
In reading through the Hamdan decision, there is a point that is made both subtly and not so subtly in the plurality ruling -- both in Justice Stevens' opinion, and also in Justice Kennedy's concurrence. You can find a clear distillation of this in the Stevens opinion on or about pages 46-47: (PDF)
When, however, neither the elements of the offense nor the range of permissible punishments is defined by statute or treaty, the precedent must be plain and unambiguous. To demand any less would be to risk concentrating in military hands a degree of adjudicative and punitive powers in excess of that contemplated either by statues or by the Constitution....The Federalist No. 47, p. 324 (J. Cooke ed. 1961)(J. Madison)("The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny...")
As someone who spent a good deal of her academic life studying American political theory and history, as well as political theory and the divergence of conservative and liberal political thought, it intrigues me how flipped the actions of the various factions in American government have become at this point in our history.
How is it that so many "conservatives" have now become the advocates for an activist judiciary which would go well beyond settled legal precedents and historical anecdotal and documentary evidence to validate extrajudicial and extralegal behavior? In reading Justice Thomas' dissent, that thought kept going through my mind over and over. Guess that whole "strict interpretation" argument goes right out the window when you can't use it to get your way.
What I find more disturbing, however, is that more conservative attorneys and legal scholars have not been standing up and saying that these actions by the Bush Administration are just plain wrong -- under legal precedent as well as under moral and ethical questions.
Bruce Fein, former Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan Administration (who is a VERY conservative scholar, under any interpretation of his philosophy), for one more prominant example, has been an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration on the grounds of opposition to the establishment of an Imperial Presidency. This is philosophically consistent with my understanding of conservative principles from Locke forward, and I, frankly, have an enormous amount of difficulty reconciling the greater "wingnut" arguments regarding Administration actions and the justifications therefor beyond the obvious concern for that grasping, greedy toehold on power to be maintained at any cost.
We've talked a lot about the historical and philosphical issues surrouding the separation of powers and the need for adequate oversight by the judicial and congressional branches of government. But a component that we have not discussed nearly enough is the need for pressure from outside the government to force such congressional oversight through overwhelming public pressure.
Following the enormous implications in the Hamdan decision -- and the threat that it poses politically to the Bush Administration's entire house of cards with no adequate, realistic legal foundation therefor -- it is high time we started talking about putting pressure on every member of Congress to stand up and do their duty to uphold the Constitution. The GOP surrogates have already started to make noise about having the Congress validate the prior position of the Administration to continue to act above the law. This is unacceptable -- and every member of Congress should hear that from all of us.
Please, take time over this July 4th holiday weekend to contact your representatives. Write in letters to the editor. Call into local talk radio. Talk about the issues involved in this with family, friends, co-workers. The Fourth of July stands out as a moment when citizens of this nation stood up for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in this nation -- government requires that citizens remain active and vigilant, and that we work, every single day, toward the goal of a better society, pulling together.
For this year's Fourth of July, let's do something really patriotic: let's ask that every member of Congress stand up for the rule of law. And if they don't, then we will vote someone in who will.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Fitz
I’m not even going to try.
Oh.hell yes.
FITZ!
First !!
I knew it. My ‘puter has been slow lately.Good on ya twolf1.
I should have Known, twice in one day would be highly unlikely. Nice post.
Great post!
What I find more disturbing, however, is that more conservative attorneys and legal scholars have not been standing up and saying that these actions by the Bush Administration are just plain wrong — under legal precedent as well as under moral and ethical questions.
My thoughts exactly, both here wrt lawyers and on the last thread wrt religious leaders!
roots!
Steve your 5 …do not give up.
I often do it, two even three times a day.
Larry
Awaiting punaise
Sent the following letter to the editor this a.m.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld was right on the money. While recognizing that many of the persons awaiting justice for crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq may be dangerous individuals with evil intentions, the ruling reminds us that we must refrain from becoming less than moral and just in our response to their alleged crimes. It also prevents us from acting based on anger, anguish, and frustration rather than honor and justice. Most importantly, it reminds us that we must not undo our laws to become what we hate. Our proud history demands better of us than kangaroo courts and torture. No matter the circumstance, we must take the high ground, honoring our treaties and our laws. That the administration came up with a plan to stack the deck against the defendants speaks volumes. So does the fact that some in Congress already seek to write legislation that would overturn this decision. Both make me wonder if they have any regard at all for the high principles that this country has stood for over the last two hundred plus years. We aren’t only about might %u2013 we’re also about right. Or we should be.
