Comments (26)

bobh wrote on June 29, 2007 12:04 PM:

Late in the game eh pres bush?

This is the only thing they can back off on and theyre doing it- I wonder if any calls were made from the bushco to the chief justice? Hmmmmm....

Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 29, 2007 12:24 PM:

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 changes pre-existing law to explicitly forbid the invocation of the Geneva Conventions when executing the writ of habeas corpus or in other civil actions [Act sec. 5(a)]. This provision applies to all cases pending at the time the Act is enacted, as well as to all such future cases.

In Congress, the bill passed the Senate, 65-34, on September 28, 2006. It passed in the House, 250-170-12. The bill received the support of many Democrats in both Houses of Congress.

----------------------------------------------

The passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a trampling of the sacred writ of Habeas Corpus, was the lowest point in the 200 year history of the U.S. Congress.

konopelli wrote on June 29, 2007 12:28 PM:

i doubt now that the Opus Dei court will grant cert to any case in which there is NOT a precedent they want to overturn...

RW wrote on June 29, 2007 12:38 PM:

Interestingly a petition by one defendent can get begin the process. I think we will find how fascist the Federalist Society is on this court in this ruling.

Dee Loralei wrote on June 29, 2007 12:49 PM:

After the rulings they've handed down recently, I wouldn't be too certain that they'll actually do the constitutional thing, heck the right thing even. (sigh)

Security code: Seem. As in, things are not always as they seem.

TJ wrote on June 29, 2007 12:51 PM:

My bet is that it closes before the court hears the case.
This whole Guantanamo project has war crimes undertones that some governments of foreign countries may try to exploit in the future.
Those directly involved with the opening, operation, and now oversight of the mess must be looking to see how they might be exposed to the kind of legal inquiry we saw Spain conduct into the human rights violations by former President Pinochet in Peru.
Nothing like the prospect of sitting in the dock at a Nuremburg - like court proceeding to focus the mind on how well defenses such as "I was just following orders", or "That was not my job" might protect you from this spotlight in your retirement years.
Prediction: the rats will be abandoning ship by the droves before the sun sets on this Regime.

Anonymous wrote on June 29, 2007 1:01 PM:

With this current Supreme Court and this White House these are probably the darkest days I've lived through. Are folks aware of the latest Supreme Court screw job against the average American? It's now legal for manufacturers to set fixed prices- overturning almost 100 years of antitrust law. Remember when Roberts and Alito spoke about how important precedent was to them? According to the LA Times, "The decision, coming on the last day of the court's term, was the 15th this year that benefits business and corporations by shielding them from lawsuits and legal claims." Folks we are in some seriously deep shit with this Supreme Court. The danger faced by ordinary Americans cannot be overstated.

Hoppy wrote on June 29, 2007 1:09 PM:

There is another way of viewing the break up of the GOP version of fascism. That is the fact that we are very likely to have a Democratic President in 2009, and neither the Supreme Court nor the GOP want the powers, that Bush has assumed, to be available to a Democratic President. So, I expect to see much of the unitary executive construct of the GOP to be dismantled over the next year.

David wrote on June 29, 2007 1:36 PM:

I'm not as sanguine about the Supreme Court's decision to take these cases as many opther appear to be. There are 5 members of that Court who see themselves as part of the Bush administration and their role as protecting and enhancing its power. My guess is that they've accepted review so they can give their seal of approval to the President's pwer to suspend Habeas at will. Remember, THE ORIGINATOR OF THE "UNITARY EXECUTIVE" CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY WAS SAMUEL ALITO.

David wrote on June 29, 2007 1:39 PM:

I'm not as sanguine about the Supreme Court's decision to take these cases as many opther appear to be. There are 5 members of that Court who see themselves as part of the Bush administration and their role as protecting and enhancing its power. My guess is that they've accepted review so they can give their seal of approval to the President's pwer to suspend Habeas at will. Remember, THE ORIGINATOR OF THE "UNITARY EXECUTIVE" CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY WAS SAMUEL ALITO.

jolly ranchero wrote on June 29, 2007 1:52 PM:

I have darker view of this outcome. Something tells me they have an idea this will run 5-4, just like nearly every decision so far, in Bush's favor.

Quackers wrote on June 29, 2007 1:57 PM:

David, you may be correct about Alito, but I doubt if Kennedy will 'swing' with the conservatives on this one.

Quackers wrote on June 29, 2007 1:58 PM:

David, you may be correct about Alito, but I doubt if Kennedy will 'swing' with the conservatives on this one.

angus wrote on June 29, 2007 3:43 PM:

Why does the Supreme Court hate America??

