Skip to comments.Why This Court Keeps Rebuking This President
Posted on 06/15/2008 9:42:48 AM PDT by CreativePerspective
So it is extraordinary that during the Bush administration's seven years, nearly all of them a time of war that began on Sept. 11, 2001, the court has been prompted to push back four times. Last week's decision in Boumediene v. Bush, in which the court ruled that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their detentions in the federal courts, marks only the most recent rebuke.
It is not hard to see why the court has traditionally been so quick to side with presidents during armed conflicts. The justices presumably lack the expertise of White House military advisers, and they don't want to be accused of interfering with efforts to keep America safe. "War opens dangers that do not exist at other times," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote. He had earlier been the author of the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in a 1919 case upholding the conviction of radicals who had published an antidraft pamphlet during World War I. "When a nation is at war," the opinion said, "many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
In response, the administration succeeded in getting Congress to authorize the military commissions and stripping the Guantanamo detainees of the right to habeas corpus. Which brings us to last week's ruling in Boumediene - and the 5-4 decision to restore that ancient right.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“THE BOTTOM LINE is that, when we have a bad president, we donât want to give them the tools to abuse us with.”
What you are forgetting is that a “bad president” doesn’t need the laws “to abuse us with” — just think of the Clintons and those FBI files and who knows what else, that we will never find out.
But we do need the laws to allow good presidents, like President Bush to be able to protect us. The threat of terrorism against us is severe and until the Patriot Act, we had no laws to help us deal with this threat.
If this were a Democrat president and it was his war (I know, I know) and we had this same court making this same decision then the Congress would indeed "maintain the balance" by in effect telling the Court to take a hike.
As it is, I think you have taken Ayn Randite notions as fact and it has all gone to your head.
Liberties for us, must be protected when a group or a organization has been created for the specific and intentional purpose of undermining our liberty by way of using our liberty and our system of justice to defeat us.
Lines must be drawn to expose and purge those who try.
By exposing our weakness and our soft underbelly to the enemy, we ensure our defeat or at least our serious and possibly fatal injury.
We must cover that and protect it for as long as it is required to do so.
This is why the Left cannot be trusted with any measure of political power. They are the grand masters at simply rationalizing what ever they feel should be done with a complete willingness to disregard law, principals or facts.
That, my FRiend, is a very astute and scary observation.
If so then we can fire these dumbasses and abolish the surpreme court since they will be redundant.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm......they are Godless Marxists who ignore the Constitution?
Amazing comment. I had no idea Magna Carta applied to prisoners of war. Would have come as quite a shock to Good King John's baronial opposition.
>A military order, however unconstitutional, is not likely to outlive a military emergency, but a Supreme Court decision will stand for generations to come.<
Oh I don’t know. This court has reversed a bunch of rulings that haven’t stood for “generations”.
Why is the court doing this? Because it’s packed with unreasonable, untouchable, unnaccountable libs. Like the aristocracy of old they don’t think they owe anyone an explanation or anything else. Since they don’t know people who are personally being put in harm’s way by these people they’re ruling in favor it it’s all considered well and good.
The Constitution will die at the hands of some judge in a courtroom.
think reciprocity. if they (foreigners) can be entitled to our laws, why shouldn’t we be obligated under theirs?
thats where this is going.
I am now extremely worried about the 2nd Amendment case which is brewing. If there were not a strong faction on the Court desiring to overturn the pro-gun-rights decision against DC, the Court could have just announced that they would not hear the case. Even if we win this time, a Court with Obaminoid Marxist appointees could undo the victory in a few years.
Souter is a wimp with no understanding of our military. Ginsburg is a classic liberal with an inherent dislike our military. Kennedy drifted onto the reefs of liberalism’s siren song.
It is reasonable to expect the next president will have a chance of nominating two, maybe all three, of the worthless anti-american idiots. Unfortunately the new POTUS will probably just give us carbon copies of the gang who doesn’t know how to shoot, much less do it straight.
Make that habeas corpse. Problem solved.
“Among the large questions left open is whether habeas corpus rights are available to detainees held outside American jurisdiction.”
Somebody help me here. Is he implying that foreign prisoners detained ON American soil have habeas corpus rights? Weren’t German and Italian WWII prisoners held on American soil? Did they have habeas corpus rights?
“Is he implying that foreign prisoners detained ON American soil have habeas corpus rights?”
In previous rulings our “glorious SCOTUS” gave them those rights, now they just broadened and expanded them.
They had three previous pro-terrorist rulings, this 4th one is the crown jewel.
1. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in 2004, pertained only to United States citizens detained as enemy combatants on American soil; the court held that they must get a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge the factual basis for their detention.
2. The second ruling, in Rasul v. Bush, came soon after the scandal at Abu Ghraib. Though momentous, it was still limited. The court found, 6-3, that Guantanamo Bay was within United States jurisdiction and subject to its laws, meaning detainees there were entitled to some sort of due process in American courts. It didn’t specify the process, nor suggest that Congress couldn’t amend a law through which detainees could access the courts.
3. The 2006 Hamdan case concerned the military commissions that President Bush established at Guantanamo Bay to try some detainees in the aftermath of 9/11. Here the court’s majority went further. It found that by creating the commissions without asking Congress to agree, the president had overstepped his authority under the Constitution’s separation of powers. Moreover, it held that the president was obligated to honor America’s commitments under the Geneva Conventions.
“In response, the administration succeeded in getting Congress to authorize the military commissions and stripping the Guantanamo detainees of the right to habeas corpus.”
The SCOTUS in their current ruling rebuked the other TWO branches of the US government, and ignored the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.
Thank you! So in a time of war, and of extreme danger to our civilian population from foreign terrorists, the Supreme Court has made up a new “right” where current law and historical precedent had always held that no such right existed.
Well, you know, it’s an election year.