Thanks Christy. Just dloading the decision…
How many dissents has Thomas written? I’m trying to recall an opinion of his and I can’t.
I guess that winning is everything to some people, Christy. They’ve traded every political, logical and moral principle they had for that handful of “magic” beans.
newtonusr — I have a feeling I’m going to be dissecting bits and pieces of Hamdan all weekend — it’s that enormous, and that far-reaching. Am going to try and put together a links post for others who are doing the same. There is some amazing scholarship on this decision going on right now. The panel discussion at Georgetown that just concluded on C-Span was fascinating - and it is just the beginning in terms of the reach of this case. Truly, this is an enormous curtain being lifted on the Bush Administration’s policies and practices — and I have a feeling we’ll be seeing a lot of scurrying from a lot of people who don’t deal well with sunshine.
How is it that so many “conservatives” have now become the advocates for an activist judiciary which would go well beyond settled legal precedents and historical anecdotal and documentary evidence to validate extrajudicial and extralegal behavior?
This got me thinking about how bizarre the idea of “neoconservatives” is, and brought to mind Clifford Simak’s Time and Again in which an author-to-be of an influential book has to deal with “Revisionists” from the future, who are intent on making him write their version, or none at all. They’re explained to him as “those who follow the revisedversion,” which happens to contradict the very principles of his work in ways that benefit them.
Funny how a book can stick with you, and parts of it remain that clear thirty years after reading it. Funnier still how life imitates art.
I agree with Redd that it has been frustrating that no one would be shouting from the rooftops over the flagrant disregard for our treaty obligations and the (to me, a layman) obvious illegality of the actions undertaken by this administration.The fact that the Neocons are already trying to subvert the SCOTUS ruling speaks loud volumes.This is the highest court in the land. Even though it was a squeaker decision, it is still binding.My fervent hopes are that someone is , right now, building a case for impeachment. It has been decided that George W. Bush has broken the law. High crimes and misdemeaners. Can’t get much plainer than that.
Strict interpretation has always been bullshit. Bork referred to the Ninth Amendment as an “ink blot.” How can you claim to be passionate about the strict interpretation of a document if you are actively endorsing the concept of ignoring parts of it?
Of course, they have to ignore the Ninth Amendment because it explicitly states that you are not supposed to strictly interpret the document in a way that limits citizens’ rights.
And as far as hypocrisy goes, look no further than Scalia’s treatment of abortion vs. assisted suicide.
Christy - just got it… 185 pages! Take some time for yourself and the fam, too!
tommy yum at 11: Exactly. They are conservatives in the oldest and most basic sense — working above all else for the principle that there should be an aristocracy to whom all power accrues.
2,533.
It’s a number. Just a number. The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq to date
for The Messianic Glory of this Great and Fearless Warrior:
www.bgladd.com/The_Disgracer_in_Chief.jpg
0.
It’s a number. Just a number. The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq to date
by Saddam’s WMD.
http://www.bgladd.com/Just_a_Number.jpg
And, oh, BTW, didja hear that Noble Clarence The Thomas, in his angry Hamdan
dissent, excoriated his Supreme Court Brethren for their “unfamiliarity with the
realities of warfare.”
Well, ZERO is also the total number of days this pathetic clown served our
nation in uniform.
Unlike Justice John Paul Stevens, the author of the Hamdan majority opinion, who
served in the U.S. Navy during World War II, for FAR more than zero days.
Beautifully put, Redshift.
OT: Aieee, I looked into the trap! Via PZ Myers, I glanced at Noonan whose “contrarian” opinions (in the sense of “contrary to the workings of a rational mind”) include, about Hillary Clinton:
and (aieee! aieeee!):
My eyes!!
(Sorry to interrupt, but I couldn’t survive my sojourn to Bizarro World without telling someone. Now back to our intelligent discourse.)
Christy, I’ve been wondering myself why Bruce Fein is such a lonely voice from that end of American politics. The disaster they’ve courted and won is not just ours on the Left but theirs too. Damned by their own answered prayers to the same wildly-dysfunctional society we suffer from, the Right will not escape any easier than the rest of us.
Many of them are simply thoughtless, but some are intellectuals who surely know that history holds all elites responsible for their flaws in the end. I do NOT understand those educated to know better . . .
