
I like many others am breathing a sigh of relief over the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision and feeling extreme waves of gratitude that there are people like Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift in the world who value principle more than cynical opportunities for career advancement.
Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling, definitively curbing the Bush White House's assertion of nearly unlimited executive power in a time of war, puts the other two branches of government back in business.
The Republican-controlled Congress, which has remained resolutely blind, deaf and dumb as President Bush took national security matters entirely into his own hands, now has little choice but to rouse itself to some sort of action.
And in reasserting the rule of law, the high court has opened the way to what could be major legal action over other executive branch violations of established statutes -- about domestic spying, for instance. The ruling even raises the possibility that U.S. forces and Bush administration officials could be tried for war crimes.
The rousing of the legislative and judicial branches is the ultimate nightmare of the unilateralists within Bush's inner circle, most notably Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, David S. Addington. They had argued that nothing -- not Congress, not the courts, not traditional notions of basic human rights -- should limit the president from pursuing the nation's enemies however he saw fit.
Should limit the president...as Atrios and others have noted, there is no real reason to believe that BushCo. will pay any more heed to the courts than they have any other institution designed to check their power. It would be nice, however, to think that Congress might stop pressing the "snooze" button and get back into the oversight business.
And I hate to be one to bum everyone's high but let's face it, we came awfully close. The decision was 5-3 with Roberts not participating because he had already decided in favor of the government previously. We're basically one vote away from a wingnut block that will insure that future decisions will not go down like this. Remember the Alito cloture vote? It was 75-25 , not even close. Something happens to one of the non-sadists on the court in the next two years, do you really have any expectation that things will break any differently? Because I certainly don't.
Joe Lieberman did this. Lincoln Chafee did this. And they will do it again. There is no excuse for a New England blue state to have a Senator enabling this shit, and yet they are. As Stephen Poole of Crooked Timber ably demonstrates, this is the kind of fine legal scholarship we can look forward to predominating should something untoward happen in the next two years:
Alito does not challenge the finding that Geneva Common Article 3 applies; he argues instead that the special military commissions used at Guantánamo do in fact constitute what Geneva demands, a "regularly constituted court" [p177]. This is a difficult argument to make, given that Geneva's elucidatory commentary explicitly defines "regularly constituted" courts as meaning "ordinary military courts", and explicitly excludes "all special tribunals" [p180]. Because the Guantánamo military commissions do not rise to the standard of ordinary courts martial and are used nowhere else, they are clearly the sort of "special" tribunals banned by Geneva, as the Court in fact found.
Nonetheless, Alito tries his semantic best to weasel out of the plain conclusion. He makes the risible assertion that the military commissions cannot be "special" because "special", in his mind, means "relating to a single thing", and it is proposed that lots of these military commissions be conducted for Guantánamo prisoners. So they cannot be "special" because, um, they are numerous. Hence, they must be "regular" after all [p181]. It is rather pitiful. One is driven to suppose, on this logic, that the US's renowned Special Forces likewise consist of a single uber-soldier, like Jean-Claude Van Damme with lasers for eyes.
I'm almost afraid to breathe for fear that the Club for Growth will stop doing our job for us as they work to defeat Lincoln Chafee. But unless some serious hurt gets put on Joe Lieberman, we're looking at another Gang of 14 lapdance for James Dobson and the wingnuts.
You can help Ned Lamont beat out Lieberman here.
(PS Here in Connecticut I'm being told that Lieberman hates the monicker "Bush's lapdog." We will be 'using Monk's fine graphic often.)
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Jane!
Fitz!
Jane, how is Katie doing?
Stevens!
KATIE!!
Jane,
Re: “You can help Ned Lamont beat out Lieberman here.”
Bad link.
Kobe is nobody’s lapdog !
The ruling even raises the possibility that … Bush administration officials could be tried for war crimes.
Wow! If gets on TV I think 1600 Penn will experence some involuntary defecation.
contribute here http://www.actblue.com/page/firedoglake for Mr. Lamont
I wonder if W got any insight since his ludicrous presser yesterday wrt Hamdan.
Maybe Elvis whispered in his ear and gave him his take.
>>>>>>>>>
You ain’t nothin’ but a hound dog
cryin’ all the time.
