Well, since everyone knows what a constitutional scholar Bush is and knowing he disagrees, I'm sure the members of the Supreme Court are really having a lot of self-doubts about their decision, huh?

Pwned. Democratics in action.

Bush, FTFA: "And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."

See George, that's the problem. National security doesn't trump the rule of law, you cockbite.

Well, isn't that nice he'll abide. I hope he's happy knowing that he'll be regarded as the single most damaging person in US history.

And all those people who said that John Roberts wasn't such a bad choice and could be reasonable can now officially suck it.

And this is another reason why anyone who voted for Clinton but is so butthurt by Obama winning that they might vote for McCain, like the psychos at hillaryis44.com, can also suck it. Three justices are probably going to retire during the first term of whoever wins. If you claim to actually care about the issues Clinton raised, why would you rather have McCain making those choices than Obama?

God I can't wait until he is out of office. RON PAUL would be much better.

Justice Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it.

jake_lex: And all those people who said that John Roberts wasn't such a bad choice and could be reasonable can now officially suck it.

Cause I don't like that he sided with Alito, Thomas, and Scalia! WAHHHHHHH!

Running a-puck: Bush, FTFA: "And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."

Yeah, Fat Tony dissented because he felt the ruling would hinder the war effort and get soldiers killed.

Farkface, you're supposed to rule on the Constitutionality of the cases brought before your court, not on how it will affect the war.

Christ, he's a douche.

That's really big of him to publicly state he's going to fulfill his Constitutional obligation before proceeding to change nothing at Gitmo. He's a real charmer that George W. Bush.

Ron Paul Revere: I think it's more the partisan decision to ignore the rule of law and respect a centuries old tradition of not imprisoning people without due process.

I'll add this caveat: I haven't read the decision (majority or dissent) yet. I may get to it this weekend (it becomes much less appealing reading SCOTUS decisions when your job involves reading court decisions).

With that in mind, we can very well lodge the argument against the Liberal Four and Kennedy: That they are just doing this to tell Bush to go fark himself because they hate him and they hate his war.

Neither are likely true, but even if they both were, the judges are smart enough to wrap their decisions under legal, statutory, and constitutional arguments.

They can argue "national security" 'til they're blue in the face, but the fact remains that (to steal from Ben Franklin) those who would trade essential liberty for temporary (and unguaranteed) security deserve neither.

That's really assuming that you can either have one or the other -- essential liberty or temporary security. That's not really the case.

I feel much less safe now. It's as if Osama Bin Laden is pulling the Supreme Court's strings.
Scary!

eddyatwork: God I can't wait until he is out of office. RON PAUL would be much better.

Ron Paul on the Supreme Court?

/stuff of nightmares

KaponoFor3: jake_lex: And all those people who said that John Roberts wasn't such a bad choice and could be reasonable can now officially suck it.

Cause I don't like that he sided with Alito, Thomas, and Scalia! WAHHHHHHH!

No, because he sided against civil liberties, habeus corpus and the bill of rights.

...but other than that, he's a SWELL guy....

submitter: Bush generously says he "will abide

Came for the Lebowski quotes... leaves disappointed.

Running a-puck: See George, that's the problem. National security doesn't trump the rule of law, you cockbite.

Bush should just do what FDR did and threaten to pack the court with justices that would interpret the Constitution like he prefers.

SHOCKING! A President that takes actions against the Constitution...pretty much like FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton among others. Big whoop. Civil liberties are only worth a damn if we the people are willing to fight for them...and it's painfully obvious we're a nation of weak wristed Nancy-pants.

GoodScout: No, because he sided against civil liberties, habeus corpus and the bill of rights.

Like I said, I haven't read the decision so I can't comment on the rationale that the dissent used to disagree with the majority.

Ron Paul Revere: You claim to read decisions on a daily basis yet seem ignorant to the idea of habeus corpus. It's pretty goddamned obvious how this case should've been decided if one has even the slightest hint of the intention of the Constitution and a bit of history under their belt.

It's funny, but no where did I even comment on habeus corpus. I'm well aware of the concept. Like I said, I haven't read the majority or dissent yet.

And if it's "pretty goddamned obvious" how the case should have ended out, how do you explain the 5-4 decision? This court has definitely come together in non 5-4 decisions on some controversial cases in the past (see: crack v. cocaine sentencing).

Ron Paul Revere: A terrorist threat is not a good enough reason to suspend our rights. Period.