I know this is seriously OT (my humblest apologies Christy) but I urge everyone who can to call your senator and express your opposition to Rider #142 attached SECRETLY by Sen Conrad (HORSE KILLER) Burns to senate appropriations bill HR 4848 allowing Bureau of Land Management to offer Mustangs to the highest SLAUGHTER HOUSE BIDDERS…please, please, please express your outrage….Mustangs have every right to the range which was not created for the exclusive use of cattle ranchers…Please, I’m beggin’…thanks!
Amen Christy!
I too spent so many of my college years studying political history (Political Economy Major! Murphy Institute of). I am similarly shocked that so many are so out of touch with both our very short history and that of the other major powers throughout history.
I have been telling my friends and relatives for years that when you are the hegemon or the most powerful country on earth, there is only one way your power is going to go and that is down. Instead of trying to use our power to attack other countries in some feeble attempt to solidify our power we should be forming partnerships for a lasting economic and political success. As many have talked about more recently, China and India are probably the next “superpowers” we can be partners and friends or we can be enemies. As we have seen in Iraq all that war gets us is debt and dead soldiers. We have accomplished nothing with the war and squandered our future.
I applaud your call Christy. Every person regardless of party should be up in arms about the over reach of this administration. The consitution is bigger than any party or ideology. Changing laws to accomodate violations of the constitution should make everone sick to their stomach.
Happy 4th of July. Remember those that died so long ago so that we might be free. Lets not give up that freedom for a false sense of security.
Peace, MsAnnaNOLA
These guys have nothing but utter contempt for the rule of law and the American people.
This is one small but outrageous example of the finger in your face attitude that the out of contol rubber stamp rethuglican congress has for all of us:
Sensenbrenner’s Hubris
Christy said:
How is it that so many “conservatives” have now become the advocates for an activist judiciary which would go well beyond settled legal precedents and historical anecdotal and documentary evidence to validate extrajudicial and extralegal behavior?
———————————–
Because hey have lost the Culture War. Think about it. Interracial couples all over the place, and most of us think it’s no big deal. If they air their racism in public, they are immediately shunned, even by most Republicans. They are losing the gay rights fight too. Women are out of the kitchen, and even in the highest ranks of government. It’s only a matter of time before we have a woman President (though please God don’t let it be Hillary hehe).
They lost the Culture War, but they haven’t given up yet. Instead they have to pretend that their continued fight is about something else. They are not opposed to women’s rights, it’s just abortion they hate (so they say). They aren’t opposed to the coloreds having rights, it’s just “affirmative action” they are against. The disconnect between what they say publically, and what they are really fighting for, has never been greater. We can see how having to constantly dissemble on every issue that matters to them has led to increasingly deranged behavior by them and their fringe hangers-on…I’m no psychologist, but I can easily imagine how so much denial and dissembling could lead to mental instability.
Basically, they favor an activist judiciary now because the system, working as it was designed, didn’t return the outcome they wanted. So they are willing to destroy the old system, and put something more theocratic in place. Our job is of course to prevent this.
The main determinative in Hamdans future import will be how the political branches act upon it, especially Congress. Depending on congressional will, hitherto almost wholly lacking on separation of powers issues, Hamdan could well be of minor significance. Here’s why.
The specific holdings are clear. The Administration’s farthest claims of executive power were rejected. This alone is reason to celebrate. And even now some are reaching for dicta to divine more broad reaching impact. (Dicta is language in judicial decisions which describe the reasoning of the court but not pinned directly to the specific holding.) Though Dicta has no precedential value it can gain enormous political and meme-development value. Most of what you read about Hamdan and other cases around the Net or in newspapers, is dicta.
And contrary to most reporting we have seen on cable and around the Net, the Court did not require application of the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda. Instead, the much more circumscribed Common Article 3 of the Geneva Treaty is at issue and was deemed part of U.S. law. For David Addington et al, this ruling is enough, however, to stop the waterboarding and other torture/abusive practices as unforgivably sanctified by Office of Legal Counsel.
Clearly a blow to their imperial dreams.
I y’all wanna get REALLY pissed, read the infuriating Jane Mayer article in the current New Yorker about the BushCo architect of all of this plenary power bullshit, David Addington.
http://www.newyorker.com/print.....03fa_fact1
TRAITOR.
