Judicial Review

Conservatives took great relish this week in attacking President Barack Obama for some ill-considered observations regarding the Supreme Court and its role in reviewing the administration's health care reform law. One would think that the nation's highest court had never been criticized before - or that the president's remarks had been something more than political spin in the first place. Two things Mr. Obama said this week clearly weren't true. First, he suggested that it would be "unprecedented" for the court to overturn a federal law. And second, he claimed that health care reform had been approved by a "strong" majority of a democratically elected Congress.

The great idea proffered by The Sun that everyone should agree between now and November to engage in a genuine debate about issues of importance cracked me up ("Obama and judicial review," April 6). This "suggestion" coming from The Sun, perhaps one of the worst perpetrators of race-baiting and fake victimization, was disgusting and totally disingenuous. I suggest the newspaper clean up its own house before offering, to it's readers, such "sage" advice on how to behave. Gail Householder, Marriottsville

WASHINGTON -- In a broad reaffirmation of the president's power to make decisions, the Supreme Court ordered judges yesterday to stay out of the process that leads to the closing of U.S. military bases.The ruling will doom the Philadelphia Navy Yard, which is already in the process of being dismantled after being put on the shutdown list three years ago.The unanimous decision leaves it to the U.S. government's two political branches, Congress and the presidency, to sign off on base closings and to fight off the efforts of local communities to save their military facilities.

Criticism of the Supreme Court is neither new nor unprecedented ("Obama and judicial review," April 6). However, what is unprecedented is criticism coupled with a challenge to the court's authority to overturn unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, particularly coming from President Barack Obama, who is supposedly a constitutional scholar. Jerrold L. Brotman, Timonium

Unhappy that their petition drive to put the housing portion of the downtown Columbia rezoning on November's ballot was disqualified by the Howard County Board of Elections, Russell Swatek's Taxpayers Against Giveaways group has asked for a review in Circuit Court, he said, and will seek federal court relief, too. County elections board administrator Betty Nordaas confirmed that judicial review has been requested and said the board has also taken...

The judge presiding over the case involving a ballot referendum on slots at Arundel Mills decided this afternoon not to allow expert testimony on handwriting analysis as part of an effort by the project developer's lawyers to prove fraud in slots opponents' successful petition drive. The issue arose because of Judge Ronald A. Silkworth's decision to treat the hearing as a judicial review, which limits the type of evidence that can be introduced in court. "As this court already noted.

Criticism of the Supreme Court is neither new nor unprecedented ("Obama and judicial review," April 6). However, what is unprecedented is criticism coupled with a challenge to the court's authority to overturn unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, particularly coming from President Barack Obama, who is supposedly a constitutional scholar. Jerrold L. Brotman, Timonium

The great idea proffered by The Sun that everyone should agree between now and November to engage in a genuine debate about issues of importance cracked me up ("Obama and judicial review," April 6). This "suggestion" coming from The Sun, perhaps one of the worst perpetrators of race-baiting and fake victimization, was disgusting and totally disingenuous. I suggest the newspaper clean up its own house before offering, to it's readers, such "sage" advice on how to behave. Gail Householder, Marriottsville

You guys really make me laugh ("Obama and judicial review," April 6). You write: "Here's an idea. Could everyone agree, between now and November to engage in genuine debate about issues affecting the American people?" Every time Comrade Barack Obama missteps, there is an excuse, but let one of the Republicans make a mistake and The Sun gets up on it left leg and has one big hissy-fit. This guy wants to get reelected and really doesn't care how he does it, and neither do you. And last but not least, do you think Mr. Obama really cares about "issues affecting the American people?"

IF, AS OUR nation's leaders say, the Sept. 11 terrorist-inflicted carnage was an attack on freedom and we are now fighting a war for freedom, then we ought to be wary of sacrificing our civil liberties on the altar of security. If we do, the terrorists will have won. Fortunately, we can be both safe and free, if our leaders are mindful. Unfortunately, President Bush and Congress have just succeeded in unnecessarily imperiling civil liberties with passage of a controversial administration-sponsored anti-terrorism act. To be sure, we needed to make some changes to improve security.

You guys really make me laugh ("Obama and judicial review," April 6). You write: "Here's an idea. Could everyone agree, between now and November to engage in genuine debate about issues affecting the American people?" Every time Comrade Barack Obama missteps, there is an excuse, but let one of the Republicans make a mistake and The Sun gets up on it left leg and has one big hissy-fit. This guy wants to get reelected and really doesn't care how he does it, and neither do you. And last but not least, do you think Mr. Obama really cares about "issues affecting the American people?"

Conservatives took great relish this week in attacking President Barack Obama for some ill-considered observations regarding the Supreme Court and its role in reviewing the administration's health care reform law. One would think that the nation's highest court had never been criticized before - or that the president's remarks had been something more than political spin in the first place. Two things Mr. Obama said this week clearly weren't true. First, he suggested that it would be "unprecedented" for the court to overturn a federal law. And second, he claimed that health care reform had been approved by a "strong" majority of a democratically elected Congress.

The judge presiding over the case involving a ballot referendum on slots at Arundel Mills decided this afternoon not to allow expert testimony on handwriting analysis as part of an effort by the project developer's lawyers to prove fraud in slots opponents' successful petition drive. The issue arose because of Judge Ronald A. Silkworth's decision to treat the hearing as a judicial review, which limits the type of evidence that can be introduced in court. "As this court already noted.

Unhappy that their petition drive to put the housing portion of the downtown Columbia rezoning on November's ballot was disqualified by the Howard County Board of Elections, Russell Swatek's Taxpayers Against Giveaways group has asked for a review in Circuit Court, he said, and will seek federal court relief, too. County elections board administrator Betty Nordaas confirmed that judicial review has been requested and said the board has also taken...

T he controversy over the upcoming Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial has not enlightened the public. Those who would deny rights to persons denounced by the president and those who automatically reject all alternatives to criminal trials have seen to that. Prisoners of war are persons captured in uniform of whose enemy status there is no doubt. They may be confined indefinitely but have the right not to be questioned. Bush-Cheney defenders uphold unlimited detention but not its confining factors: undisputed belligerency of the captive and freedom from questioning and torture.

WASHINGTON -- When the White House's secret domestic surveillance program was disclosed last year, Sen. Arlen Specter was one of the first to leap into action, denouncing the wiretapping as "wrong" and insisting that President Bush acted outside the law by not seeking judicial or congressional approval. "We're not going to give him a blank check," the Republican from Pennsylvania insisted at the time. So when Specter, well-known as a GOP maverick and administration critic, announced this month that he would offer a bill that would allow -- but not compel -- the administration to have the spying program declared retroactively legal, more than a few people focused on the dispute scratched their heads.