Can the Democrats request the Supreme Court to rule on "spying"

[kentuck]

authority of the President? Or would the Court refuse because of "separation of powers"? It is noted that the judge on FISA court that resigned sent a letter to Chief Justice Roberts. So, could it not be argued that act was relevant to the argument and the Court should be involved? What are the possibilities?

[mmonk]

1. Turn it over to justice for investigation.

[kentuck]

3. The Justice (Gonzalez) has already defended Bush's position?

Does that mean we would need an independent counsel?

[mmonk]

6. That's my thinking

or a Gonzalez recusal and special prosecutor.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I think that there has to be some sort of suit for it to come up

before the SCOTUS-or some sort of order by, say, the Judiciary Committee that Bush ignores. But I think the Supremes will want to rule on this-and I think they will protect their power.

[goodhue]

4. Need active lawsuit to work its way up to Supreme Court

[msongs]

5. u mean the "bush get out of jail free" supreme court? nt

[kentuck]

7. No, only as a first step in the investigation to come.

It should not begin and end with any one decision. This is a process that needs to take several steps to get these characters brought to justice. That's why I'm a little wary of the "impeachment" talk. Yes, we need to impeach, I am convinced. But there are steps we need to take to get there. Democrats want to cut straight to the chase and lose sight of the rabbit.