Supreme Court upholds (barely) Habeus Corpus

Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
Associated Press

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

The dissenters were, predictably, Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. Once again, we see the damage that stupid, stupid, stupid Democrats did to this country by refusing to filibuster Alito and Roberts.

This is what happens when Democrats put "bi-partisanship" above Constitutional concerns.

Bush will, of course, ignore this ruling. The Democratic leadership will, of course, continue to look the other way, ignoring THEIR oath to defend the Constitution.

Are you paying attention Senator Hagan?

Comments

Yeah, it's all the Democrats' fault

Had nothing to do with the Republican who nominated them, or the ones who voted to confirm.

Nope. All the Dems fault.

Kosh = tired.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

I should blame a skunk for stinking?

A skunk can't help stinking, but others have a choice.

The Democrats took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. When push came to shove and they had a chance to act on that oath, they spat on the Constitution instead. All in the name of political convenience and bi-partisanship.

They chose not to filibuster Alito or Roberts, thus they allowed them on the bench, despite clear and convincing evidence of their ideological extremism.

Yes, I blame the Democrats. They are supposed to know better. As long as we keep ignoring their spinelessness and betrayals, we will be betrayed.

How many SCOTUS decisions went the other way? The Dems handed the most extreme elements of the Right the Court for at least two generations.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

I've got to agree with Dr.FrankLives on this.

You can't blame the current compositon of the Supreme Court on the Democrats.

And -- the Supreme Court is, to my thinking, the most important reason that we must achieve solid majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as send Senator Obama to the White House.

EDITED TO ADD: And this time, the Supreme Court did what it was supposed to do. Even though there was dissent, essential rights were protected. That's what it's about.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Care to review the last two years rulings

Yeah, we won this time, barely. We have lost far more in the last two years, and will lose many more in the future. If an abortion case makes it to Scalia, it will be outlawed. What then?

It will take a generation to undo the damage Bush has inflicted in the last seven years, but we will be paying for the Democrat's cowardice for the next 30-40 years on the SCOTUS.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

I haven't been in a cave, Kosh.

I seem to recall a minority in the Senate when a filibuster would have been worthless. I understand your anger and frustration, but there's no point in screaming about old decisions now. It's time to move forward.

THE GOOD GUYS WON THIS ONE. This is, if I am correct, the third time that SCOTUS has told BushCo that they can't do what they want to with detainees and prisoners in Guantanamo and other prisons. THIS IS A WIN FOR OUR SIDE.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

We had 40+ Democrats

The filibuster would have worked fine, but instead the leadership cowered because the GOP threatened a "nuclear option". Instead of force them to create a weapon of dubious legality that could be used against them in the future, they slunk off into a hole.

I do not contest that this is a "win". What I am pointing out is that our wins are few and far between, and will be few and far between for the next three decades. If we replace any folk on the SC, it will be existing liberals or moderates, not the hard core conservatives. The Dems will appoint a center-right moderate who will be filibustered (because you can be DAMNED sure the GOP will filibuster).

In the mean time, any gay rights, pro-worker, anti-corporate, pro-voter, pro-feminist law that comes before the court will be struck down.

And no, it is not time to move forward, because I have seen little evidence to prove to me that the Dems have learned from their mistakes. In fact, the "we need move forward" meme will be used to sweep every single Bush crime under that carpet. The argument will be that we have more important issues to deal with (the economy, Iraq) so we don't have time for "political vendettas", which is how any attempt at accountability will be characterized.

Hundreds of thousands of people are dead because of Bush. A trillion dollars has been stolen from the taxpayers and put into the pocket of mercenaries, cronies, and defense contractors. Trillions more will be needed to pay for the theft, murder, extortion and corruption of Bush in the years to come.

You don't just "move on" from this. You either address it head on, prosecute the perpetrators, or simply wait for the next dictator to be more successful.

As trite as it sounds these day, the old saw that "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" is perfectly true. As long as we keep patting ourselves on the back when we win the occasional battle and forget that we are losing the war, we are deluding ourselves.

I call not for vengeance, but for justice. My leaders are telling me that seeking justice is just too much effort.

Please understand Linda, I am not casting aspersions at you, but at our leadership.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

I understand you're not casting aspersions at me, Kosh.

But the filibuster wouldn't have worked. Here's an explanation of why, from the New Yorker:

As Jeffrey Toobin reported in these pages last week (“Blowing Up the Senate”), the real ultimate weapon is—shades of Joe McCarthy!—the point of order. Here’s how it would work. Normally, under the Senate’s famous Rule XXII, it takes sixty senators, three-fifths of the full membership, to cut off debate and proceed to a vote. However, during a debate on a judicial nominee, a Republican senator would ask the Presiding Officer to rule that further debate is out of order. The Presiding Officer—Vice-President Cheney—would so rule. The ruling would be challenged, of course. But because such a challenge can be tabled by the vote of a simple majority, and because there are fifty-five Republican senators, the ruling would be upheld. And, boom, that would be that—a piece of procedural ordnance so devastating in its effects and its aftermath that it has been nicknamed “the nuclear option.”

The point-of-order strategem would nuke not only the particular filibuster against which it was deployed but all future filibusters against judicial nominees. It would also put an end to any hope of preventing Bush from filling Supreme Court vacancies with clones of his proclaimed judicial ideal, Antonin Scalia.

It's disgusting, it's discouraging. It's infuriating. But there you have it.

And yes, you're right, if we are able to elect enough Democrats to Congress, we will merely be replacing the most liberal of justices, because they are the ones who are ready to retire. Imagine the disaster if we win the White House and not the Senate.

It's crucial.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

I'm on the fence.

As I recall, Dems caved on the filibuster because they feared the nukular option. That was weak and wrong. Now we have a Republican minority that has effectively made it so that 60 votes are required to pass anything at all.

That's what I recall too.

I sweated it out listening to the debate on Alito and Roberts on npr while I worked. The nominations were rationalized all the way down the line and I cringed when they were confirmed.

I've forgotten, what political capital did the Democrats get out of capitulating on those two again?

Progressive Democrats of North Carolina

They got nothing

And we get to pay for it with our liberty.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

I have to agree completely with your thoughts, Kosh...

I have had the same thought process on this, plus I was thinking that when 'we' were in the majority, they confirmed Mukasey as AG, knowing he was Bush's attorney, for all practical purposes. He has told Congress to f___ off, when they wanted him to do some investigating on issues raised since his confirmation. That was grounds for his removal, but the Dem leadership just wants to run out the clock while Bush & gang sack the country.

Me three.

n/t