This is really mincing details, but they are not "our rights" that were being suspended. These individuals were not US citizens.

SangamonTaylor: Bush should just do what FDR did and threaten to pack the court with justices that would interpret the Constitution like he prefers.

Ouch, below the belt, but well played.

KaponoFor3: This is really mincing details, but they are not "our rights" that were being suspended. These individuals were not US citizens.

Except for the ones that are U.S. Citizens.

I hate to keep trotting him out, but Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen.

SchlingFo: I hate to keep trotting him out, but Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen.

Is he at Guantanamo? According to his wiki (take with grain of salt), "José Padilla was found guilty of all charges against him on August 16, 2007, by a federal jury, which found that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism"

So he DID get a trial by jury, right?

Grow up kids. You cannot give US Citizen rights to combatant enemies that are NOT US CITIZENS!! The Supreme Court has proved that power in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing. We have tried to give some of these criminals back to their home countries and their home countries do not even want them!

We might as well give them Social Security numbers and some welfare while we are at it...

So the Constitution isn't just a goddamn piece of paper after all. Huh.

eddyatwork: God I can't wait until he is out of office. RON PAUL would be much better.

If you say Ron Paul one my friggin' time, then I'm going to pretend there's actually anything I can do about it in a tough, bravado way!

KaponoFor3: I'll add this caveat: I haven't read the decision (majority or dissent) yet. I may get to it this weekend (it becomes much less appealing reading SCOTUS decisions when your job involves reading court decisions).

With that in mind, we can very well lodge the argument against the Liberal Four and Kennedy: That they are just doing this to tell Bush to go fark himself because they hate him and they hate his war.

Except in order to justify the majority opinion, the justices essentially had to apply the rules that have existed since the time of Marbury v. Madison, while to justify their dissent, the dissenters had to come up with nuggets like this one from Scalia:

Scalia wrote that the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

In other words, apparently consitutional rights are void and the Bill of Rights can be disregarded if recognition of those consitutional rights might make Americans "less safe" in any way. Funny, but I don't remember seeing any such exception in the Constitution. As I said in the earlier thread, in order to be consistent with this line of analysis, Scalia would have to come up with something like this in that Second Amendment case that's currently before the Court: "I believe the government has the constitutional authority to seize all guns owned by private citizens and to lock up citizen who buys or owns a firearm for life in Gitmo. Because to allow any guns at all in the hands of private citizens will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. Therefore the Second Amendment should be ignored."

But of course he won't say that. Not because it would be stupid--it would be of course, but that obviously didn't stop him today. Even though it would be consistent with his idiocy today, it wouldn't be in lockstep with the Bush agenda, so that's a non-starter.

Briefly reviewing the dissent...

Habeas is most fundamentally a procedural right, a mechanism for contesting the legality of executive detention. The critical threshold question in these cases, prior to any inquiry about the writ's scope, is whether the system the political branches designed protects whatever rights the detainees may possess. If so, there is no need for any additional process, whether called "habeas" or something else.

Interesting point by Roberts here.

Remarkably, this Court does not require petitioners to exhaust their remedies under the statute; it does not wait to see whether those remedies will prove sufficient to protect petitioners' rights. Instead, it not only denies the D. C. Circuit the opportunity to assess the statute's remedies, it refuses to do so itself: the majority expressly declines to decide whether the CSRT procedures, coupled with Article III review, satisfy due process....


The plurality in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 533 (2004), explained that the Constitution guaranteed an American citizen challenging his detention as an enemy combatant the right to "notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a
neutral decisionmaker." The plurality specifically stated that constitutionally adequate collateral process could be provided "by an appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal," given the "uncommon potential to burden the Executive at a time of ongoing military conflict." Id., at 533, 538. This point is directly pertinent here, for surely the Due Process Clause does not afford non-citizens in such circumstances greater protection than citizens are due.

There are legal bases for the decision, it would appear. Are they technical/procedural in nature? Yes, but that does not make them any less valid.

KaponoFor3: they are not "our rights" that were being suspended. These individuals were not US citizens.

The Constitution doesn't draw a distinction.

KaponoFor3: Is he at Guantanamo? According to his wiki (take with grain of salt), "José Padilla was found guilty of all charges against him on August 16, 2007, by a federal jury, which found that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism"

Padilla was held for years in military custody with no access to lawyers and no trial.

It was only when the administration believed that the appeal launched was going to make it to the SC that they decided to finally give him a trial.

