Breaking: Supreme Court says Gitmo detainees must have access to US courts Update: Scalia: “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
posted at 10:45 am on June 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that the unlawful combatants held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba must have access to American courts to challenge their detention. The ruling eliminates three attempts by the Bush administration and Congress to establish military tribunals that would handle the adjudication of terrorist cases without involving access to the civilian justice system:
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.
The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court’s liberal justices 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.” …
In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.”
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.
This will probably derail the hearings that had just begun at Gitmo for six members of the 9/11 conspiracy. By granting the unlawful combatants habeas corpus, the court has now eliminated the main reason for the military tribunal system — and for that matter, Gitmo itself. If the detainees can access American courts, they may as well be held on American soil.
The previous two rulings that struck down the tribunals forced the government to quickly pass laws that allowed for them. The Supreme Court has basically ruled that the Constitution applies worldwide rather than just to the US and its residents, which makes it pretty difficult to go back to the well a third time. Also, with very little time remaining in the Bush administration, they will not have enough time to push through a third attempt to address the Court’s concerns — and this ruling appears to be much broader than the two that preceded this one.
It seems absurd to apply criminal law to unlawful combatants captured during hostilities abroad. Will they require a Miranda reading, too? Do we have to bring the soldiers and Marines who captured them to the trial? In our 232-year history, when have we ever allowed that kind of access to enemy combatants not captured inside the US itself?
Update: Bear in mind that we do not yet have the full opinion, and it may be less egregious than what we have heard thus far. However, the quote from Kennedy certainly suggests an expansive ruling.
Squid Shark says in the comments that the work-around would be to classify them as POWs and be done with it. That presents a few problems, too. It eliminates the status of unlawful combatant, which then encourages all forces to eschew uniforms, legitimate state backing, etc etc. The unlawful-combatant designation and its circumscribed rights in Geneva intended to penalize those who hide among civilians for their attacks. Are we now to forego that?
Update II: The opinion can be read here. From a cursory reading, the Court says that Congress cannot act to suspend habeas corpus except through the Suspension Clause, which requires an explicit act noting invasion or rebellion. Would infiltration suffice, or does Congress even need that much reason to invoke the Suspension Clause?
Scalia’s dissent is especially scathing:
Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional” test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other Constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes [sic] important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.
Update III: I’ve read through both dissents, and I have to say that I’m struck by the tone of Scalia and Roberts. Not only do they dissent, they practically accuse the majority of deliberately misreading both law and precedent, especially regarding Eisentrager. They point out that the dissent in that case explicitly noted that the decision gave aliens in detention by American forces outside of our own sovereign territory no habeas rights at all, and yet the majority used it to apply those rights in this case. Roberts scornfully argues that the Court “cashiered” the military tribunal system before it had a chance to show that it addressed detainee rights properly.
I’d say that the end of this session couldn’t come quickly enough for these justices.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
I always make sense. You just are not paying attention.
Indy Conservative on June 12, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Exactly.
wise_man, it is intellectually dishonest to fool yourself into thinking that McCain is anything other than a horrible option in terms of national security. He wants our borders to be wide open. He considers effective/humane forms of extracting information from enemies (waterboarding) to be out of bounds and torture. He wants Gitmo closed down. I would be my house that he agrees with this ruling and praises it. Watch.
Zetterson on June 12, 2008 at 11:21 AM
.
Quite right - in fact, many already do vote in our elections, hence the resistance of democrats to allow photo ID checks at voting booths. As far as the detainees go, I predict there will be fewer prisoners collected in the future - why bring them back alive, when they can sue?
Think_b4_speaking on June 12, 2008 at 11:21 AM
If we classify them as POWs, does this mean we can hold them until the GWOT is over?
In the meantime, perhaps we should take anymore prisoners.
kcluva on June 12, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Scalia’s dissent has zero effect.
What this ruling does is force the military to treat ALL prisoners as POWs and not as UECs. This means that they can never be interrogated beyond the ‘tell me what you know, please’. Then they must be released at the end of hostilities. So does this mean we have to return to every conflict must be preceded by a declaration of war by the congress? The War Powers Act is moot?
This is one big bag of stinky worms.
Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 11:22 AM
McCain is on record that he wants to close gitmo and move the prisoners to Leavenworth. A Military base. Not a civilian anything. The supreme court has by one justice decided that enemy combattants, people who were caught on the battlefield while waging war against the US should be treated as American citizens. This site and other conservative sites are infested with conservatives acting like democrats, lying about a politician that they disagree with
Until McCain comes out and says “I think that everyone around the world who are attempting to kill US citizens and US military should be read their miranda rights and be given their lawyer right after we take the IED detonator out of their hands…” then we can open this up to the eventual John McCain is a durn dirty democrat session that we seem to have here on a usual basis.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Exactly, thank you for thinking. I couldn’t agree more
tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 11:22 AM
To all those who think McCain will nominate SCOTUS judges that may or may not vote with the liberal majority, there is at least a chance that he will nominate a moderate or conservative. What the hell do you idiots, that want to sit this one out or vote for a spoiler, think Obama will do? He is more socialist/cosmo thin Ginzberg(sp)! Unless you are spoiled brats, you play the hand you’re dealt.
Old Country Boy on June 12, 2008 at 11:22 AM
McCain ain’t heaven, but Obama is hell. Like Thomas Sowell said, it’s a no-brainer.
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Is this really such a good thing for the detainees? Or will it blow up in their collective face?
Drop all charges and send them to their home country, and do it quickly in the dead of the night. By the time the ACLU finds out they should already be home. I’m fairly certain they will be missing Guantanamo in no time.
Will this make it more likely that prisoners will be detained by Iraqi forces instead of American forces? I’m sure the people captured will just love that! A Quds force captain in a hole in Mosul, just like Guantanamo!
Will this ruling have an effect on the Presidential race? If played coirrectly by McCain it will that convenient 5-4 ruling will make judicial appointments a bigger issue. We can only hope Obama comes out in favor of the decision.
Theworldisnotenough on June 12, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Was Neil C. Roberts given access to our enemies courts?
Mike Honcho on June 12, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Load them all on a 747, you know, the remote piloted kind like the tankers that REALLY crashed into the World Trade Center on 9/11, and start it out for Iraq. Then, crash it into the sea.
Problem solved. We’ve already released anyone who could reasonably establish any innocence, and many of them have subsequently been retaken or killed on the battlefield.
It does rather remove any reason for anyone to be taken alive, doesn’t it?
Doc56 on June 12, 2008 at 11:24 AM
OK, and right on the heels of that, here is this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_iraq
JamesLee on June 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM
The Bush white house should bring all of them to washington and turn them loose in front of the court!!!!
thmcbb on June 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM
The liberal majority on the Supreme Court will be the death of our country.
Maxx on June 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM
The difference between McCain’s and Obama’s nominees is with McCain as the head of the conservative party- there will be no opposition to his liberal appointments or policies from the right. We have had 8 years of this under Bush with conservatives emasculated on the sidelines. No more. It is time to fight.
Valiant on June 12, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Sometimes it seems like it’s more important for the “McCain = Obama” people to have the chance to say I told you so, then to actualy rationaly deal with the present.
It’s like worrying if you left the water running in the second floor bathroom while your house is burning. Who gives a sh#!. Call the fire department first!!!!
McCain 2008
tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Well, re-reading that article, I guess it’s not really the same. Just seemed a little weird, ruling in favor of non-citizen illegal combatants, then immediately ruling against actual citizens.
JamesLee on June 12, 2008 at 11:28 AM
#1, It was NOT a McCain decision, it was a pundits OPINION.
#2, Our OPTION right now is McCain and OBAMA. The primaries are over, and thanks to the idiots who voted for McCain, and the idiot conservative candidates who weren’t able to convince more republican voters to vote for them, the voters gave us McCain.
If you honestly think that Obama is the better option for national security because John McCain is the worst option, then I can’t help you.
If Obama wins, and places one or more justices on the supreme court, what kind of decisions do you think they are going to make in the next years?
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 11:28 AM
You know, that just may work!
TheBigOldDog on June 12, 2008 at 11:28 AM
This is extreme Buuuulllll Sh*t.
saltydogg14 on June 12, 2008 at 11:28 AM
For all those who voted and will vote for John Muhammad McCain, I hope you don’t get drunk and drive today after the party.
You’re lucky I can’t meet you all face to face.
You and John Muhammad McCain would’ve helped me reduce the population of the United States because you really don’t want to know what I would’ve done with you, and the liberals, your buddies.
Indy Conservative on June 12, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Oh get off it funky chicken. This MDS garbage is so tired and baseless. Its really f’ing annoying too. There are many reasons why McCain is a horrible candidate for POTUS. Many reasons. Do you get it? Because he sucks many people hate him. Simple right? Because he has built his career and his name by consistantly stabbing conservatives in the back to get in good with the media it is logical for many conservatives to hate him. Get it? This derrangement syndrome crap has got to go.
