# Scalia Alito Thomas Bush: Form an orderly queue to suck my cock **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 30, 2006, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736 "2006-06-30T07:18:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/21 "2006-06-30T19:24:35Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > I just wanted to mention that you have an interesting taste in women. That was my thought as well. We’re having a legitimate debate over in GD, so I’ll just say GO FUCK YOURSELF to the OP. I can see legitimate arguments on both sides of this decision, having actually read it myself. Frankly, it’s entirely unlcear to me why Bush has the authority from Congress to bomb the shit out of any of these guys if had wanted to, but has to defer to the SCOTUS in how he dispositions them if they’re captured. This was a very, very week ruling, and it’s unlcear what it will actually mean to the detainees. Congress could just as easily exlicitly give Bush pretty much he wants in terms of setting up the dispositioning process-- this ruling only said that he has to get that explicit authority from Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/22 "2006-06-30T19:29:33Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Frankly, it’s entirely unlcear to me why Bush has the authority from Congress to bomb the shit out of any of these guys if had wanted to, but has to defer to the SCOTUS in how he dispositions them if they’re captured. It’s the law of war. While the enemy is fighting you, you use a variety of potentially lethal measures against it. However, once they are captured and disarmed, you treat them humanely, in accordance with the GC, and in accordance with how you want captured American troops to be treated by an enemy. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/23 "2006-06-30T19:42:07Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Where’s the blue-black stubble? I got yer blue-black stubble right heah. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/24 "2006-06-30T19:44:01Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > It’s the law of war. While the enemy is fighting you, you use a variety of potentially lethal measures against it. However, once they are captured and disarmed, you treat them humanely, in accordance with the GC, and in accordance with how you want captured American troops to be treated by an enemy. That’s fine concept, but you didn’t get if from this SCOTUS ruling, because that’s not what it said. Anyway, I’m not going to carry on a duplicate debate, but if you want to learn what the ruling actually did say and debate that, pop over to the GD thread. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/25 "2006-06-30T19:49:06Z")
You didn’t see any mention of the Geneva Conventions in the ruling??? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/26 "2006-06-30T19:51:24Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You didn’t see any mention of the Geneva Conventions in the ruling??? I saw a mention of Article III, but that’s not what most people are thinking when they site the GC-- I bet they’re thinking of Article IV. Go to the GD thread and learn, grasshoper! ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/27 "2006-06-30T19:54:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That’s fine concept, but you didn’t get if from this SCOTUS ruling, because that’s not what it said. Anyway, I’m not going to carry on a duplicate debate, but if you want to learn what the ruling actually did say and debate that, pop over to the GD thread. Your question itself was only tangentially related to the ruling. You asked a factual question and **Giles** gave you a factual answer. The reason a POTUS can bomb people on the battlefield but has to treat POWs humanely is because that’s what the GC says we have to do. That’s not hard to understand. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/28 "2006-06-30T19:54:58Z")
You’ll say anything just for the fun an argument, won’t you, John? :rolleyes: Have fun wanking. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/29 "2006-06-30T19:56:15Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That’s fine concept, but you didn’t get if from this SCOTUS ruling, because that’s not what it said. Anyway, I’m not going to carry on a duplicate debate, but if you want to learn what the ruling actually did say and debate that, pop over to the GD thread. I’ve been lurking in that thread, and it doesn’t address why US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq can legally bomb (etc.) insurgents (etc.) over there. Mainly because that interesting issue was not before the court, and the court was narrowly confining itself to the issues before it. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/30 "2006-06-30T19:59:00Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > My limited understanding is that it doesn’t - that power actually comes from the _Marbury v. Madison_ decision in 1803. Which is not to say it’s not essential to the form of our government. But the Constitution is a rather short document and many ideas we consider extremely important weren’t actually written into the Constitution. That’s partially why I put “…and laws,” as I’m not surprised it is not in the Constitution, but still has a fundamental effect on judicial proceedings. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/31 "2006-06-30T20:00:40Z")