You ain’t nothin’ but a hound dog
cryin’ all the time.
Well, you ain’t never caught a rabbit
and you ain’t no friend of mine.
When they said you was high classed,
well, that was just a lie.
When they said you was high classed,
well, that was just a lie.
You ain’t never caught a rabbit
and you ain’t no friend of mine.
It’s good to see the Supreme Court finally decide the Constitution has no asterisks, but i have no doubt the rubber-stamping hysterics in Congress will seek to write Bush a new blank check, and seek to indict the Dems for treason while they do it. That’s why the Democats should take the side of the Court and the rule of law as exemplified by the statement of Swift, who said “this is victory, people.” The Dems need to hammer that over and over and over, that it’s a victory for our entire nation.
I just got off a plane and am somewhat disoriented, but someone explain to me why a 5-4 court is going to undo Roe v. Wade or any other case we care about. Is Kennedy the new O’Connor? Is he the swing vote? Is he more conservative than O’Connor?
Please advise.
“We’re basically one vote away from a wingnut block that will insure that future decisions will not go down like this.”
_____
Yep. There’s a screenplay here, about a VP who undertakes to have a Supreme Court justice murdered.
when one of the “5″ is 85-years-old, he could be replaced anyday by a clone of one of the “4″ …
There is something in the NYT coverage of the Supreme Court decision yesterday which I don’t understand, and maybe you or a commentator can explain it to me. The NYT states that “The justices also rejected an effort by Congress to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at the prison camp.” My question is, what was this effort by the Congress? I don’t follow legislation close enough. Is it in the Patriot Act?
What’s so scary is not only the nominees Bush will come up with if he gets a chance but also the Democrats we are stuck with on the Judiciary Committee at this time. Dinos all. Some like Kennedy are good old war horses who have seen their day and have no fight left in them, and others, like Feinstein, completely bewilder me. I just can’t over that she passed Scalito out of the committee to the full Senate even though “he didn’t answer any of my questions”. If Bush gets another shot at the Supreme Court, the Democrats are just going to have to bite the bullet and face down “the nuclear option” and try to get the country on their side, our side.
Consulting online yiddish dictionaries I could not come up with “lapdog,” though I found “lap” (shoys) and “dog” (hunt).
To take a stab at it then, lapdog in yiddish would be shoyshunt with the hunt pronounced ‘hoont.’
I am perfectly willing to be corrected by someone who knows better.
Love the Lapdog Joe image. So fitting and so ludicrous. It reminds me of the scene from Tim Burton’s “Mars Attacks”, where the Martians put SJ Parker’s head on her yappy little dog’s body.
Katie is just fine.
Why would they? The pay checks keep coming and serving in the federal legislature isn’t exactly a performance-based job these days.
Let’s get some legislators who are interested in doing the work they were elected to do.
Jane!
Christy!
Mahler!
Winnicott!
Love this post, but that picture SCARES ME !!! LOL
naschkatze 15 -
Article III, Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
______
I see nothing in the Constitution giving Congress the power to strip or otherwise limit the purview of the SUPREME Court. Inferior courts, yeah. But The Supremes are primus inter pares.
Is Kennedy the new O’Connor? Is he the swing vote? Is he more conservative than O’Connor?
lina, at 41 on the last thread (”Hamdan around the web”), I quoted an AP story that has your answers.
I love Snooze Button Republicans!
I can see the commercial already.
Ñ
If I had a dog that looked like that I’d shave his a** and make him walk backwards.
lotus - gracias.
For emphasis:
Article III, Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made…
In other words, they get to rule on everything with Constitutional import — EVEN (I would say especially) laws passed by Congress ostensibly restricting their purview. The Legislature’s only way around it is the Constitutional Amendment.
Hi Jane and I do love the photo– if you turn them toward each other, one can imagine them having a heart to heart serious talk…
What are we gonna do? Do we have to tell Laura and Hadassah? Isn’t there someway around it?
Do I have to declare my love for you more than I have, Mr. Presidente and ditch the Dems officially? Will you still love me tomorrow? I know you don’t tolerate losers, but that Lamont character– he’s, he’s GOT character. I am all a-dither, tell me what to do! You’ve been real good at fooling the people, teach me!