They don't that's why I see this coming down 5-4 in favor of upholding the scared precedent of Shrub being able to suspend HC whenever the fancy strickes him. Since the 2 newest wingnut justices are mere toddlers, how old is Scalia anyway?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on June 29, 2007 4:56 PM:

I wish to add my voice to the echoes above:

Although habeas corpus has been the law of our land for vast majority of the last 230 years or so, the Fascist Five can not be counted to consider precedence or the rights of non-artifical humans.

Did they want to hear the case to quash the right? Assitionally, consider the timing - The court won't hear the case until September at the earliest then they may take up to year to decide the case and publish the decission. The election could be only days away . . . This smells.

David wrote on June 29, 2007 4:59 PM:

Quackers, I hope you are right about Kennedy. But remember, not only Kennedy but even Sandra Day O'Conner came down in favor of stopping the Florida vote count and appointing Bush instead. If you've read the decision in that case you know that there was no legal or even rational basis for the decision; the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overrule the Florida Supreme Court as to any Florida law that is not unconstitutional. The law allowing election contests and recounts in Florida was neither. The only hope I see is that Kennedy will not wish to be associated in history with what amounts to a judicial coup d'etat of the Constitution. But the experience of the past year doesn't support optimism.

Anonymous wrote on June 29, 2007 5:05 PM:

The real issue I feel Gates and the professionals are considering is if the political costs of abdicating a 'selling point' of political high-ground of democracy and the rule of law in our secular society was worth the tradeoff in combating religouse zealots who advocate similar authoritarian measures? It is really a shame that the president of Iran can detain Americans, not specifically name a charge, and it seems that we are both following the same policy. That I feel is not protecting Americans at home and abroad. That tradeoff of draconian political acts by our Neoconservatives was not worth the alienation of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the Hague courts for war criminals, and other NGO's whom advocate secular law internationally.

What I really object to is the religous right segment who think that they are helping 'liddle biddy babbie jezus' to show up at the gates of Jeruseleum for a wrestling match fest with the islamo anti-christs as a means to put Israel in charge of the world.... I mean these religous fanatics are equally as dangerous as any other zealot.

Yeah.. Liddle biddy babbie jezus needed your help and assistance with the napalm and sodomy interogations at Gitmo... as much as Allah needs some head lopping islamo facist to help Mohammad.

I'm so tired of these idiots making things difficult for those of us whom do believe in the rule of law, the requirement that we observe international law, and whom hold ideas and beliefs discredited through out history.

I think gates is reality based enough to know that these policies of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Cambone/Gonzales/Yoo/Haddington are an abomination and undermining of US national security and international law.

It is plain ass stupid what these people did and it has resulted in a miserable failure, and the advocation that this behaviour cease is what the US requests daily of the people of Iraq, and yet.. for some strange animal farm reason, really internal public consumption phsyops at home.. these policies remain in effect.

When the Iraqi's demand this BS cease, and Americans demand that this behavior cease, then we can have a framework for a secular government in Iraq and at home..

Yeah the religous right is frightening.. liddle biddy babee jezus appreciated the helping hand... Torture and sodomy for jezus...

antitrust_geek wrote on June 29, 2007 6:14 PM:

Posted at anove 1:09, no name:
"Are folks aware of the latest Supreme Court screw job against the average American? It's now legal for manufacturers to set fixed prices- overturning almost 100 years of antitrust law."

This not what the court said. Here's the story:

1. The court held that it is no longer PER SE illegal (i..e. illegal as such) if a *single* manufacturer requires retailers to set a particular price. Plaintiffs are now required to show facts to support the conclusion that such behavior is anticompetitive.

2. Price fixing across manufacturers is still per se illegal.

lespool wrote on June 29, 2007 6:31 PM:

... Well then, somebody had better detain Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Addington, Rumsfield --- the whole lot them, as the terrorists they truly are. Classify them as "unlawful enemy combatants" or "enemy combatants" --- who cares, just get them to Gitmo before the high court rules in favor of our constitutional rights to habeas corpus. Time's a wasting!

The Oracle wrote on June 29, 2007 8:26 PM:

The Supreme Court will hear this case just to assert that they are still "relevant."

Of course, they'll still rubber-stamp the crimes of the Bush administration, or at least the five, Catholic justices who are racist and sexist, will rubber-stamp the "high crimes and misdemeanors" of the most corrupt administration in American history. But, at least in their own minds they'll have asserted their "relevancy" as part of Bush and Cheney's banana republic.