I think it bears mentioning that we’re not actually “at war with terror”, by the way. I don’t understand how the POTUS can invoke any wartime powers without a declaration of war or a definition of the enemy. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/32 "2006-06-30T20:05:32Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I think it bears mentioning that we’re not actually “at war with terror”, by the way. I don’t understand how the POTUS can invoke any wartime powers without a declaration of war or a definition of the enemy. We’re at war with the enemies of freedom. Duh. They hate our freedoms. That’s who we’re fighting. Also, we’re in the last throes of the insurgency. And Osama bin Laden is gonna be brought to justice Real Soon Now[sup]TM[/sup]. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/33 "2006-06-30T21:18:02Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > I’ve been lurking in that thread, and it doesn’t address why US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq can legally bomb (etc.) insurgents (etc.) over there. Mainly because that interesting issue was not before the court, and the court was narrowly confining itself to the issues before it. Yes it was. The court did consider not only the DTA, but also the AUMF, which we have used to, literally, drop bombs on suspected al Qaeda operatives, and not just in Afghanistan and Iraq-- remember the guy we took out in Yemen using a drone aircraft? The 2001 AUMF explicitly states: > [@](#): > > That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Now, I’d like the see Congress limit that authority quite a bit, but I don’t see that it’s within the Court’s authority to do so. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. Like I said, I think there are good arguments on boths sides of this one. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/34 "2006-06-30T21:24:09Z")
It’s within the Court’s authority to enforce the Geneva Convention. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/35 "2006-06-30T21:39:18Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It’s within the Court’s authority to enforce the Geneva Convention. There are many ways to interpret different clauses of the GC, just as there are many ways to interpret the Constitution, so don’t presume that your interpretation will prevail. But it’s unclear to me that the court is “enforceing the GC” in this ruling. This was a very, very narrow ruling about the DTA in this particular case, not a sweeping ruling about GC coverage for all Gitmo detainees. But I know it’s no use arguing with you about this stuff-- you know everything. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/36 "2006-06-30T22:10:00Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > What get’s me is in the dissent, Thomas refers to Justice John Paul Stevens’ “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare”. Stevens was in the Navy during WWII. Thomas has no military experience. WWII was, speaking very broadly, a war for democracy. The “realities of warfare” today are different. Conservatives understand them, because this is conservatism’s war. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/37 "2006-06-30T22:16:02Z")
Shame on you **Sevastopol**. This is a serious issue, and shouldn’t be politicized by _wankers_ like you. See: [White house Invites Rational Debate on Guantanamo Trials](http://www.wstm.com/Global/story.asp?S=5099276&nav=2aKD) > [@](#): > > White House counselor Dan Bartlett says the administration’s task now is to determine how to design military tribunals that will pass constitutional muster. Bartlett says Bush could portray any lawmaker who objects to legislation as supporting the release of dangerous terrorists. It should only be politicized by _cocksuckers_ like the president. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/38 "2006-06-30T22:34:40Z")
'Tis a point well made, I am contrite. _Pit_ vs _Great Debates_? Has to be the Pit. The outcome was never one about which there was the potential for serious debate. SA&T simply exercised naked partisanship, instead of legal reasoning and chose to fly in the face of elementary legal concepts. i.e ‘How can we support this administration?’ _rather than_ ‘What does the law mean?’ Their position as judicial officers is a farce. And Bush who appointed them, would otherwise be not so deserving of scorn. Partisanship and nationalism are his job. Stacking the bench with sycophants less so. ---
**Author:** ![DxZero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DxZero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DxZero)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/39 "2006-06-30T22:40:33Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > And Bush who appointed them, would otherwise be not so deserving of scorn. Partisanship and nationalism are his job. Stacking the bench with sycophants less so. Well…technically Bush only appointed Alito. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/40 "2006-06-30T23:16:02Z")
Nice catch. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736.md?page=3)