That kiss.
naschkatze at 2:43 pm says:
Lawyers? IANAL, but from the opinion I think they mean the Detainee Treatment Act, which is first mentioned on p.2 of the syllabus and taken up in detail on p.15. BushCo said this act meant the Court had no jurisdiction, but the majority disagreed for what seem to be technical reasons. Or, maybe BG is right, ’cause as I said…
lina, de nada.
Mary, are you here?
Your analysis of Hamdan on the previous thread was very helpful. Before reading it, my impression was that Congress would have to abrogate the Geneva Conventions if it wanted to give Bush the statutory authority the court said in Hamdan that he does not have (to run military commissions the way Addington wants to).
After reading your comment, my impression is that Congress would not need to abrogate Geneva, because Justice Kennedy did not join in the part of the opinion that found Geneva to be violated. Am I reading you correctly?
kirk murphy, are you here?
Thank you so much for your looks at Little George and the neocon tykes on the last two threads — incredible double-EPU’d, but I really savored them.
prostratedragon 28 -
Congress can pass whatever they like yammering that The Court has no jurisdiction w/repsect to X,Y,Z. And The Court can then properly strike the legislation down.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority…
“ALL cases.” [III.2]
Don’t like it? Amend the Constitution.
Thanks Jane for mentioning how close we came this week to a fundamental change in our democracy. We survived by only one vote on the Hamdan case and only one vote on the flag burning amendment. I would be a lot more comfortable with just a little more buffer between a monarchy and a democracy. It needs to be a priority for us on the progressive side to make sure everyone knows that we are on the bleeding edge of a major shift in the personality of America and that if they do not turn out the GOP control of Congress in the midterms we have a serious chance of not living in the country our forefathers intended.
You and the dogs have a great 4th in New England.
I don’t think the SCOTUS ruling is likely to make this a better world in the short term, because in its infinite wisdom the world’s greatest deliberative body (our fucking Congress) is going to fix the rules and help the administration get around the decision. I imagine this will happen with the cooperation of some Democrats (Levin, Liebermam, Landreau…)
Actually, we may end up even worse off as a consequence of this decision, because if Congress acts to eviscerate the SCOTUS ruling, the Bushniks will be in a position to claim even greater legitimacy for their sadistic treatment of the ‘enemy combatants.’ And we know the media is not going to hold anyone to account.
The only way I can see this ruling having any measurable effect is if a miracle occurs and we get a President Feingold in ‘08. Perhaps then his Attorney General could cooperate with international courts and put John Yoo and Cheney and the rest in orange jumpsuits in front of an international tribunal in The Hague.
thanks lotus -
I’m glad you liked them…thanks for letting me know.
I felt a bit silly reposting them - don’t think I’ll try a third time!
(Besides, with wordpress’ punctuation aversion, by the time I finished re-punctuating the articles, this thread will have been EPU’d, as well.
I’ve been fantasizing wordpress’ code was written by a radically anti-ownership programmer. No apostrophes, no possesive constructions, no ownership. Social control through punctuation. Elegant. Brilliant.
Then I noticed wordpress eats ellipses. Another theory bites the dust…)
“Remember the Alito cloture vote? It was 75-25 , not even close. Something happens to one of the non-sadists on the court in the next two years, do you really have any expectation that things will break any differently? Because I certainly don’t.
Joe Lieberman did this. Lincoln Chafee did this. And they will do it again. There is no excuse for a New England blue state to have a Senator enabling this shit, and yet they are….”
Jane, thanks again for an as always great post.
FWIW, is there any chance some lawyer types could “guest post” some critical analysis of Alito’s, or Scalia’s, or Roberts’, or Thomas’ SC writings in posts for FDL as a springboard to the traditional media?
These guys are insulated from everything except their oversized neocon ego’s.
I don’t mean in any way to be trying here to make your job and Christy’s any tougher than it already is. Among other things (making us laugh), you educate your readers and the traditional media. I also don’t want to dilute just how difficult it is to fairly translate technical legal writing into terms that are understandable and of interest. Whenever we address an SC decision, it’s at a relatively high level. It might be more “fun” and more “entertaining” to look at what for example Alito wrote about Hamdan. My guess is that these guys really fracture the law routinely in order to defend votes that are pretty indefensible. Perhaps there are some “Ben Domenech moments” hidden in their writings? I am just looking for a way to help these
pseudoJustices feel the consequences of theirtruly un-Americanmiserable jurisprudence.about the closeness of the flag-burning amendment: even if (God forbid!) it had passed out of the Senate, it still would have had to be approved by 3/4 of the State Legislatures…
Jane, how do Kobe and the girls feel about Tony Blair being known in Blighty as “Bush’s poodle”? Chap their heinies much?
lina, de nada.