“…On November 13, 2001, an executive order setting up the military commissions was issued under Bush’s signature. The decision stunned Powell; the national-security adviser, Condoleezza Rice; the highest-ranking lawyer at the C.I.A.; and many judge advocate generals, or JAGs, the top lawyers in the military services. None of them had been consulted. Michael Chertoff, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, who had argued for trying terror suspects in the U.S. courts, was also bypassed. And the order surprised John Bellinger III, the National Security Council legal adviser and deputy White House counsel, who had been formally asked to help create a legal method for trying foreign terror suspects. According to multiple sources, Addington secretly usurped the process. He and a few hand-picked associates, including Bradford Berenson and Timothy Flanigan, a lawyer in the White House counsel’s office, wrote the executive order creating the commissions. Moreover, Addington did not show drafts of the order to Powell or Rice, who, the senior Administration lawyer said, was incensed when she learned about her exclusion.
The order proclaimed a state of “extraordinary emergency,” and announced that the rules for the military commissions would be dictated by the Secretary of Defense, without review by Congress or the courts. The commissions could try any foreign person the President or his representatives deemed to have “engaged in” or “abetted” or “conspired to commit terrorism, without offering the right to seek an appeal from anyone but the President or the Secretary of Defense. Detainees would be treated “humanely,” and would be given “full and fair trials,” the order said. Yet the order continued that “it is not practicable” to apply “the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.” The death penalty, for example, could be imposed even if there was a split verdict. Moreover, in December, 2001, the Department of Defense circulated internal memos suggesting that, in the commission system, defendants would have only limited rights to confront their accusers, see all the evidence against them, or be present during their trials. There would be no right to remain silent, and hearsay evidence would be admissible, as would evidence obtained through physical coercion. Guilt did not need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The order firmly established that terrorism would henceforth be approached on a war footing, endowing the President with enhanced powers…”
Well, I thought that was going to link,
It’s a link to Crooks and Liars and a House Judiciary Committee hearing where Sensenbrenner ignores a vote, calls to adjourn, and Conyers is trying to say - hey wait a minute -
Sensenbrenner: I’m adjourning.
Conyers: I object.
Sensenbrenner: Tough. The rules say you can’t.
(after break)
Conyers: The rules say I was right.
Sensenbrenner: Well… it’s still your fault.”
it’s really appalling and sad.
Got to run to a meeting, will try to post the link later. Yes, I’m technologically challenged.
Here, Susan
susan:
Easiest way to link w/o HTML tags:
In the window of the page you want to link, right click in the address bar and “copy”, then go to the comment window, right click and “paste”.
I’ve tried the HTML tags and have never been able to get it to work either.
:-)
BobbyG,
‘traitor’ is the most apt term for A*****ton we have - said it a hundred times on these boards - have been tracking his monstrous ass for a few years now and applaud all the sunlight coming his way
I use the ***’s above, b/c seeing that name in print more than 3 times in one day results in serious high BP
wont bother repeating my fervent dreams of dealing with him I left 2 threads down.
Yes, we all agree CheneyRumsfeld is the lynchpin to all we fight against, but without this ‘enabler’, we’d have a lot less to fight !
have taught my kids never to say ‘hate’ when they mean ‘dislike’ - I HATE that bastid
The fourth of July doesn’t mean anything if we still have a monarchy!!
not too far OT– this from Democracy Now today wrt to medical professionals involved in torture:
ps– this is against all the professional oaths we take and the ethics we are supposed to practice– it makes me physically ill.
>>>>>>>>>>
AMY GOODMAN: Do you take heart from the ruling of the Supreme Court yesterday?
DR. STEVEN MILES: The Supreme Court ruling is a great ruling, because Common Article 3, which is what the Supreme Court specifically referred to, not only provides for fair trials, but also is the section that addresses torture and cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment, so that the Supreme Court specifically said that that portion of international law is binding on all prison sites in the war on terror. I think it also lays a foundation for saying that the United States is knowingly culpable for its ongoing violations of these and past violations, because the Supreme Court didn’t say it applied starting now. It says it applied from the very beginning. These are war crimes.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Your book, Oath Betrayed, goes beyond that to look at specifically the role of medical professionals in this war on terror, and there’s obviously a raging debate now in medical circles over to what degree doctors, nurses and medics are being complicit in torture. But you’ve now compiled together a lot of the existing record, right, of these cases?
