

Didja ever note Clinton appointees bucking Bush? Didja ever note BUSH appointees bucking Bush? Happened all the time! Reagan appointees bucking Bush, Clinton, and Bush? Happened all the time!

We have three branches of government specifically created to be checks and balances upon each other!

We ain't a banana republic dictatorship---yet!

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Really? Just because you have intra-office politics and conflict, doesn't mean you don't have a banana republic. It just means it's more disorganized. The three branches of Government you refer to are all ineffective and corrupt.

[BabblingBrooks]

They were specifically DESIGNED to be inefficient! It is when government gets too darned efficient that we destroy freedom and the private sector.

Corrupt? To some degree, and possibly worse than in the past. But that's a function of government growing too big, having too many fingers and thumbs and toes in too many private sector pies, having too many tax breaks and favors to dispense.

Take away the income tax, institute the FairTax plan of Linder-Boortz, and you would see corruption markedly diminish.

[lightningbolt]

Too bad these judges did nothing to stop Bush's reign of terror.

[RRG64]

or the Republican looting of America the last 8 years.

[BabblingBrooks]

Judges DID put limits on the Bush administration. The degree of ignorance around this thread is astounding.

[Coinyer101]

and you are one shining example of that everytime you post here.

[lightningbolt]

Judges did nothing to stop Bush's wars of aggression. They did nothing to stop the bailout. They did nothing to stop the very unconstitutional patriot act and military commissions act. They let Bush do whatever the hell he wants to do. Name one limit, ONE limit that judges put on Bush.

[BabblingBrooks]

By the way, WHAT reign of terror? What terrible thing exactly happened to anybody other than terrorists?

[lightningbolt]

He destroyed our civil liberties with the patriot act and military commissions act. He destroyed the economy. He sent thousands of our soldiers to die so his buddies can make more money. The list is very long and horrible, I could keep going but I don't have enough time. Do your own research.

[BabblingBrooks]

It's GOOD that the judiciary is acting independently. We don't need no steeeenking dictatorship!

[lightningbolt]

Yes, I'm glad the Bush dictatorship is over.

[Petey131]

Babbling like always. By the way where were you for the last 8 years?

[Yurdelite]

Being all Babble and no Hat...

[loax]

Judges using politics - now that doesn't surprise me at all. These guys go by party, not the law. Shame on them and they should be impeached if they are found to violate the law!

[PoliticalAmazon]

I bet the judges did not oppose Bush Jr on the terror policies. As such, the objections should be seen as politically motiviated, the judges should be investigated, and then forced to step down if this is, indeed, the case.

Understand, I am against Obama's breaking such a major campaign promise, one that will continue to cause America the same problems Bush Jr had regarding terror policies.

President George W. Obama has broken so many campaign promises, and fought to continue Bush Jr's most heinous policies. Indeed, it's difficult in those most important policies to see where the Bush Jr administration ended and Obama's began.

[Yurdelite]

That is pure Bull Shite.

[BabblingBrooks]

The judges also opposed Bush many times. What's so strange? The branches of government are SUPPOSED to be at cross purposes oftimes. The government was set up that way!

[Petey131]

words from a babbling p*rck

[Yurdelite]

"...The government was set up that way!"

Sure it was but too bad GW Bush did not think that way...

[Mike4Obama]

Anyone noticing the pattern of activism from the conservative benches.

Kind of funny how those are the claims coming out against Sotomayor.

Conservatism = Activism

[BabblingBrooks]

That's ridiculous. But thanks for trying. When judges make rulings that disagree with the president, it may not mean judicial activism. It may mean too much presidential activism! One would have to look at the Constitution and the laws to decide.

[Petey131]

Constitution? Are you referring to the document that your hero Bush destroyed?

[jazzman]

Sweeping powers cannot be given to the President, these Bush appointed judges are ruling. What they leave out is...unless the President is a Republican.

[SurrealPumpkin]

Those were Bush/Cheney arguments they rejected..

[jmpurser]

No. Read the article. It was Obama's arguments THAT MIRRORED BUSH ARGUMENTS. These judges did NOT object to these arguments when Bush made them.

[BabblingBrooks]

The rest of the people here are claiming the judges rubber-stamped Bush policies, and now you are claiming (correctly!) that they rejected some Bush arguments. You are correct and everybody else is delusional. Good work!

[Marie62866]

FIRE THEM!!!!

[naschkatze]

Federal judges? You need an education.