Hey! Keep with that Spanish stuff and Joey Vento won’t serve you!
.
But, but, but… George Will told me it’s all about Iraq!?!
Kirk and Mary- thank you both for your thoughtful posts… wow.
gonna have to read them again.
you know, the analysis and thoughts here at FDL from the hostesses and commenters is simply amazing.
I guess it’s why we love it here. ;)
OT sorry Jane. If Cujo Or Shoephone are around, Mike McGavick running for Cantwells seat backing Stupie’s privatization of Social Security.
Attack Attack ATTAAAAAACK.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Kirk Murphy - want to echo Lotus’s appreciation for your comments.
J
Oh, and kirk — I was about to call attention to them last thread myself, if you hadn’t reposted them. Absolutely worth your time!
about the closeness of the flag-burning amendment: even if (God forbid!) it had passed out of the Senate, it still would have had to be approved by 3/4 of the State Legislatures%u2026
I’m too lazy to find a link but IIRC all fifty states have passed symbolic bills ratifying the amendment.
.
Sporky, Joey Vento can sit on it and spin!
thanks angie, jlr, and lotus -
i feel the blush reflex coming on…
but i’m just grateful to come to fdl and learn from the hosts and commenters here … and throw in a few electrons every once in a while…
Virgin blogwhoring warning:
I never posted a “diary” at DailyKos before, but I put one up as “oregondem” and titled Mr. Justice Stevens has made his decision; now let him enforce it. It was based on thoughts that I posted earlier here at FDL (comments #26 & 27) (is that enough to excuse this virgin diarist for this one-time cross reference to Kos???). It has received 385 comments there (not all happy ones) and has been recommended enough times that it is now third or fourth on the list of recommended diaries.
I think that’s cool. Might just try this again some time.
BobbyG @ 13 (and everybody else):
I’ve been imagining similar scenarios all day. Might even write a short story out of it. See ya in the gulag, bro.
Why is George Will taken seriously?
And what is it with boyish right-wingers and bow ties?
.
“And what is it with boyish right-wingers and bow ties?”
Bleeve our kirk has your answer, sporkster.
Re Supreme Court ‘we are only one vote away from total Constitution shredding’ — I am thinking of Feingold’s vote for many of these conservative judges saying that ‘he’ would be the best we can get from Bush.
Will Feingold continue to say that even when one more conservative judge will mean a ultra conservative court backing Bush’s lawlessness every step of the way, we should vote them in?
I am concerned about this reasoning and his total refusal to see the harm. We must fight. And mostly he does, but he has a blind side on this issue and this is going to become a huge problem soon.
I believe that unless we take back at least one part of Congress in November, the fight for democracy will have to take place at the state level. And whether to uphold the original constitution will become a state issue. We must fight there and then move to D.C.
John Casper,
Maybe I’m just worn out from a tough week, but i din’t really understand your request.
Do you want an analysis of let’s say Thomas’s writing style/many mistakes/ mostly voting with the losing side/rarely getting picked to write a majority opinion?
Or do you want just an analysis of what he wrote in this case?
There are probably law review articles or at least American LAwyer article about the former.
Is it that you want someone to anylize and explain all the mistakes of either fact or law in a given dissent?
I’m not sure what you are asking for.
I have not even started reading the decision yet, but expect to get to it Sunday the latest (probably way too late for your purposes), but would take a stab at whatever it is you want, if I only knew what that was?
Shutting down the puter for a while, gotta go get the pizza. Fiday night is always pizza night at my humble abode.
We really need to put “a compelled vigor” on for our Senate candidates — it’s not just the Supremes but all Fed courts at stake — and NOW.