Zetterson on June 12, 2008 at 11:29 AM
The worst thing about this decision, short term, is the timing. It’s going to bury the progress the repubicans were making in putting the spotlight on democrat obstruction of domestic oil production.
That was the issue that had the potential to get a lot of conservative republicans elected to congress … and shock a lot of pollsters and MSM anchors on election day.
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Sounds fine but in the real world, the CiC would have to establish ROE allowing that to happen. Then, the U.N. and International Tribunal jump in and claim the U.S. is terrorist and try to put us on trial for war crimes.
No president or top military commander is going to do that. We’re scroooomed.
a capella on June 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Ahemmmmmmmmm…..all the vitrol aside…
The coming statements by the candidates provides a golden opportunity to knock the Dems in the dirt.
It is going to be a long, long, day.
Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Wrong. Our options right now are not McCain and Obama. Our options are McCain, Obama or none of the above. Get used to it.
Zetterson on June 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Another interesting strategy to roll around with for a while….
The Circus Vs the release… The Circus may be better. These people are true believers. They aren’t about to play the victim card or play to the media. They are more likely to spit right in our collective faces every chance they get and the American people need to be reminded of the hatred they have for us.
TheBigOldDog on June 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Wow! What an insane rant THAT was. Feeling better now?
The problem you ignore is that John McCain will not give us conservative constructionalist jurists. Especially with a Democrat-run Senate he will give us nominees who will get through confirmation hearings easily. The best we can hope for is another Souter. What we really need is another Scalia.
Conversely, Obama isn’t going to get another Ginsberg into office without using an awful lot of political capital he doesn’t have. He too will probably nominate one of these middle of the road liberal activist jurists. Why? Because Democrats want to maintain the split on the SCOTUS where everything is decided on a 5-4 margin.
highhopes on June 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Captured on the field of battle, disguised as civilians, summary execution via double tap = $1.14
No courts, no wasted taxpayer $$, no hassles, no lawyers, no chance of them benefitting from a loop hole and being released to kill more innocents, no problems.
Alden Pyle on June 12, 2008 at 11:32 AM
John “Close Gitmo” McCain would fight the Jihad with one hand tied behind his back (by himself).
Obama would surrender with both hands.
(Not much to vote for, but something.)
profitsbeard on June 12, 2008 at 11:32 AM
None of the above = Obama wins.
You’re welcome.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Sorry if someone’s already said this, but the work-around would be to classify them as “enemy war dead.”
boko fittleworth on June 12, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Message to our brave soldiers: Kill the bastards instead of capturing them.
Travis1 on June 12, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I honestly don’t see much difference with open borders and terrorists in our courts. With so little room between them, let the Dems take the fall for liberal stupidity.
Oh yeah, Obama wants us out of Iraq and McCain wants us there for a 100 year occupation with no oil to help maintain Sharia law in the country.
Valiant on June 12, 2008 at 11:36 AM
We are doomed. Doomed.
Dudley Smith on June 12, 2008 at 11:36 AM
L - Oh - F*kng - L, tough guy,
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Won’t work, because there is no real Decleration of War.
Can’t have POWs if we are not in a legal war, which we are not.
Soooo, unless the Dem controled Congress actualy declares war, all enemy combatants will be treated as a Law enforcement way… ie full American Civil Rights.
Which means our soldiers just became law enforcement officers… and oh yes, the Posse Commitarus act stops at the Borders of the US… at least it used to.
Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Very much like trying to deal with illegal immigration without closing the border first, right? Ooops, probably not a good analogy.
a capella on June 12, 2008 at 11:36 AM
THANK YOU, Zet !!! There really is very very little difference between McCain & Obama. Even if McCain wins (and he’ll have to do it without my vote), how many of his two conservative ideas will actually pass a Democrat Senate and Congress? Um, that would be Z-E-R-O!
It’s all about the $20 Billion-a-month war for some people. A war Bush totally “blew” for 5 years, by his own admission.
stenwin77 on June 12, 2008 at 11:37 AM
.
Can we not redefine the jibjab as a uniform? Seriously, what this tells all enemies of the US is to wear civilian clothes, as they are less likely to be shot at, yet they receive the same benefits as soldiers. Brilliant.
Think_b4_speaking on June 12, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Hey McCain won. The conservative messiah Thompson was too lazy to even try. Romney was more liberal then McCain.
