In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional right to challenge their detentions in US courts.
“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.
So… we are one vote on the SCOTUS away from allowing unlimited detention, without charge, and without the possibility of appeal, in contravention of the Constitution and hundreds of years of common law. Remember what’s at stake in this election.
Yep. This country was founded on Liberal principles.
It’s not so much that the average Joe Republican hates the constitution as much as it is they are very ignorant of it. And, therefore, when men like Bush, Cheney, Rove and the SC Justices appointed by them circumvent the constituion they don’t realize it’s being destroyed.
It’s their ignorance of fact and history that allows them to be played like a harp from hell by the RNC/Bush/Fox propoganda machine.
Goldy:
Had to draw the same conclusion when I heard the news. A mere 5 to 4 ruling between us and a police state is an outrage.
Hmmm, eight justices appointed by a Republican President, and one (Ginsberg) appointed by a Democratic President.
Well, looking at it in it’s most positive light, one can point out that FOUR U.S. Supreme Court Justices who were appointed by Republican Presidents voted AGAINST the Bush administration on this one. Even they can’t stomach the complete abandonment of the Rule of Law.
The next President will probably appoint at least two Supreme Court justices (replacing Ginsburg and John-Paul Stevens) in his first term. By the end of a second term, he may have appointed at least two more.
Just another reason why we need to have a Democratic President, as well as a Democratic Congress.
Or, we could leave the decision to the candidate which graduated in the bottom 0.99% of his class in college…..
In other legal news: excerpts from the Sonics legal briefs filed in their lawsuit with the City of Seattle:
“While the city relies on the interests of the public at large, the public is not a party to the lease. As nonparties, their interests are legally irrelevant,” the team’s brief states.
So the position of the Sonics is that the City of Seattle can’t represent the citizens and taxpayers of Seattle. Apparantly, under their analysis, NO ONE would have standing to represent them.
Oh, and they say that the most they should be required to pay for breaking the lease is 10 million.
Remember that, Oklahoma City. According to Clay Bennett, your city should not have any right to represent your interests. And the measure of the value of the Sonics to a city is not more than 10 million a year. So in the near future, when Bennett demands more taxpayer revenue or he will take his ball club elswhere, don’t say we didn’t warn you.
Ooops, to late to edit. I meant to include a link to the quote from the P.I.:
Sonics think $10M should buy out Seattle lease
rhp @ 5 – funny thing is, earlier this week Bennett said that OK city already approved the lease, so he has to abide by that lease for OK people? Which is it Mr. Bennett?
You won’t break a lease in OK but you will in WA?
The Lawyer won again $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
rhp6033 @ 3
Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed by Clinton.
Wow, the rule of law survives, even if only by the skin of its teeth. This 5-4 decision provides a stark example of why Hillary fans hesitant about Obama need to come to their senses. All Hillary fans considering voting for McCain need to consider who they want selecting federal judges for the next 4 years.
The “rule of law” survives regardless. Unfortunately, the whack-job UN-American lefties got this one completely wrong.
The prisoners at Gitmo are NOT Americans (who would and SHOULD have full availability of our court system). They are terrorists or folks who have been ratted out as assisting terrorists FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Are there innocents there? Sure, but only because some whacko mudlims LIED about who those mudlims are.
Actually, the Constitution says “for ourselves and our posterity” (inheritors). It don’t say jack about Joe mudlim suicide-bomber in pick-a-country. THE CONSTITUTION ONLY APPLIES HERE! Within America’s sovereign borders.
As an example, just try to go to Red China and yell some anti-communist slogans in Tienemen Square. Sorry. The U.S. Constitution ain’t in play there.
Just as IT CAN’T BE IN the muddle East. THE MUDDLE EAST is NOT America. (Just proves liberals flunked geography AND civics.)
And, idiot leftist @10:
Yer worried about Barry Hussein’s support for the “rule of law”?