(woohoo, lotus can now underline)
BobbyG and Prostratedragon, whoa! I think Prostated answered my question. Congress tried to by-pass all that you talked about, BobbyG, in the Constitution. The Detainee Treatment Act sound like it might be it. And yesterday the Supreme Court struck it down. We’re all on the same side here. Thanks to both of you for answering me.
well, lotus can now underline in Preview.
lol, lotus– you are ahead of me! cannot do it at all.
<u>underline</u> does underlining …
Thass what I did, *ilson, perzackly.
but color is special!
And I just did it again on “did” — no luck.
lotus wrote us a SCOTUS v. POTUS codicil …
about the underline argument.
So how important is 08 now with the US one judge away from a dictatorship! We certainly can’t afford to lose. I see some dems getting a spine and there are lots of great candidates
challenging repugs.
Out-kewled me again, *ilson the *izard!
Show off . *G*
anybody with bright orange-red hair in real life tends to be a bit show-offish …
Prof 3:21pm — Heh. I’m pretty sure I recommended your post at DailyKos, it sure sounded like you. Congratulations on your inaugural post.
If you have any feedback on Sen. Levin’s support for Graham, Kyl, the DTA and any pending modifications, I’d be only too happy to hear them.
naschkatze 56 -
Think about it. Article III, Sections 1 and 2 are VERY simple and clear. They don’t need the interpretive intercession of “sophisticated” jurisprudential analysts to tell Us Great Unwashed what they “mean.” Congress lacks the Constitutional authority to limit the purview of the Supreme Court where issues of the constitutionality of federal laws and treaties are concerned (or words simply have no lexical meaning whatever). Period. SOMEONE has to have the last word. The ONLY legislative remedy to to AMEND the Constitution limiting judicial review. So, Congress can pass whatever the [bleep] they want “limiting” judicial oversight. The Court is then within ITS constitutional authority to strike it down.
*ilson be vogue-in’ . . .
Now we have the all-stars condemning the NYT as so anti- bush on Kitty Lou Dobbs tonite.
What little hair I have left is rapidly turning gray.So I will have to give you a tip-o-the bald spot for your prowess.
Bush, Cheney, Rice and perhaps Rove and others should be held accountable pursuant to Article III of the Geneva Convention and charged with criminal acts under the War Crimes Act. I think.
OT - Lou Dobbs is talking about Who Killed The Electric Car!
Bustednuckles @ 3:16 pm (#43) - I think McGavick can safely count on me not voting for him now. Not only is he interested in gutting Social Security, he’s not even willing to be honest about it. He’s for privatization but he doesn’t want to call it privatization, and not because it’s a made-up word. Frankly, I think he makes a false difference between his position and Bush’s when he says he favors individuals managing their accounts. That’s what Bush was calling for, at least at one time.
I like his idea of phasing in means testing, if for no other reason than to prove that most people won’t do it voluntarily.
I also liked this bit from the Seattle Times article:
Josh deserves a lot of credit for the work he and his team are doing on the corruption issues and stuff like this.
my hair had been slowly turning gray but I resisted it for years with hair coloring — then I had an epiphany: my hair now could be any color I desired! I go to a good Democrat-owned hair salon and have experts care for my hair — even they thought my current brilliant color might be a tad much …
naschkatze 73 -
I could not agree more.
Kiddo,Don’t forget Addington and Yoo.Miserable excuses for a waste of skin.
BobbyG says:
June 30th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Let’s add Marbury vs. Madison and the concept of judicial review to what you mentioned in your comments above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.....ted_States
ditto, OK kiddo.
Add Rumsfeld, Powell, Addington, Yoo and a whole host of nutjobs and we are on the same page.
BobbyG,
I saw on Taylor’s site you were as pained as I was to see Stossel on MSNBC. You should see this movie they’re talking about on Lou Dobbs. I think it’s the perfect response to Stossel.
“Josh deserves a lot of credit for the work he and his team are doing on the corruption issues and stuff like this.”
Lawd, aint THAT the truth, Cujo! They amaze and delight me every day.
an earlier commenter in here said:
SCOTUS desicion : Fuck Yoo, and Addington too!
lotus @ 3:35 pm (#60) - Thass what I did, *ilson, perzackly.
underlined text
I’m not sure what the problem is, lotus, but it seems to work fine here.
*ilson.Good for you. This is still the land of the free.Self expression is one of the best things going IMO.And you KNOW what they say about those who can’t take a joke…….
