BREAKING: SCOTUS hands POTUS a War Victory
By Erick Posted in Gitmo | War — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Supreme Court has just rejected an appeal from terrorists at Gitmo who want to contest their detention in U.S. Courts. This is a huge win for the Bush administration. This post will be updated as more details come in from the decision.
« Allahpundit asks why Obama is beginning the walkback/sacrificial process on Gitmo. — Comments (32) | Importing Terrorists — Comments (13) »
BREAKING: SCOTUS hands POTUS a War Victory 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Just hand them a block of cheese and a stack of crackers to go with that fine whine.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Congress and the administration did exactly what the court implored them to do in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. They passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and addressed every one of the faults in the law that compelled the courts to rule as they did in Hamdan.
I'm no lawyer, but I still found arguments opposing the Hamdan ruling to be more convincing than the ones supporting it. But that's neither here nor there. The court ruled as it did and expressly told Congress and the President what it needed to do to justify the detention policy, tribunal policy, and interrogation policy.
That's precisely what they did when they passed the MCA.
One judge (Robertson?) on the DC Circuit reversed his own opinion in the wake of Hamdan. He had ruled in favor of Hamdan before and then, post MCA, ruled in favor of the administration.
He, correctly, pointed out that the Constitution does *not* guarantee the writ of habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants. In fact, it doesn't even guarantee it for American citizens -- giving Congress the very clear authority to suspend it.
A lot of Bush's critics cheered the Hamdan ruling -- seeing it as a "smackdown", etc. etc. These are people who are too caught up in an anti-cult-of-personality. They're driven entirely by what Bush wants. If he's for it, they're against it....if he's against it, they're for it.
Lost on them is the very simple reality that he just did what the court told him to do. What are they supposed to do now? Tell him they were just kidding?
Its much easier to deal with liberal whines than terrorist bombs. Well except for the party leadership it seems.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
it handed down the Duke Energy opinion today, which Souter authored. this makes it all but certain that Kennedy has the PBA case, since he is the only one remaining without an issued majority opinion from the sitting in which they heard it, which given his furious dissent in Carhart, is likely good news. (as I noted at CT, Stevens would likely give him the opinion to sway him to the dark side, so it makes sense that he'd be writing it either way, but I find that less likely, so nothing is certain, but upholding the law, or perhaps striking it down while simultaneously overruling Carhart and allowing states to institute their own PBA bans seem the most likley outcomes, IMO)
some bad news from SCOTUS today in that Stevens in a 5-4 decision appears to have joined the Global Warming Cult. Roberts and Scalia both wrote dissents in which each other, Thomas, and Alito joined. reading now.
intro to Roberts' dissent (beginning p. 39 here) is good:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA,
JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
Global warming may be a crisis, even the most press-
ing environmental problem of our time. Pet. for Cert. 26,
22. Indeed, it may ultimately affect nearly everyone on
the planet in some potentially adverse way, and it may be
that governments have done too little to address it. It is
not a problem, however, that has escaped the attention of
policymakers in the Executive and Legislative Branches of
our Government, who continue to consider regulatory,
legislative, and treaty-based means of addressing global
climate change.
Apparently dissatisfied with the pace of progress on this
issue in the elected branches, petitioners have come to the
courts claiming broad-ranging injury, and attempting to
tie that injury to the Governments alleged failure to
comply with a rather narrow statutory provision. I would
reject these challenges as nonjusticiable. Such a conclu-
sion involves no judgment on whether global warming
exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem. Nor
does it render petitioners without recourse. This Courts
standing jurisprudence simply recognizes that redress of
grievances of the sort at issue here is the function of
Congress and the Chief Executive, not the federal courts.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 576 (1992). I
would vacate the judgment below and remand for dis-
missal of the petitions for review.
(emphasis mine)
This too, should be a non-issue. If you are not a citizen of the USA, and in fact are an enemy combatant, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS under the US Constitution. Why is this even being argued??? Arrgghh!:)
I can already hear the cries. "Bush has stacked the court". The decision was stolen. Who did the administration pay off and what are they holding over the head of the justices ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777