DR. STEVEN MILES: Right. The ACLU put a FOIA suit, a Freedom of Information Act suit, out and pulled down 35,000 records, which actually give a very good picture of the medical system in the war on terror. And that medical system looks very much like, oh, for example, the way physicians were complicit in torturing Argentina or Paraguay or Chile. Basically they hid torture. They delayed the release or concealed death certificates pertaining to deaths by torture. They helped design and monitor harsh interrogations, and they neglected basic medical needs as they failed to record injuries from torture and failed to report that torture up the chain of command or to places that could stop it.
http://www.democracynow.org/ar.....30/1334236
Another fine Friday morning at the Lake - thanks to all as ever.
Between coffee refills I caught snippets on CNN of the impish Prime Minister of Japan having a blast at Graceland - too bad he had to share such a dream visit with the Chimp and his sad, dazed and confused First Lady.
Boiled down to its essence, Christy’s question:
“How is it that so many “conservatives” have now become the advocates for an activist judiciary which would go well beyond settled legal precedents and historical anecdotal and documentary evidence to validate extrajudicial and extralegal behavior?”
is how they can be so hypocritical when it suits them, arguing any side of an issue as long as winning on the issue achieves their desired outcome. And of course, as mentioned above, their lust for power and money is always part of the equation but I think there is something else that rarely gets mentioned. I think we make a mistake when we credit conservatism, in whatever form (neo, etc.), as a coherent ideology, as the other side of the coin of liberalism. It is not.
From Burke’s incoherent defense of absolute monarchy and his disdain for the “swinish multitude” to Bill Buckley’s definition of a conservative as someone who “stands athwart history and yells stop!” it is obvious to me that conservatives simply fear change, they fear the future, the other, women, and above all, genuine freedom. The common denominator that drives their beliefs, desires and actions, as well as enables their assorted hypocrisies, is always fear.
In the end, Conservatism is not really a philosophy or an ideology, it is simply a pathology, a pathology of fear.
Addington is a monster. He has no respect for America and not a speck of humanity.
Geneva Conventions!
So many of these Republicans who bitched and moaned about the Constitution being violated when Clinton was POTUS are completely silent. Obviously, its because they have a Republican POTUS and shows that they really don’t give a damn about Democracy or the Constitution. When they agree, its all good. Ruled unconctitutional? Activist judges! or like they told Tony Blair before the Iraq invasion..”get another lawyer!”.
Note how none of the players of the Bush Admin. have a law degree. Thats no coincidence.
They hated Clinton because he was a Democrat, thats all there was to it. They love Bush because hes not and that is how truely un-idealistic (unless you call love of money & power an ideal…its certtainly not a moral) and IMO, un-American the majority of todays Republicans are.
Even after the SCOTUS ruling, there is nothing we can do until we get a Democratic majority and force Abu Gonzalez to uphold the law. In the meantime, I’m hoping the ABA and others start raising hell.
BobbyG says:
June 30th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Please look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Addington
Dr. Bong,
I’ve tried cutting & pasting but my links never show up -
they show up in preview but somehow get devoured and don’t show up in comments. I’m on a mac using safari 1.2.1 - who knows.
I tried the html text but that doesn’t work either.
Now, I really need to run to my meeting.
thanks
btw– Weldon is on cspan beating Santorum’s resurrected WMD boogeyman. Rumsfeld’s DIA Director is undigging the grave.
Harman gives it the silver bullet at TPM today.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/sp....._hypocrisy
Billmon has a great post on Hamdan —
http://billmon.org/archives/002494.html
Beyond the Bush-in-the-Hague snark, this caught my eye:
I think Billmon is wrong here — in Hamdan, the Court affirmed the Constitutional and Legal Rights of all persons, no matter how or where they came into US custody.
If apprehended by the military, absent laws to the contrary, the Geneva Convention rules. But the other point that is implicit, if not explicit — neither the Executive nor the Legislative can deny an individual the protections of the law.
To that end, I believe Billmon’s nitpicking is moot.
thanks dover bitch !
How is it that so many “conservatives” have now become the advocates for an activist judiciary which would go well beyond settled legal precedents and historical anecdotal and documentary evidence to validate extrajudicial and extralegal behavior?
They would call themselves late to dinner if they thought it would further their power grab.
EPU at 44 — you know that was a rhetorical question, right? *g*
President Bush and his cortege are true believers. Government is evil, proven by abortion on demand and removing prayer from schools. Radicals embarked on a crusade, tilting against windmills with nuclear tipped spears.