Oh, by the way, without Sandra Day O'Connor's help, George W. Bush would not have been president...ever...and our country would have seen peace and prosperity over the past six and a half years instead of the obscenities of the Bush administration.

O'Connor said she wanted a Republican president to choose her successor when she retired. O'Connor was the swing vote on the Supreme Court who sided with the four radical right-wing fanatic justices to butt into Florida's electoral process in 2000, bypassing the U.S. Constitution in the process.

Thus, when people mention the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore in 2000, I realize that it was actually Sandra Day O'Connor who put Bush, Cheney and their obscenity into the White House, because without her, the Supreme Court wouldn't have unconstitutionally intervened in Florida, thus throwing the election to Bush and Cheney.

Sandra Day O'Connor, therefore, is the only person responsible for seating Bush and Cheney. Our of the millions of votes cast in 2000, her vote was the only vote that counted in 2000. Thus, the obscenity of the Bush/Cheney administration sits squarely on her shoulders, and her name will live on in infamy in American history, because she betrayed us all, but especially the children of our nation.

Anonymous wrote on June 29, 2007 8:35 PM:

I wouldn't put too much faith in this supreme court. They have proven already that they are neocons. The only hope is that Kennedy would decide on the side of the law and precedence, but there is no guarantee of that.

We're in a hell of mess and it won't be cleared up soon. Bush and Cheney are falling down, but they still have a lot of power and a lot of influence, so don't go counting on anything.

moondancer wrote on June 29, 2007 8:51 PM:

Well said, Oracle. There is similar person in the senate: Arlen Specter. He talks fierce and independent; shows outrage at brazen perjury, but in the end, lines up and votes eith the GOP caucus on anything that counts. Remember that exception in Patriot Act for suspending senate approval came out of his office. He is now really riding the fence, playing along with Leahy, when he is the key to cheney/rove subterfuge to stack DOJ.

parrot wrote on June 30, 2007 1:19 AM:

Let's just say that if the Supreme Court doesn't feel compelled to reinstate habeas than there may be corpus in closets. Tyranny is hides from the light of review. And if the Supreme Court wants to hide from the People the right of review and lock the People away without review, then the Supreme Court itself needs to have an equal application of the laws applied to it...as per Constitutional Amendment?

Anonymous wrote on June 30, 2007 5:46 PM:

Ridiculous its taken this long -- since 2001 -- to address this issue.

Six long years for civilians from Pakistan to have had their time wasted.

America does a great job annoying the innocent.

Makes the illusory problem real, then worse.

RepubAnon wrote on July 1, 2007 2:37 PM:

As many commenters have noted above, I'll be pleasantly surprised if the Supremes rule against Bush on the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction issue.

However, a bit of Supreme Court history: the Supreme Court was not always a good place to go when seeking protection from injustice. Please recall that Federal wage and hour laws and child labor laws were routinely struck down as an unconstitutional restriction on the "freedom to contract" back before FDR came up with his "court-packing" scheme.

Don't let the Warren Court fool you - this is the Christian Ayatollah/Big Business court. I expect we'll lose a bunch of laws before they're done - from environmental laws to civil rights legislation and meaningful freedom of speech. Environmental laws will be called a "taking" on the Oregon model. Civil rights laws will remain on the books, but will be rendered unenforceable under the "color-blind" and "quota-free" tests (In your 100,000 person mega-firm, all the secretaries are young, pretty women between 21-31, all the managers are white guys, and all the janitors are people of color? The Roberts Court would call this an odd coincidence - but would certainly not allow such facts to be entered into evidence to help establish that racist/sexist stereotypes are used in hiring). Free speech? Under the new case-by-case test, they'll see whether it is KK-Kristians advocating mandatory Southern-Baptist-approved school prayer (protected), or people protesting against the state mandating religious instruction (not protected due to some unlikely action resulting)

Anonymous wrote on July 1, 2007 5:40 PM:

It is absurd that Congress, in passing an illegal statute -- the MCA -- would have to submit _changes_ that illegal/unconstitutioanl statute to the President for his approval.

This impermissibly gives the President the discretion to "veto" a needed correction to the alw to bring it in harmony with the Constitution.

Ho President should be given this kind of deference, especially when the original bill illegally denied a fundamental right of all people. How dare the President get a "right" or a "vote" to strike down a needed change to the law to ensure harmony with the Constitution.

A New Constitution would remedy this defect with the current "power" of the President to continue blocking what is a _requirement_ in the Constitution. Creating a bill to "fix" something that is illegal -- and pretending the President can say "No" to that needed correct, and leaving the illegal error in place -- gives this President the illegal power to block what must be done: Ensure the statutes are lawful.