DB 80 -
Thanks, will do.
Stossel, STFU.
naschkatze, I don’t think they fully struck down the DTA. I think they just said that it didn’t rob them of jurisdiction in this case because the case got to them before the DTA was enacted, and there was nothing in its legislative history saying that Congress was looking at their eventually ruling in this one case when the law was passed—therefore the SCOTUS was free to go on with what was already before it. (whew!)
Now, not having read the whole thing, I don’t know whether anything further was said in either of the opinions, or what the court would say about a new case that comes before them concerning the DTA matters. Maybe it would in the end come down to the primacy argument. My point here is just that I don’t think the DTA limitation as such was overruled.
Incidentally, isn’t this the matter in which Graham and Kyl tried their little stunt of inserting backdated “debate” into the record? They were trying to get around just what was ruled.
(Boy is it ever kludgey around here today, not only at this site, but especially bad on refresh and preview. Have had to restart mozilla twice to break through)
Do any other lawyers, or people who have read the Hamdan decision, want to take a stab at my question to Mary at 3:03 above–would Congress have to abrogate the Geneva Conventions in order to give Bush all the authority he wants re military commissions?
Oklahoma kiddo 73
“Bush, Cheney, Rice and perhaps Rove and others should be held accountable pursuant to Article III of the Geneva Convention and charged with criminal acts under the War Crimes Act. I think.”
I hope Bush /Cheney /Rice /Rove /Addington /Yoo et al never know a moment free of fear for their freedom. Just as Kissinger never imagined fleeing France and Pinochet never expected arrest in the UK - much less trial in Chile - the Bush junta believe they are immune from prosecution.
I believe they are as wrong about their own immunity as they were on WMD’s, global warming, Iraq, and Katrina.
And I believe I’ll live to see the trials.
FireDogLakians need to channel their inner ‘rabid lamb’.
Congress, whether ReThug of Vichy Dem, will do nothing until we compel it to by:
First, making public examples of every Congress Person who supports the fascist takeover…either defeat them at the polls or make their live living hell with constituent pressure.
Second, build the ‘netroots’ by forming communities of citizens who are ready and able to be the ground forces for progressive candidates.
Third, take over the local Democratic party structure and convert it to progressive ideas and goals.
In Oakland, CA and elsewhere we are doing just that.
This is our country. The Congress just forgot that for a while as they periodically do.
Take Action!
Cujo, I figured you’d be all over Mcgavick.The perfect Repub candidate. Sound bites and no substance with a sinister ulterior agenda.
Cujo359 @ 3:49 pm (#83) underlined text
It works in preview, but not in the “real” comments. This is actually rather common with these HTML tags. I wish someone would fix that.
BobbyG, you are 100% correct about the Constitution. Congress has no right to do it, but evidently the buggers tried.
George Will is amusing to me because he is almost always completely wrong. He begins that article with a breathtaking oversimplification and ends it with a fact-free nod to history:
Since when is censoring records, telling rape victims to catch a cab, admonishing your own president for private sexual relationships, enabling a power-hungry corporate-friendly thug administration and tilting the Supreme Court as far to the right as possible considered “domestic liberalism?”
And how does supporting a misguided, poorly planned and painfully costly war that has weakened America automatically equate to “muscular foreign policy?”
Will is one of those unique individuals who is highly intelligent and yet totally unable to use that intelligence to divine the right answers. Him having a seat at the punditocracy is like building a basketball team around someone just because he was as heavy as Shaq.
Bustednuckles @ 3:52 pm (#90) - I’ve been looking for an alternative to Cantwell, believe me.
The rousing of the legislative and judicial branches is the ultimate nightmare of the unilateralists within Bush’s inner circle, most notably Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, David S. Addington. They had argued that nothing %u2014 not Congress, not the courts, not traditional notions of basic human rights %u2014 should limit the president from pursuing the nation’s enemies however he saw fit.
Sweet dreams mofo’s.
it could be that only the html powers explicitly enumerated above the comments text box are now permitted? strict constructionism, ya know?
“[Will] having a seat at the punditocracy is like building a basketball team around someone just because he was as heavy as Shaq.”