Actually BobbyG, if you want to completely lose it, read either article in US News and World Report (in their archives on their site)
one of my personal fave outrages -
someone snitched him off about going to Mueller (FBI) and essentially asking him to put aside ‘inconviences’ like warrants and subpoenas - but of course be ready for no convictions in the event he’s found out -
Yes - and even if I weren’t omniscious.
Cyber Ruffian - You would like the Sophists.
newtonusr@10,
I believe that while Thomas has written a few dissents in his too-many years on the court, but the papers are saying that he had never read a dissent when a decision was handed down until yesterday.
Thad Beier
newtonusr 10
How many dissents has Thomas written?
“At long last, sir, have you no dissents, see?”
Heres what we should find truly scary about Hamdan..
The effective 5-4 decision confirms how close they are to remaking the separation of powers and the Nation. And with 2 years to go, the chances of another member of the Supremes “retiring” or passing on their watch are pretty good.
They are but one heart beat away from attaining the most desired of their dreams.
The blatant disregard for the Geneva Conventions by this maladminstration really infuriated me when I heard they weren’t going to include any of it in the new army manuals. Hopefully, this ruling will reverse that decision. But I’m not holding my breath…..
The thing that strikes me is that 1) it took so long for the SCOTUS to act against what has been an ongoing waltz with lawlessness on the part of the Bush band and 2) that we are even having a conversation about having to call our representatives about upholding the Constitution. I still resist believing that this parade has lasted as long as it has and that it happened in the first place. Good post Christy and I am sure you won’t be the only legal beagle pouring over this document this weekend but it is a holiday and even though the thing we are celebrating is a little tarnished right now doesn’t mean you should ignore it. Have some fun.
Larry 51 -
And, we have eliminationist pukes like mAnn Coulter opening calling for the murder by poisoning of current “liberal” Justices.
Oh, right, my Bad, she was only joking.
What’s striking about the wingnut obsession with concentrating power in the executive branch is that they don’t seem to contemplate that we might have a Democrat in the President’s chair someday. How enthusiastic would they be about the theory of the unitary executive if it were President Hilary Clinton?
Larry 51,
One of the reasons it’s important for anybody who cares about our Constitution to do whatever we can to get the Senate back from the GOP.
BobbyG 54 - on that subject, EPU’d from last night:
no free transcript available, but it’s worth a listen. He made the point that these cretins hide behind a veil of “humor”, and they’re retort is “my, aren’t you thin-skinned”.
todays’s the last day of the reporting quarter — your political contribution to “Mr. Lamont” is important before tomorrow http://www.actblue.com/page/firedoglake
I gave at the office….seriously.
cosmo@55,
see 1998 for the GOP reaction to a Dem president.
Well, here’s a timely court nomination by Bush: Seems he’s trying again to appoint Justice Department official, Peter D. Keisler, to the Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. His nomination was stopped once before by Dems, but he’s back . . .
In April 2005, Keisler defended the administration’s policy of military tribunals in a case that was overturned yesterday by the Supreme Court.
In his argument before the D.C. Circuit, Keisler said that the president should be allowed to exercise his power to prosecute and punish al-Qaeda terrorism suspects for war crimes without intervention from U.S. courts.
Punaise,
U still w/us ?
Yes, Larry?
That was too polite. Whatchit,he’s up to sumptin. *G*
Punaise - I can’t believe you didn’t go with
“Hello, Larry”
The quote re Keisler appointment is from the WaPo, in an on line article that supposedly also shows up on on A.10 of today’s print edition.
You nailed it Christy, as per usual:
“How is it that so many “conservatives” have now become the advocates for an activist judiciary which would go well beyond settled legal precedents and historical anecdotal and documentary evidence to validate extrajudicial and extralegal behavior? In reading Justice Thomas’ dissent, that thought kept going through my mind over and over. Guess that whole “strict interpretation” argument goes right out the window when you can’t use it to get your way”
Judge
strict constructionistBork just continues to soak up wingnut welfare at the Hudson Institute with IrvingScooterLibby. The neocons trotted him out in front of the cameras to torpedo Harriet Meier’s SCOTUS nomination, but evidently, an attack on the Bill of Rights isn’t enough to get him to pick up the phone and call a journalist.Punaise 8
please
and……?
cosmo 55 -
Their intent is to permanently seize total power. By any means necessary. Now, their preference is to do it like a pool hustler, e.g., the dude seems to be always just one ball better than you, but he cleans out your wallet. By this analogy I mean rigging the voting just enough to prevail where necessary, but not make it SO glaringly obvious that the elecorate would rebel and demand accountability.
