vimarsana.com

Latest Breaking News On - Horrific supreme court - Page 1 : vimarsana.com

Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - CNN - 20180905:17:39:00

to then sit in judgment later on in a case, the hamdan case which you ve alluded to earlier, where the defendant was osama bin laden s personal bodyguard and driver. he was captured by u.s. forces in afghanistan after 9/11 and detained in guantanamo bay. he subsequently went through a military tribunal and then that case was appealed to your court. and just correct me if i m wrong, but notwithstanding the experience you and everybody you cared about having been through this terrible travesty of 9/11, you ruled in favor of osama bin laden s bodyguard and driver, correct? that is correct. i wrote the majority opinion. how could you do that? how could you possibly do that? the rule of law applies to all who come before the courts of the united states.

Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - CNN - 20180905:17:42:00

personal bodyguard. so i find the suggestion that somehow you are prejudiced against the small guy, in favor of the big guy, or that you are picking and choosing who you re going to render judgment in favor of, based on something other than the rule of law, i think this answers that question conclusively for me. the fact that you could separate yourself from the emotional involvement you had along with so many people you worked closely with in the white house on september 11th. and you could then, as a judge, after you put on the black robe, take the oath of office, you could then render a judgment in favor of osama bin laden s bodyguard and driver because you applied the law equally to everybody that comes to your court.

Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - CNN - 20180905:17:50:00

you. i have always had a little bit of a problem with that line because we re infallible because we re final. no, both parts of that are wrong in some sense because i never want to think of the court i never want to think of the court as infallible and never want to think of it necessarily in the way you re describing it either. because the people always have the ability to correct through the amendment process. now the amendment process is hard and hasn t been used as much in recent decades but, of course, at the beginning of the country, the amendments were critical and dred scott, of course, the awful example of a horrific supreme court decision that is then corrected, in part, at least on paper, in the 14th amendment, 13, 14th amendments. and that s an important example, i think, of probably the best example, frankly, of the point you re making about the people being able to respond to

Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - FOXNEWS - 20180905:17:50:00

i have always had a little bit of a problem with that line. we re infallible because we re final. no. both parts of that are wrong in some sense. i never want to think of the court as infallible. i never want to think of it necessarily in the way you re describing either. the people always have an ability to correct through the amendment process. the amendment process is hard. hasn t been used as much in recent decades. of course, at the beginning of the country, the amendments were critical. dread scott, of course, the awful example of just a horrific supreme court decision that is then corrected in part at least on paper in the 14th amendment, 13th, 14th amendment. that s an important example of the probably the best example of the point you re making about the people being able to respond

Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - FOXNEWS - 20180905:17:34:00

you re trying to resolve this case under the principles of precedents, the text of the law in question, the text of the statue in question and decide that case or controversy. that s how judges build up a system of precedent over time, by deciding one case at a time and not trying to do more than they can or more than they should. [protest in background]. judge, don t you think what you ve described for us in deciding cases on a case by case basis has an important foundation and fairness to the litigants? the parties that come to your court? because how would somebody feel if they know you have if you already announced in all cases that have to do with subject x, i ve made up my mind, i don t care what the facts are. isn t that unfair to the litigants? it is. it can be, senator.

© 2024 Vimarsana

vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.