No wonder they hate judges so much. They seem to keep ruling against Bush and the Boys (and Condi):
Rumsfeld vs. Padilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Padilla
Padilla’s attorney, Donna Newman, claiming to act as his next friend and on his behalf, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 4, 2002, the court denied the petition and held that the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief had the authority to designate as an “enemy combatant” an American citizen captured on American soil, and, through the Secretary of Defense, to detain him for the duration of armed conflict with al-Qaida.
The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held that the President lacked the authority to order the military detentions of American citizens captured on American soil
=======
Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld#The_Supreme_Court.27s_decision
On 7 November 2005, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the case.[11][12] The petition was filed on behalf of Hamdan by Neal Katyal of Georgetown University Law Center and Seattle University School of Law alumnus Lt. Commander Charles Swift of the U.S. Navy.
The case was argued before the court on 28 March 2006. Katyal argued on behalf of Hamdan, and Paul Clement, the Solicitor General of the United States, argued on behalf of the government.[13] Chief Justice Roberts recused himself because he had previously ruled on this case as part of the three judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Critics called for Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, since he had made allegedly improper comments about the decision of the case prior to hearing oral arguments (”I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it’s crazy”),[14] but he chose not to do so.
The Supreme Court announced its decision on 29 June 2006. The Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention.[15][16]
=============
Warrantless wiretapping:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_wiretapping
[edit] District Court findingsOn August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in ACLU v. NSA that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional under the Fourth and First Amendments and enjoined the NSA from using the program to conduct electronic surveillance “in contravention of [FISA or Title III]“.[58] In her ruling,[59] she wrote:
| “ | The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well. | †|
===============
Even Jeb is a loser in legal circles (Schaivo):
http://informeddissent.org/2005/01/gov-bush-loses-appeal-in-fla-right-to-die- case.html
Gov. Bush Loses Appeal in Fla. Right-To-Die Case Reuters – 1 hour ago; The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a setback on Monday to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s efforts to intervene to keep a severely brain-damaged woman on life support despite the wishes of her husband. Without comment, the justices rejected Bush’s appeal of a Florida Supreme Court ruling that struck down a state law which had allowed him to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, who has been kept alive via a feeding tube since suffering a heart attack in 1990. …
===================
And of course we all know how Libby turned out…
Maybe if they could learn to play ball within the bounds of the law, they would find judges a friend rather than an enemy to be attacked at every turn. Just maybe.
 