My point was to say that the construction of these laws and military detention systems were not, and are not, specifically used for non-citizens. They have been used for U.S. citizens in the past and, IIRC, there are U.S. citizens in Gitmo.

chestermania: Grow up kids. You cannot give US Citizen rights to combatant enemies that are NOT US CITIZENS!!

Nobody's asking for that.

There was never any reason to bring them to U.S. soil and even raise the question.

It's against Iraqi law to shoot at soldiers and police. When they do so, they've broken Iraqi law. Iraq is perfectly capable of trying and convicting them there.

Why on Earth anyone thinks it's a good idea to waste taxpayer dollars to fly, feed, house, and clothe people in the U.S. for violations of Iraqi law that occured on Iraqi soil is beyond me.

chestermania: Grow up kids. You cannot give US Citizen rights to combatant enemies that are NOT US CITIZENS!! The Supreme Court has proved that power in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing. We have tried to give some of these criminals back to their home countries and their home countries do not even want them!

I think Ron Paul Revere has repeatedly address this above already. And let me guess--if you traveled to, I don't know, France, and got arrested without charges, locked up in a hole, and were kept there for years without ever being charged with a crime, being let out of your cell only for the occasional interrogation or waterboarding system, you would say that you should have no right at all to have access to the French judicial sysystem just because you are an American? You wouldn't be upset about that at all, and wouldn't think that was in any way wrong? Right?

KaponoFor3: I may get to it this weekend (it becomes much less appealing reading SCOTUS decisions when your job involves reading court decisions).

Read it now. It's an astonishing decision. It's of downright Marbury v. Madison proportions. I'm thrilled with it. But, wow, you want to talk about breaking with precedent. Kennedy doesn't need no stinking precedent! Wow.

Bush always has a choice. Personally, I think that it's a mistake that he's been making for a long time: He should resign right not.

Cyberluddite: Scalia wrote that the nation is "at war with radical Islamists"

Do you disagree with this? I understand you view it as irrelevant to the Constitutional analysis (which it likely is), but you gotta agree that its true, no?

The rest of his part you quoted? Pure speculation on his behalf obviously. But its clear that's not what he based his decision on, legally.

Cyberluddite: In other words, apparently consitutional rights are void and the Bill of Rights can be disregarded if recognition of those consitutional rights might make Americans "less safe" in any way.

That's not what he said, you know that. Come on now.

Right now, obviously.

Seriously. He doesn't like the decision, I think he should resign in protest.

SchlingFo: IIRC, there are U.S. citizens in Gitmo.

I've never heard of this -- any verification?

MorrisBird: Read it now. It's an astonishing decision. It's of downright Marbury v. Madison proportions. I'm thrilled with it. But, wow, you want to talk about breaking with precedent. Kennedy doesn't need no stinking precedent! Wow.

I'll try to take a look at it in depth this weekend. How was Kennedy breaking with precedent?

KaponoFor3: But its clear that's not what he based his decision on, legally.

It's pretty apparent to anyone who's taken half a look at his opinions that it's exactly what he based his decision on.

I'm sure he got his underlings to write up a legal justification for it, but the Constitutionality of the detention at Gitmo is the farthest thing from his mind.

KaponoFor3: Do you disagree with this? I understand you view it as irrelevant to the Constitutional analysis (which it likely is), but you gotta agree that its true, no?

The rest of his part you quoted? Pure speculation on his behalf obviously. But its clear that's not what he based his decision on, legally.

Technically, we're not at war with anyone. And when we do go to war, we go to war with a state, not a vaguely defined group of people.

So, arguably, Scalia is not only wrong, he's crazy.

KaponoFor3: How was Kennedy breaking with precedent?

He simply distinguished it and said, "no, not gonna follow that." It's a really interesting read.

KaponoFor3: I've never heard of this -- any verification?

Yup. That's what this decision is about.

SchlingFo: It's pretty apparent to anyone who's taken half a look at his opinions that it's exactly what he based his decision on.

I'm sure he got his underlings to write up a legal justification for it, but the Constitutionality of the detention at Gitmo is the farthest thing from his mind.

So can we attribute the same thing to the other 5 justices who sided with the majority? Specifically, can we assume that Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens are also just partisan asshats who are only siding where they did because Bush was on the other side? Or do they get to stand behind the protections of the legal justifications for their decisions?

You gotta be fair to both sides of the ideological aisle.

MorrisBird: He simply distinguished it and said, "no, not gonna follow that." It's a really interesting read.

