Posted on 06/12/2008 3:48:25 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
WASHINGTON - In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.
Bush said he strongly disagreed with the decision — the third time the court has repudiated him on the detainees — and suggested he might seek yet another law to keep terror suspects locked up at the prison camp, even as his presidency winds down.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 high court majority, acknowledged the terrorism threat the U.S. faces — the administration's justification for the detentions — but he declared, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
I hope that the 5 Justices voting in favor of this burn in the final ring of Hell!
Copy that!
to use a phrase from another freeper
i loathe them with the red hot fires of a thousand burning suns.
I respectfully suggest that Justice Kennedy et al. go buck themselves.
No editorialization there.
Hey stupid reporter, a 5-4 decision IS NOT a stinging rebuke.
Five black-robed Marxist/Anarchist Thugs
have just un-constitutionally seized power
away from the American people and our
duly elected representatives.
When all the terrorists have been released and return to Iraq to kill soldiers or return here and kill civilians again as on 9/11, will the Supreme Court plead guilty to murdering American citizens? What the hells the matter with them? This is the stinking crap you can expect when the Obamster makes his appointments....in the Ginsburg mode you can bet!
This is the work of the Marxist/Anarchist ACLU/Ginsburg court.Bob Barr is also ACLU.
What's old saying......"the Constitution is not a suicide pact".
How many divisions does the Supreme Court command?
Justices deciding against precedent and giving enemy
combatants Constitutional rights, and the presidents who
appointed them::
John Paul Stevens Ford(R) Anthony Kennedy Reagan(R) David Souter G. H. W. Bush(R) Ruth Bader Ginsburg Clinton(D) Stephen Breyer Clinton(D)
Decided AGAINST, appointed by a Republican President.
Decided AGAINST, appointed by a Democrat President.
===
Justices deciding FOR precedent and NOT giving enemy
combatants Constitutional rights:
Clarence Thomas G. H. W. Bush(R) Antonin Scalia Reagan(R) John Roberts G. W. Bush(R) Samuel Alito G. W. Bush(R)
Decided FOR, appointed by a Republican President.
What’s old=what’s that old
So they got Breyer and Ruth Buzzi Ginzberg....and the “confirmed bachelor”.
I council President Bush to tell the court no and go about his business.
Thank you for that information....The appointment for life seems to be the real issue. Do they get a warm liberal feeling after they are in or is it a legacy thing?
lol. Of course not. It’s just our imagination.
See my reply on the post on another thread where you made the identical comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.