dChan
Anonymous ID: 262dc1 Jan. 10, 2019, 7:22 p.m. No.4704089   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4094 >>4141 >>4425 >>4452 >>4519 >>4597 >>4601 >>4731 >>4782

LAWFAG here on why ACB is not going to be the next or any future nominee - soory its long BUT anons need to learn up on habeus corpus = detention of enemy combatants w/o court interference…

most anons know about her extreme catholic/evangeclical religious worship and it is not good at all - includes many women's issues easily attacked and also talking in tongues and other out of the mainstream biblefag stuff- however since she is so dogmatic many prolifers see her as a lock on that issue and that is as far as they go - i do NOT agree with this approach and believe her extreme beliefs DQ her.

 

that said POTUS did place her on the short list - IMO to appease said prolifers and evangelicals - however there is an indpt and objective reason why POTUS will not nominate her - and that is her announced position on habeus corpus.

as anons know a writ of Habeus Corpus is a legal device to get out of jail/arrest and into court - guaranteed by the Constitution no less - POTUS can suspend this writ in times of war and ER - OK great so what is the problem?

 

Well in 2014 this ACB wrote a vapid piece claiming that POTUS does not have the power to suspend habeus - ONLY CONGRESS - and went around the country giving this stinking opinion - heres the link:

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/the-suspension-clause-by-amy-barrett-and-neal-katyal

This legal opinion is unsound and illogical. The authors point out that the writ was needed because the monarch (executive) imprisoned persons w/o judicial process - the parliment thus passed a law prohibiting this action - the authors go on to point out that the founding fathers "…valued the Great Writ because they had this history in mind. Yet those who framed and ratified the Constitution also believed that in times of crisis, the executive might need leeway to hold suspects without answering to a court."

 

OK here is the disconnect - clearly the monarch had the power to imprison people - the legislature wanted to curb that power and did - that is the history - that is clearly was (is) the executive (monarch) that has this power.

1/2

Anonymous ID: 262dc1 Jan. 10, 2019, 7:22 p.m. No.4704094   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4141 >>4169 >>4731 >>4782

>>4704089

2/2

 

So now on to the constitution - which ACB cites as her reasoning - Articl 1 Section 9 which provides that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Seems pretty clear right? WRONG! This clause LIMITS CONGRESS POWER - NOT POTUS POWER - Proof? LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THIS SECTION WHICH READS:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

 

limits on congress! NOT POTUS. NOWHERE in the Constitution is POTUS historical power to suspend habeus corpus limited or made subject to Congress. Well what does SCOTUS have to say about this? NOT MUCH! The case taught in law scholl for the ACB position is Ex Party Merriman - and it is true that case is cited for that proposition - but here is the catch - that was part of the legal confrontations in the runup to civil war - and decided by only ONE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE not SCOTUS - and BTW LINCOLN ignored it. So should we.

 

As a result of this prelim dust up Congress voted to grant POTUS the power to suspend habeus corpus but only for the duration of the civil war. So that long expired law does not address the current status of the matter.

 

Well after 9-11 Congress passed more national security laws including the detention of enemy combatants (sound familiar?) A litigation ensued with the court of appeals making the following decision:

"Because it is undisputed that Hamdi was captured in a zone of active combat in a foreign theater of conflict, it was not proper for any court to hear a challenge of his status… The broad warmaking powers delegated to the President under Article Two of the United States Constitution and the principle of separation of powers prohibited courts from interfering in this vital area of national security."

 

YES ANONS THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT IN 2004 - but then this correct decision went to SCOTUS - which body promptly grabbed back power with a counter-attack on seperation of powers. SCOTUS carved out an exception to this long standing rule of law in holding that '… due process required that Hamdi have a meaningful opportunity to challenge his enemy combatant status…"

 

OK so SCOTUS sticks to its principle that whatever Congress or POTUS do is always subject to judicial review - however - here is the reason they gave: "…. the Judiciary must not defer to the executive with respect to detentions. Instead the constitution empowers the judiciary to act as a check on executive power in this realm"

 

To further point out the legal mumbojumbo that counts for SCOTUS opinions, consider this statement: "…we have made clear that, unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance." OK so does this ("unless") means that if Congress DOES suspend habeus under Article 1 Clause 9 (public safety) the court CANNOT review it? Doubtful but clear as mud - and SCOTUS has made clear that they can and will review excercise of POTUS power to suspend habeus - in either event the ACB logic fails as badly as SCOTUS.

 

OK so once again - whose power is being reigned in? THE EXECUTIVE. Not Congress. There are other cases that do little to clear up this question. As always the law is an utter confusion and mess, with power politics playing the major role in every case. Bottom line though, is this - If I were WH counsel I would NEVER concede the power to suspend habeus to Congress - NEVER - Lincoln was right and we won. ACB just accepts this milk toast "CON LAW" with no thought at all.

 

PS - just for giggles check out her co-author - Neal Katyal - moar evidence why ACB is a big fat DQ

Anonymous ID: 262dc1 Jan. 10, 2019, 7:35 p.m. No.4704251   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4285

>>4704153

>anons have ALWAYS discussed the JQ

well you shitpost about it

then reply to your own shitposts

a few anons call out the bullshit posts

if that is what you mean by "discussion" then yeah

Anonymous ID: 262dc1 Jan. 10, 2019, 7:54 p.m. No.4704516   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4552

>>4704401

BAKER this is indeed notable with an answer to the question posed from the welcome letter which is:

As for the JQ, if you think we're all anti-semites, research our claims of jewish supremacy in media/gov./finance/entertainment before weighing in. How else do you think we came to our ideas? Do you think Q would choose a collection of idiots who have an ideology of hating people for no reason?"

 

NO of course not - there WAS a reason - but that begs the question- The QUESTION is "WHAT is the reason?"

 

and that has more than one answer doesnt it?

Anonymous ID: 262dc1 Jan. 10, 2019, 8:14 p.m. No.4704781   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4704597

i do not conflate that is their own description

she is extreme - catholic or whatever she calls herself

i posted her DQ's

i dont care about jews on the court but i detest both the liberals and conservatives on there

that is NOT their job ot bring a political agenda

no religious test proposed

just personal character and proven expereince to follow the law - not remake it in their own image

Anonymous ID: 262dc1 Jan. 10, 2019, 8:19 p.m. No.4704839   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4704751

>>4704769

no problem with the page or the discussion

i agree it is a factor in Q's decision to post here

the question is what does that mean?

you ASSUME it means Q agrees with your position

but it doesnt