I can't tell if you are messing with me -- but if he did that, he better have had a damn good reason for departing from stare decisis.

SphericalTime: Technically, we're not at war with anyone. And when we do go to war, we go to war with a state, not a vaguely defined group of people.

That's totally pre-9/11 thinking -- we can go to war with non-state entities now, especially seeing as how they declared war on us a LONG time ago. We're just catching up.

KaponoFor3: Cyberluddite: Scalia wrote that the nation is "at war with radical Islamists"

Do you disagree with this? I understand you view it as irrelevant to the Constitutional analysis (which it likely is), but you gotta agree that its true, no?

We're not at war with them in any sort of real sense. War is something that exists between two states, and "radical Islamists" are not a state. They are certainly a murderous criminal element at large in the world and they need to be dealt with, I agree, but they are not a sovereign state. The "war on terror" is the same sort of not-really-a-war as the "war on povery" or the "war on drugs" -- figuratively, you could call it a war, but literally, it is not a war, and anyone who suggests it is isn't being intellectually serious.

You can no more fight a war against radical Islam than you can fight a war against organized crime. In fact, radical Islam is organized crime, for a loose definition of "organized", 'cuz they don't really seem to have that whole cohesion thing going on.

SphericalTime: Yup. That's what this decision is about.

That dealt with US citizens captured on Iraqi soil, not non-US citizens being held at Guantanamo.q

If you were in a situation where you were named an enemy combatant falsely, would you want the right to a fair trial? Or would you be content to rot in jail?

While I'm sure most of the people who are being held aren't Mary Poppins, what if there is an innocent person whose life is being ruined?

RocketRod: submitter: Bush generously says he "will abide

Came for the Lebowski quotes... leaves disappointed.

The dud abides.

SusanIvanova: War is something that exists between two states,

That's a very, very narrow view of war. Would you not say that the Israelis are at war with Hezbollah? Or the Sri Lankan government at war with the Tamil Tigers? Or any other government who has fought an insurgency group?

KaponoFor3: I can't tell if you are messing with me

I'm not. And, I can't believe you have the nerve to discuss the decision without bothering to read it. What are you, a congress critter?

KaponoFor3: SusanIvanova: War is something that exists between two states,

That's a very, very narrow view of war. Would you not say that the Israelis are at war with Hezbollah? Or the Sri Lankan government at war with the Tamil Tigers? Or any other government who has fought an insurgency group?

Legally, that's still not the definition of war.

KaponoFor3: I've never heard of this -- any verification?

I was mistaken. SphericalTime was correct. The U.S. citizens are being held under military custody in Iraq, not in Gitmo.

Funny thing: In this case, the U.S. government wants to turn them over to Iraq for violation of Iraqi law.

Because they know that, if they bring them back to the U.S., they'll have more rights and due process than they will in Iraq.

But, the rest of the combatants, they won't give to Iraq for violation of Iraqi law, because they'll have more rights and due process in Iraq than they will at Gitmo.

KaponoFor3: So can we attribute the same thing to the other 5 justices who sided with the majority?

If they included in their decision a bunch of political rhetoric akin to Scalia's, certainly.

SusanIvanova: You can no more fight a war against radical Islam than you can fight a war against organized crime. In fact, radical Islam is organized crime, for a loose definition of "organized", 'cuz they don't really seem to have that whole cohesion thing going on.

So we already won the War in Iraq. Because now the formal Iraqi government is on our side. Shall we refer to it as the Iraq Military Police Intervention?

KaponoFor3: The plurality in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 533 (2004), explained that the Constitution guaranteed an American citizen challenging his detention as an enemy combatant the right to "notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a
neutral decisionmaker." The plurality specifically stated that constitutionally adequate collateral process could be provided "by an appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal," given the "uncommon potential to burden the Executive at a time of ongoing military conflict." Id., at 533, 538. This point is directly pertinent here, for surely the Due Process Clause does not afford non-citizens in such circumstances greater protection than citizens are due.

There are legal bases for the decision, it would appear. Are they technical/procedural in nature? Yes, but that does not make them any less valid.

Let's focus in on the part of this that you highlighted. What does it actually say?

surely the Due Process Clause does not afford non-citizens in such circumstances greater protection than citizens are due.

US citizens have the same rights just extended to the prisoner at Gitmo, in particular, habeas corpus, the right to confront witnesses, a fair and speedy trial. These rights are not greater than those held by American citizens.

Anything else?