Great post, Christy! Did you ever read a book about the 17th century revolution in England called The World Turned Upside Down? The title sure fits our times. When Reagan was president, I remember people offering me a free copy of the Constitution outside a grocery store. Now it no longer suits their purposes, is just a piece of paper.
Evil Parallel Universe
I can’t believe you didn’t go with
‘Hello, Larry’
or “Hello, Dolly”
BobbyG - I gotta say I think they are much more blatant than analogy.
John Casper: Bush nominee Keisler is another of Judge Bork’s clerks from way back.
He would also be returning to the court where he clerked in 1985 and 1986 for Bork when he was a circuit judge. From the WaPo article:
Keisler graduated from Yale University magna cum laude in 1981 and from Yale Law School in 1985. He worked in the White House counsel’s office for President George H.W. Bush.
sorry Larry, this annoying thing called work is nipping at my heels. nothing’s clicking - not even those heels.
….blatant than your analogy…..
Cyber Ruffian –
The Conservative motivation is the Pathology of Power — not Fear.
Conservatives want control — power and wealth are the means to that end.
Punaise,
was just looking for your unique wit and word smithing on my 8 to the 5
Larry 8 - Awaiting punaise
Waiting for go, doh!
hello, moto
Kevin Drum has an interesting post, with Jebby’s take on Dubya:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c.....009095.php
hello, fatah
here we are in
Camp Grenada
“Conservative” now means “corporatist”
“Conservative Supreme Court Justice” now means “Mob Lawyer”…none of them give a shit about the constitution or the common good. Not. A. Shit.
Thanks…that did it.
Larry - use only as directed :~)
Do you all see red? off red
U mean like commie pink?
Christy — further in the way of rhetorical questions (there are so many for this Administration)- - - where are the ethics?
My law school graduation class (1975) was the first in California that had to pass an “ethics” exam as part of the State Bar Exam. Before that year, there was no ethics section of the State Bar Exam. This exam was added after the numerous “ethical” lapses in the Nixon White House, which resulted in prison terms for several WH/Admin attorneys, including WH counsels and the AG. The problem they all had was, they didn’t think the Constitution and the rule of law mattered as long as whatever they did was in service to the king — er, President. Sound familiar?
The newly introduced ethics exam wasn’t exactly on point. The State Bar didn’t know how to test for “do you believe in the rule of law and will you stick to those principles? Or “Do you agree or disagree that the Constitution is important?” Uh …, lemme think! So they structured an exam that quizzed us on the rules for making sure we didn’t confuse our money with the client’s money. Really helpful stuff.
I’ve been seeing red for five plus years. it’s all the rage.
Nothing will happen! The rubber-stamp Repub Congress will now rush to make the military tribunals legal or something similar to seem like they are following this ruling. The detainees in Gitmo will continue to languish and never really be charged or if charged have a fair trial.
As this dkos diary shows a Gitmo detainee could not prove his innocence (forget about proving guilt by the prosecution) as the military said they could not locate witnesses in Afghanistan when the Guardian newspaper found them in 3 days.
The SCOTUS can’t enforce anything and the rubber-stamp Repub congress will continue to provide cover for the biggest power grab in modern US history. And the corporate media will obscure and confuse that the majority of the American people who can’t be bothered will continue to not be bothered to do anything. There is no opposition to this regime. The majority do not care. Look at the pathetic turnout in elections!
Christy , I share many of your sentiments. Nearly every legal scholar and historian I am associated with, and who has any expertise in this area, believes that Cheney and the unitary executive advocates have opened a new chapter in American history. Quite contrary to Yoos claims their interpretation of American law and tradition are quite radical. At the center of the argument lies the belief that in times of danger the executive is not bound by law imposed by the legislature or the courts- he is in essence a dictator. This argument is quite ancient in the West but it is exactly what the American Constitution is intended to be a bulwark against. In many ways this IS the kernel of American Revolution. Add to this a nebulous war with an invisible enemy for an unlimited amount of time and you do indeed have the recipe for tyranny, a tyranny that both Benjamin Franklin and George Orwell would recognize.