Oh, DB, that’s EXQUISITE!
neurophius says
June 30th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Do any other lawyers, or people who have read the Hamdan decision, want to take a stab at my question to Mary at 3:03 above%u2013would Congress have to abrogate the Geneva Conventions in order to give Bush all the authority he wants re military commissions?
_______
LOL!! Let’s say, just for grins, that they did opt out of Geneva. THAT would make for a swell military recruiting environment. They’d have to re-enact the draft at the same time.
“But unless some serious hurt gets put on Joe Lieberman, we’re looking at another Gang of 14 lapdance for James Dobson and the wingnuts.”
Comment of the day!
Yep, but they ain’t be snoozing. Too busy stealing everything not tied down to be a sleepin’ much. Maybe someday someone will notice.
naschkatze says
June 30th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
BobbyG, you are 100% correct about the Constitution. Congress has no right to do it, but evidently the buggers tried.
_______
Oh, yeah, they’ll repeatedly try to push the envelope. Just like Bush does.
Dover Bitch 94 — good rant.
lhp at 3:29, thanks very much for your response.
“Do you want an analysis of let’s say Thomas’ writing style/many mistakes?”
Yes, either an “analysis” or simply a listing of some of the worst examples in a way that non-attorneys could understand. IMO, if a SC Justice makes a dumb error in an opinion, that’s “news” the way the TM defines it.
I heard Alito’s dissent in the Hamdan decision was a very “technical,” one. Does Alito always apply those technical arguments? I doubt it. I bet he waits for a case where he has nothing else with which to defend the indefensible and only then buries his
prejudicereasoning in highly technical jargon?Sorry I was not more clear initially.
Dover Bitch @ 3:53 pm (#93) - I suspect that Will just looks at the ratings various “liberal” groups give Lieberman, which are shockingly high. That method would certainly fit his way of analyzing things.
Prostratedragon, thanks. I didn’t mean to say the entire act was struck down, just an aspect. Yes, your explanation of Detainee Act has some common ground with what Kyl and Graham tried to do after the fact.
“I’m being told that Lieberman hates the monicker “Bush’s lapdog.”"
Oh really? That is good information… Perhaps a whole series is in order? Mayhaps a comic strip?
Hmm…
Oh, and Jane… I just converted to word press and my new url is http://darted.wordpress.com
-Monk
While we are all enjoying watching things impove, I thought you might be interested in how well FDL is doing - have a look at your stats in Alexa. According to this you are beating the heck out of a lot of other blogs - I think you are doing something very right…
http://www.alexa.com/data/deta.....oglake.com
Yes, Monk — do it, do it, do it PLEEZE!
Thanks Jane :)
Monk, I second angie.
DTA 1005(e) -
(e) Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider–
‘(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or
‘(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who–
‘(A) is currently in military custody; or
‘(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.’.
______________________
One word: UNCONSTIUTIONAL under Article III, Sections 1 and 2.
I knew I was forgetting something Jane put in.
Remember the Alito cloture vote? It was 75-25 , not even close. Something happens to one of the non-sadists on the court in the next two years, do you really have any expectation that things will break any differently? Because I certainly don’t.
Joe Lieberman did this. Lincoln Chafee did this. And they will do it again.
Bushes Lapdog and Puddles. They(can) go well together.
shucks fuzzy, Morgan is spewing forth and Rev Al has to shut her up again… on Tweety, who is thankfully almost speechless.
The presidents power grab is fairly absurd considering its based on trying to build up some silly honest cowboy cult of personality that failed in part because Bush is a rich snotty liar.
Some of the main functions of the President include having a person to make quick decisions in time of great need, negotiate with foreign leaders, and lead the country toward unity.
An total failure, but I guess my point is that they are trying to grab all this power when there is no critical need for split second speed. These things are long standing and have had more legal planning to avoid brining in Congress than the speed if they had just brought in Congress.
Congress is perfectly capable of working though these issues an creating law that can be checked by the Supreme Court.
The press are a bunch of losers in this as well since they are complicit in trying to consolidate absolute power in the hands of one man… one may who will clamp down on the few reporters that don’t have a boss or their bosses boss based in the CIA.
So we got outta Bush:
9/11
New Orleans
No Press
No Congress
A barely independent Supreme Court hanging by a thread
and our