Deni G, Yes, the court ruled U.S. sovereignty over Gitmo. It’s the basis for their decision. I will argue the 1) precedent you deny and 2) sovereignty, at the end of my reply, as it is rather lengthy. The extreme left have been unable to win in the arena of ideas, via the ballot box . But, they have been patient & smart. For the last 50 years or so, there has been an ongoing appointment of liberal activist judges. These judges periodically overrule the will of the people, or the representative legislative branch, on the grounds of something being unconstitutional. This is done by citing phrases that don’t exist in the constitution, or by manipulating something that does exist in the constitution. An example would be “ separation of church & state” which is not found in the U.S. constitution. An example of a manipulation would be the interpretation of the “right to privacy” to include a right to abortion. Initially, legal abortion was defined by the court, to occur before the fetus was viable, or later if the mother’s health is threatened. Viability comes now days, at the end of the 24th week. Much, much earlier than in 1973. Because of this, & “the mother’s health” we had the partial birth abortion fight. It was a way for activist judges to get around the viability segment, of the federal abortion ruling. The 2003 federal ban on partial birth abortion, was ruled unconstitutional by the eighth circuit court. Judicial tyranny, if you will. The Supreme Court ruled it constitutional in 2007. “The mother’s health” was a play to naive emotions. There has never been a time when a woman’s life was saved by killing her unborn baby, but many women’s lives have been protected by delivering a baby early. The argument “ a woman’s health, including mental” could be argued to extend past birth. I have a 17 year old son, that threatens my mental health, daily. Lucky for him, no one has made that argument before the 8th circuit court. Other examples of judicial activism would include federal judges overturning state laws defining marriage as between a man & a woman, or the 2005 S.C. ruling twisting the constitutional “eminent domain” beyond anything recognizable. The list goes on & on, including the most recent. The U.S. supreme court just granted U.S. constitutional rights to non citizens, living on foreign soil, that wish to destroy American citizens. I would like to ask you how many times has a liberal appointment to a court, by a Democrat president, been fought by conservatives in the Senate?? Never. If the candidate is breathing, the majority of Republicans vote in favor of the nominee, including the outrageously liberal Ginsburg. But Democrat senators almost always fight Republican president’s judicial appointments. What has happened at the Supreme Court level, pales in comparison, to the federal judicial appointments that have been languishing in the Senate for nearly 8 years. I believe, as I iterated earlier, it’s a way to advance extreme liberal ideas, that don’t stand a chance, in hell, of passing through the voters or their representatives, that must eventually seek reelection. I’m concerned about any activist judge, even if it’s your so called “retro-activist” . Now as for my argument on last Thursday’s ruling….. Yes, Johnson v. Eisentrager IS the precedence that has existed since 1950. 1) Precedence : “a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.” SIMILAR, not necessarily the same!! Detainees in Germany, foreign soil. Detainees in Gitmo, foreign soil. Below is one of the summaries of Johnson v. Eisentrager, available via google. One of many summaries, which are all very SIMILAR. 1)“The U.S. Government argued: A nonresident enemy alien has no access to U.S. courts in wartime. These nonresident enemy aliens, captured and imprisoned abroad, have no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States. 1)“In their 1950 ruling the Supreme Court justices noted (emphasis added and footnotes removed): We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States.”) 2) Now, as to sovereignty….. 2) “The Cuban-American Treaty was signed on February 16, 1903 by the first President of Cuba, Tomás Estrada Palma, and on February 23, 1903 by the President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt. As per the agreement, the Republic of Cuba will perpetually LEASE to the United States the Guantanamo Bay area (surrounding areas of land and water) for the purpose of coaling and naval stations. The United States will have absolute jurisdiction and control over the area, and in return will recognize the Republic of CUBA”S ULTIMATE SOVEREIGNTY over the area.” U.S. Supreme Court just ruled against the guidelines stated in this treaty. The court renders opinions. Dissention is also an opinion. Scalia made his case, eloquently. Even though it violates this treaty, Dual Sovereignty, between nations, has proven to be unattainable and unrealistic.

Kitty: Bonnie Oliver has summed it up pretty well. I am pro-choice to a point. Abortion in the first trimester is acceptable to me. Much beyond that and I lose heart for it. You see, I have a granddaughter born spontaneously 10 or 11 weeks early. That child is a perfect 5-year old today thanks to the wonderful care she received at a Houston hospital. Another argument for pro-choice is if the fetus is found to have severe birth defects that will affect the quality of his life forever more, and I don’t mean something as simple as Down Syndrome. In the end, I think women should have the right to decide. If they abort into the second trimester or beyond, that child will be with them the rest of their lives. If they have no conscience, then maybe they are making a good choice because no child deserves a parent who never wanted them, either. As far as voting for McCain, it is not a consideration in my vote because he leans more to the side I believe in. However, I honestly don’t feel his stance will change much, and it might even be simply pandering to the Catholic/Latino vote.

SO, looks like you are a McCain woman … have you taken a good look at what he doesn’t offer women? You could not possibly have been a Hillary woman if you’ll go down this path … So I must conclude you were a Republican all along, so your decision not to vote for Obama is not really a decision, now is it?

Lesley, I agree with you completely. He does need rest and should do it now ( we all saw the effects of too much work and too much stress with Tim Russert ). Then, I like his idea of a world tour. He could choreograph this in such a way that brings us all closer together worldwide.