That’s what he said in a recent address to the American Enterprise Institute. The main argument being, the POTUS has access to information the judges don’t.
He’s made statements like this before in terms only slightly less strong – but I’m wondering what, exactly, he’s harping on about just now, and what he’s worried federal judges are about to do, and whether his view of the executive-judicial division of powers in this respect is defensible.
From your first link:
I would guess that he is trying for a pre-emptive strike on an independent judiciary: Yeah, we’ve decided to do what we were supposed to do regarding spying on our own citizens, now that we no longer have a rubber stamp Congress and the FISA judges were getting restless, but the rest of you had better not get any ideas of actually exercising your obligations as independent jurists.
Gonzales is a fuckwit.
From the linked article:
*“How are judges supposed to gather up the information, the collective wisdom of the entire executive branch … and make a determination as to what is in the national security interest of our country?” Gonzales asked. “They’re not capable of doing that.” *
That ain’t their frakkin job, numbnuts. This is why Karana created lawyers. Many lawyers work for Fuckwit General Gonzales. Presumably, those lawyers, with the exception of the dipshit that tried to blackball the pro bono lawyers representing Guantanomo prisoners, can find the courthouse, file briefs, and otherwise do lawyer-like stuff, such as presenting the Court with a factual and legal basis supporting the position of their client. Of course, the other litigants also have lawyers who present similar support for their respective positions. The Judge considers both sides, applies law to fact, and rules accordingly. Sometimes, that means the Government loses. Tough shit. Either quit violating the law, or hire better lawyers.
Might this appropriate to discuss General Gonzoles’ creative and innovative approach to habeas corpus? Or should that require a seperate thread to thorougly delve its villainy?
How many judges do you think will take his advice? I’m thinking of judges that don’t already share that view. I’ll guess: 0. Net effect: 0.
Heh. I’d pay for a ticket to watch him try to peddle that crap to a few judges I know. On the record or in chambers. 
Not a bit. That sort of rhetoric might fly with the legislative branch, cuz legislators have to worry about being re-elected. It is not gonna fly with judges. My guess is that judges are not gonna be happy with someone who tells them that they aren’t qualified to make judgements! The more conservative make-up of the current SCOTUS may result in fewer reviews and judgements; it is not going to make it actively side with the executive branch. Remember that American law is based on precedent. SCOTUS wants to avoid making precedent these days; Roe vs Wade has them a bit gun-shy.