Skip to main content

View Diary: Must Read from Bob Herbert - How Long Is Long Enough? (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is true, to an extent. (0+ / 0-)

    The Administration couldn't take positions that do not comply with Supreme Court precedent (for example, the DOJ could not take the position that enemy combatants do not have a right to habeas review; they do, under Boumedienne).  So I think your answer is an imperfect answer.  But in this area, yes, they have more latitude than in others, because this is largely an area of unwritten law.  

    Change takes time. It's a marathon, not a sprint. Remember that.

    by LarsThorwald on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:07:29 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  but I think you make my point (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, LarsThorwald, CKendall

      first, the Bush administration kept trying new legal theories or legal shell games to avoid having to abide by Court decisions -  I remember Michael Lutoff going off the reservation on Jose Padilla for just this reason

      if SCOTUS has issued a definitive opinion, one should abide in one's further legal reasoning

      but if there is no definitive ruling, one can change one's legal theory.  

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:16:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site