data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12a0e/12a0ea3b22412ced6789c61383f524236b063739" alt=""
Open some eyes and ears.
Five former top Serbian officials were found guilty on some or all the charges relating to the 1990s conflict. Their sentences range from 15 to 22 years.(BBC News). In other words, Bush II was told to say "I am the decider" and he dutifully did so.
...
The court found that the 66-year-old, who led Serbia from December 1997 to December 2002, had no direct control over the Yugoslav army.
(ABC News, italics added). We need not think long to imagine what it would be like to have a Katrina annually or even more frequently. After all, we haven't recovered from the last one yet.
"That has a very large impact," Allison said, adding that extremely large storms which might previously have occurred once in a year would start to occur on a weekly basis.
As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, "much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science." I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations.(Real Climate). Yes, it is a bit extreme to call the warnings of the greater scientific community "the greatest hoax".
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.(Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), italics added). A federal district judge in San Francisco is tasked with that problem at the moment. In Hepting v AT&T these issues are currently being litigated.
[T]he only concern of courts is to ascertain whether the will of Congress has been obeyed. This depends not upon the breadth of the definition of the facts or conditions which the administrative officer is to find but upon the determination whether the definition sufficiently marks the field within which the Administrator is to act so that it may be known whether he has kept within it in compliance with the legislative will.(Walker's Order, 2/11/09), quoting from Yakus v United States, 321 US 414, 425 (1944)).
Does the retroactive immunity statute give the DOJ unfettered authority, thereby, in effect giving it the power to make law - which is the sole province of the legislative branch of government?(ibid). In essence congress can't say to the president, "you make the laws", and if it did so in this retroactive immunity case, then that statute is unconstitutional.