George W. Bush appointees buck Barack Obama on terror policies

[JudyInTheHeartland]

Bush-era judges buck Obama on terror
By: Josh Gerstein
June 30, 2009 04:13 AM EST

President Barack Obama’s claims of broad executive authority to carry out the war on terror are drawing fire from an unexpected source: federal judges nominated by President George W. Bush, who asserted the sweeping powers in the first place.

In recent weeks, three different Bush appointees considering cases relating to war-on-terror detainees have rejected arguments from Obama’s Justice Department, which adopted virtually unchanged the positions the Bush administration had staked out. In each case, the Bush-appointed judge said the executive branch was overstepping its authority and claiming more powers than the law allowed.

“It took a while for the courts to turn on George Bush. Obama’s not getting that same period,” said Jonathan Turley, a liberal legal analyst at The George Washington University. “The fact that these are Republican appointees tends to add an exclamation point to their decisions.”

“Even Republican judges are seeing through the arguments and the idea that the war on terror justified depriving prisoners of constitutional protections,” said Jonathan Hafetz of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The irony, of course, is that Democrats railed against Bush for what many saw as a power grab in the months and years after the Sept. 11 attacks — when Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney asserted vast executive branch authority to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and to hold prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. In the years since, courts from the Supreme Court on down have begun to pare back that authority, saying in several high-profile rulings that Bush overstepped his bounds.

Since taking office, Obama has adopted many of these broad claims to executive authority as he’s inherited the war on terror from the past administration — but he is now facing some of the same legal constraints that Bush began to encounter in his closing years in office, sometimes in sharply worded decisions that show some courts have decided it’s time to rein in executive power.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2EB59713-18FE-70B2-A8E34B71F149A269

[Arkana]

I suppose this is a good thing that they're trying to rein in executive power

even though their motives couldn't be more transparent--their boy's not in the White House anymore.

[Doctor_J]

7. no, it's a bad thing because they're showing that party affiliation is their

only measure. They should be fired, today, with the only explanation being that they hold their party in higher regard than the law or their consciences.

[atreides1]

1. Good

It's about damn time.

[asphalt.jungle]

2. this would be good if they had any principles, but they'll revert to their previous positions

as soon as the next republican administration appears.

and just because keith and rachel like turley doesn't mean he's liberal. calling him a liberal legal analyst is a joke.

[bain_sidhe]

3. Yeah, but then the rulings against it will already be on the books.

at least a bit harder to revert when you're going against established law than when you're breaking new ground.

[Doctor_J]

4. why weren't they fired on Jan 23?

:shrug:

[HopeOverFear]

5. oh so NOW they decide to grow a conscience?

whatever :eyes:

[Uncle Joe]

6. They didn't grow one; it's just a loaner, which will be paid back with interest

or disinterest depending on how you look at it.

[masuki bance]

8. I guess it would be better if they just rubberstamped these. nt