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 ...
Personally, I think the conclusion is we shouldn't listen to these windbags at all, anymore. They only have jurisdiction where congress gives it, and congress explicitly withheld it in this area, as recently as 2 years ago. When they exceed their legal jurisdiction they are mere private individual pontificating, not judges.
I also suggest releasing all captives with full return of their personal property - their weapons in other words - in downtown Washington. Tomorrow. Across the street from the court would be a nice spot.
LOL!!! And true! What I find so absolutely hysterical is that this is primarily the same group of people who "selected" Dubya back in 2000. Roberts and Alito are new, but that's it.
So, where the Supremes were stupid back in 2000, they are now brilliant.
Or am I missing something?
Thanks to Souter, I'm having difficulties that McCain will hold to his promise to nominate justices like Alito and Roberts. His comments regarding Alito haven't been consistent.
“They only have jurisdiction where congress gives it”
Interesting! I’ve been wondering whether, in our system of checks and balances, any “checks” existed on the Supreme Court. Not that a Democrat Congress is going to do anything to help a Republican President.
“I also suggest releasing all captives with full return of their personal property - their weapons in other words....Across the street from the court would be a nice spot.”
Hey! There’s a useful check!
They rely on the other branches to 'accept' their ruling, which is one of the reasons they usually cherry pick their case (at least they used to).
As of late, their Liberal zeal has caused them to take cases they never would have touched in the past (Hamdan v Rumsfeld and et al, for example) and with each of these cases they've made contortionist rulings that only have the effect of increasingly making them, the SCOTUS, irrelevant.
All a president or congress has to do is ignore their ruling - they (SCOTUS) can whine, but other than that there's nothing they can do.
IOW, it's all a big bluff on their part.
This is essentially my conclusion in 44 - thank you for putting it so succinctly.
This is essentially my conclusion in 44 - thank you for putting it so succinctly.
It’s good to trust the police when the police are honest.
However, hoping a bad cop will protect you when he has a gun, when he won’t protect you when he doesn’t, is foolish.
If you ask Obama what he finds more threatening, Islamic terrorists or the KKK, what do you think his answer will be?
If you ask Obama what is more important in defending the United States, “being liked” or having a military to defend us, what do you think he believes?
If you ask Obama what is more dangerous, paramilitary training camps for Islamists in the US, or Republicans, do you have any doubt that he sees Republicans as “the enemy”?
Yes, I’ll be the first to say that the Patriot Act laws were a very good thing and prevented terrorist attacks in the US. But that doesn’t mean that I will trust either Obama or McCain with even a pointed stick.
At least McCain might take the fight to the enemy, as well as the US people. But Obama? Hell, he thinks the Free Republic is the threat. I just sure as heck hope that he never gets control of nuclear weapons, or we can say bye-bye to Israel.
Jonathan Mahler
Katyal, who served as Vice President Gore's co-counsel in the suit over the 2000 election, draws a sharp distinction between waging war, an act over which the president should have broad authority, and meting out justice. And so, working at his own expense with research support from a loose network of law students from Georgetown, Yale and the University of Michigan along with attorneys from the law firm Perkins Coie, Katyal has written more than a thousand pages of briefs arguing that the president has neither the authority to create the tribunals without explicit Congressional approval nor the right to deny Hamdan status as a prisoner of war, and in so doing strip him of protections guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions. ''The Geneva Conventions were written precisely to make it difficult for political leaders facing political pressure to suspend basic rights and P.O.W. protections,'' Katyal says. ''The moment we let a president say he can determine whether someone is
2007 Soros Justice Fellows
Project Descriptions and Biographies
Jonathan Mahler, journalist and author
Brooklyn, NY
Jonathan Mahler will complete a book about Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni detainee at Guantanamo Bay, and his defense lawyers, a Navy JAG and Georgetown University law professor, who sued the Bush Administration on Hamdans behalf. The book is a narrative account of the lawsuitwhich reached the Supreme Court in the spring of 2006set against the backdrop of the Bush Administrations broader legal strategy in the war on terror.
Mahler is a contributing writer for the New York TimesMagazine and author of the book Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx Is Burning, which was reviewed on the cover of the New York TimesBook Review, and was selected as a 2005 New York Times Notable Book. He has reported extensively from the United States and abroad, covering a diverse range of subjects including politics, sports, religion, and, most recently, the war on terror. Prior to joining the Times in 2003, he was a senior editor and writer for Talk Magazine. Before Talk, he held several different posts at the Forward newspaper, including Washington correspondent and managing editor. He has published articles and essays in a variety of other publications, such as The New Republic, Slate, New Yorkmagazine and LinguaFranca. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Northwestern University.
Over $1 Million Awarded to Visionary Leaders in Criminal Justice
2008 Open Society Institute.
This so-called ‘journalist’ is a George Soros fellow.
2007 Soros Justice Fellows
Project Descriptions and Biographies
Over $1 Million Awarded to Visionary Leaders in Criminal Justice
2008 Open Society Institute.
Jonathan Mahler, journalist and author
Brooklyn, NY
The reason we are losing wars is that the Dems ally themselves with external enemies. Failure to combat internal enemies is why we keep losing. Traitors exist but when was the last prosecution of such?
The reason we are losing wars is that the Dems ally themselves with external enemies. Failure to combat internal enemies is why we keep losing. Traitors exist but when was the last prosecution of such?
not if morocco holds them :-)
“Among the large questions left open is whether habeas corpus rights are available to detainees held outside American jurisdiction.”
Left open? This guy just won’t quit. What about our troops who will have to Mirandize prisoners on the battle field?
This looks like a hint at the Supreme Court’s next challenge in mangling the law as well as the English language.
And the Polish, Iraqi, and Afghan governments might have something to say about habeas corpus rights for the terrorist prisoners who are guests in their jails.
Given the fact that he has any relations w/ the NYS (Slimes), I'm wary of what his account may look like.
Will he even touch upon the small matter that the Geneva Conventions never applied to Hamdan nor others like him to begin with, for example?
Personally, I suspect O and the Left would be ecstatic over that.
The fact that he is a George Soros Fellow should tell anyone all they need to know about him. And I guess the NYT’s doesn’t have a problem with that. /s
It's twue, it's twue!
(think Blazing Saddles)
Sometimes you have to do what you have to do so that worse things don't happen.
That’s the truth.
Short sighted Bush haters don’t understand, or care, the damage that they’re doing to America.
Another thing that’s a certainty - they won’t accept responsibility for the consequences when they occur.
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.