The story has yet to be written about modern American conservatism but it is very different from the conservatism of the past. It is certainly nothing like Herbert Spencer libertarianism or British Tory politics. To many, particularly in Europe, the unitary executive sounds very much like the argument given in Germany by the jurist Carl Schmitt. Schmitts ideas were used in a fairly opportunistic way to legitimize the “Fuehrer” state. I know this sounds shocking, especially in a nation where the legislature, including the opposition, seems not to be alarmed, but there is very serious scholarship on this point.
If you pay close attention to what passes as conservative scholarship from the neocons in the tradition of Leo Strauss (who incidentally was an admirer of Schmitt) to the conservative jurists and political movers and shakers you find a very different tradition. What is very striking is how little is said about the liberal tradition that runs back to Locke or even Burke. For me it is a counter-revolution.
Talk about seeing red…
U.S. troops accused of killing Iraq family
BEIJI, Iraq - The U.S. Army will investigate charges that American soldiers were involved in the killings of four Iraqi relatives, including a woman who had been raped, military officials said Friday. It’s the sixth current inquiry into the alleged slayings of Iraqi civilians by American troops.
[snip]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....vestigated
Sickening
Senate Democrats must put a “hold” on all Bush judicial nominations, as the legal reasoning behind this Administration’s understanding of its own power has been revealed by SCOTUS to be fatally flawed.
Bush has, in losing Hamdan, lost the right to appoint judges at any level. Senate Democrats have the right to put any judicial nominee on “hold.”
Start right now, today, Senate Dems. Divide up the judicial nominees among yourselves, and assign “holds” to each of you.
Don’t release the holds until the nominations expire in 1/09. This is an EMERGENCY.
OT regarding Valley Girl’s moderation on Wednesday Late Night post. I apologize to Valley Girl for my comments regarding moderation on that post. I assumed that TRex moderated his own posts, was very thickheaded in not understanding the situation, and thought I was having a jocular conversation with him. I can understand that Valley Girl would be upset and offended by some of my comments. I took a look at some of what happened after I left and am sorry I put you in a difficult situation. I thought you did a very admirable job at moderating that evening and owe you a big thank you for a couple of things you did. If you feel we should discuss, please e-mail me.
Will the NYT now, NOW THAT THEIR NOSES HAVE BEEN SMEARED IN POO, hit back hard? (fingers crossed, eyes closed)
TeddySF — couldn’t agree more. Well said. And it’s not just judicial nominations. This Administration has lost the trust and confidence of the American people on just about everything, from the economy, to health/safety/environmental regulation, to economic security, to “war” on T and the occupation of other countries. Dems should stand against everything Bush does/proposes as a matter of principle, that his is an unlawful and lawless administration that needs to be put in receivorship, and make him prove each item should be an exception. I would have no problem with the Dems making that their platform for 2006 and beyond. Alas, it is wishful thinking.
Oh, also, Senate Dems: can we have some more “stunts” like filibusters and shutdowns, please? In case you hadn’t noticed, TradMed pays ATTENTION to those. Your issues with this Rubber Stamp Republican Do-Nothing Congress get covered by the media when you perform “stunts,” Senate Dems.
So here’s a list of “stunts” to try, please:
1. Abstain
2. Walk out
3. Call for Quorum on every vote
4. Object to every vote by acclimation, or whatever Senate rules call it.
5. Executive session (shut downs)
Fristy-frist doesn’t look pretty when he handles these “stunts” and Harry Reid looks rational and clear-headed explaining them. The protection of the Republic may be in your hands. Extremism in the defense of checks and balances is no vice!
============
Had Enough?
============
aha! wespgc! — at last! to the gulags with you! I’m the “Stalinist Moderator” who didn’t delete OCSteve’s trolling quickly enough before you started feeding him. I had let his first post stay but he started arguing with you so rather than letting the GlobalWarming thread get hijacked by EnronHuggers, I yanked the trollings…
and amusingly enough, I have studied some of Comrade Stalin’s writings … it’s not all bad!
AND NO MORE GANGS OF WHATEVER IN THE FUCKING SENATE LETTING CONSERVATIVE APPELLATE JUDGES WALTZ THROUGH.
having been in the midst of what wesgpc is referring about at 95 (and the subsequent discussion thereof last night) I, for one, appreciate his follow up. I hope Valley Girl will be alerted to his apology.
Hi scarecrow! (great minds, and all that….)
*ilson - you must be referring to a different incident, no?
punaise, you’re too funny!