He wants to cram “universal” healthcare up our proctological orifices. Read the G.D. Constitution. Ain’t nothing in there that allows the Federal Government to do that. (Not to mention that “universal” healthcare is an absolute failure everwhere it’s tried. Unless, of course, you are part of the elite ruling class. Ain’t nobody on this blog like that.)
cmiklich @ 12: So many errors, in such a small space.
a) If you don’t want to use a government-sponsored health program, feel free to go ahead and pay your doctor directly. No system proposed would prevent you from doing that.
b) I guess you’ve never read Article I, sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
“Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…”
c) “Universal” health care is not an absolute failure wherever it’s been tried. That’s right-wing bullshit. I haven’t looked closely at health care systems in Europe, but “universal” health care works quite well in Japan and Korea. I work with immigrants from both of those countries, and they are absolutely amazed that we tolerate our current system. “I thought Americans were logical people…” complained one lady, who arrived here two years ago from Japan.
R Pope @ 9: I stand corrected.
@3 A Republican-dominated Supreme Court voted against Nixon, too. And we all know what happened next — the tapes hung him.
Drill holes in their skulls and piss on their brain for all I fuckin care.
@11 You seem to forget the Bush administration makes no distinction between foreignerss detained abroad and American citizens arrested on American soil.
Two words: Jose Padilla
Padilla eventually was convicted by a federal jury and sentenced to 17 years in prison. But what if the incompetent Bushies grabbed an innocent person?
Well, they did! Hundreds of ’em, apparently. Because that’s how many former Gitmo detainees they’ve released. If they weren’t innocent, do you think the Bushies would have let them go?
Well, they’re not American citizens, you say. True enough. Two more words:
Brandon Mayfield
Accused of terrorism by the incompetent Bush administration. Totally innocent. Case of mistaken identification arising from a wildly inaccurate fingerprint match by Bush’s stunningly incompetent FBI. What if they had thrown him in a Gitmo dungeon? What if he was still rotting there because the stupid Bushies can’t tell a Spanish terrorist from a Portland lawyer?
cmiklich, you are a very trusting and very naive fool. You trust an incompetent government to arrest only the guilty. How do you know they won’t arrest you? There’s no guarantee they won’t. If they do, a fair trial in an impartial court is your only chance. Yet, you would throw that away with a dismissive wave of your hand.
@16 A most excellent and fitting fate for you and your ilk. Thanks for suggesting it! I wouldn’t have thought of it by myself. I’m gonna run right out and buy a drill and keep it handy for next January.
Constitutional Scholar @ 11
Might I ask the last time you took a course in constitutional law? You do not seem to understand the difference between constitutional provisions, statutes, judicial decisions, and nutjob blogs. The Justice who wrote the decision for the majority is Anthony Kennedy. Your hero, Ronald Reagan, appointed Kennedy to the Court. It appears that you believe you have a better understanding of constitutional law than does Justice Kennedy. That suggests your need for medication is even more profound than I had thought.
re 11: “THE MUDDLE EAST is NOT America. (Just proves liberals flunked geography AND civics.)”
Your side is the one whose stated goal is to build a Western style democracy in the Middle East. But, believing mutually exclusive things simultaneously is a Conservative Tradition — because conservatives are either dupes or manipulators.
You are a dupe.
Somewhere above, cmklich writes:
Just as IT CAN’T BE IN the muddle East. THE MUDDLE EAST is NOT America.
Well then, hold trials in Afghanistan, under Afghani law. That doesn’t seem to be terribly complicated, except that the US would have no direct say in the outcomes of such trials, so that’s no good.
Once an area is under US administration (as Guantanamo is) the Constitution goes into effect.
Non-citizens on US territory also have the right to a trial by jury. There is not one legal system in this country for citizens of the US and another for non-citizens. There are rights granted by the legislature which are reserved for citizens, but none by the Constitution outside of voting and holding office.
Something else to ponder while you are arguing where and how US law goes into effect.
The US keeps military bases all over the world. Every now and then, soldiers get into some scrape or another. Usually small things like fights or DUIs. Sometimes big things that hit the news.
It has been the position of the DoD through thick and thin that because the soldiers reside on base, they are subject to US law and cannot be subject to local law.
If soldiers on a military base in Seoul, Okinawa, or Italy are subject only to US law, and not to local law, even for actions which may have occurred off base, I would like to hear your legal reasoning by which US law magically does not apply in Guantanamo.