It’s a simple choice McCain or Obama. If you want to say America is finished please unplug your computer, head to your basement with your bottled water and canned food and wait till it’s over.
The adults can then proceed with figuring out how we can actually fix something without the distractions of the 100% pure believers screaming and crying and pretending they actually care.
Hitchens 2008 write in (Hey maybe he can claim POW status and the Supreme Court will make him eligible)
tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Doesn’t all of this lying about McCain wear you out?
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 11:37 AM
The camps are the same they were yesterday, and the day before.
1. Yes-Mac
2. No-Mac
I’m going to treat myself to a 10:38am beer.
Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Wrong again. Crappy candidate = other candidate wins
Zetterson on June 12, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Heeeeyyy, I like that :-).
OK, nobody’s answered me yet. Why/how can these other countries refuse to accept their own citizens from us?
I know we’ve tried several times to send some of these bastards home and been rebuffed by their own countries. Really, WTF? Why should we house them and feed them for life on a tropical paradise?
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Maybe the good that will come out of this is that a constitutional admendment which restricts Rights to US Citisens alone. The People can overcome the will of a few elitist judges
William Amos on June 12, 2008 at 11:39 AM
This is insane. As Ed says, “the Supreme Court has basically ruled that the Constitution applies worldwide rather than just to the US and its residents”. How long before the Court orders us to invade China because those peoples free speech rights are being violated?
And if this applies to terrorists, what is the standard for actual lawful combatants? I get the impression that a Mustang pilot shooting down an Me 109 might need to retain a lawyer in todays bizarro world.
One other point. This ruling is insane, but it’s the ruling favored by John McCain. I don’t see how the McCain supporters can attack this ruling while defending McCain.
I’ve called McCain an FDR Democrat at times, but that’s not entirely fair to FDR, who would have tossed the Court in jail for this sort of behavior. Strong on terror, my ass.
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Stay Classy Indy. So you basically hope that anyone that disagrees with you dies? Now you truly have a serious case of MDS, close to liberal BDS proportions. Hopefully you get well soon.
Complete7 on June 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM
My fellow Conservatives, honestly, do you really want to vote for John Muhammad McCain, the coward, the traitor, the Liberal?
You want change?
Then vote for yourselves. Put your names on the ballot.
All of you.
How do you want change and vote for the same crap?
It is your opportunity to make a statement and say to the politicians of D.C. especially the cowards Republicans, that you’re fed up with them and a new wave, a new people’s party of TRUE Conservatives is being formed.
Enough is enough.
Be honest with yourselves and vote for who you truly believe in, who matches your conservative values.
Who represents your values in this election except yourselves?
You’re not wasting any vote, trust me.
Our strength shall be in our number and message.
Change America and take it back in November.
Indy Conservative on June 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Ohhh… just thought about this…
IF this gives unlawful combatants full Rights, then we can’t just shoot them on the battlefeild either…
Every shooting would have to now have a hearing to decide if it was justified, ie self defense. We would now NOT be able to ever shoot first, even in a Combat zone.
Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM
The activist yahoos on the court are a disgrace — I can’t wait to read their opinion on this…what a laugh, granting full rights to enemy combatants who wear no uniform, swear no allegiance to any country, and do all they can to murder, maim, and destroy innocence…why all the tears for these killers and NOT ONE TEAR shed for the victims of the monster Mugabe, the tyrants in Burma, or the psychopath Kim Jong Il.
This world will be a far more horrible, brutal place if leftists get their way. They are utterly naive — Justice Kennedy and Ginsberg, I hope you’re happy yourselves.
Richard Romano on June 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM
You forget funky that the libeal lawyers have pushed the idea that sending some of these people back to their countries is a no no because they might get “Tortured” in their home country. We have those Chinese Uhrgurs that we cant get rid of because china is a “Torturing” nation.
William Amos on June 12, 2008 at 11:41 AM
michaelo on June 12, 2008 at 11:19 AM
agreed. But my understanding was we captured them for information.
war without quarter. We are going there anyhow. Our enemies already kill their captives. It is time we got barbaric on their asses.
unseen on June 12, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Can’t, with this ruling the Geneva convention goes out the window, because we are not in a Declared War.
Romeo13 on June 12, 2008 at 11:42 AM
It would be nice if the people commenting on political blogs had the faintest clue about political matters. Romney was well to the right of McMoron on most issues, including this one. Don’t take your buyers remorse out on Romney.
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 11:42 AM
“One cannot help but think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority’s ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants”….. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS
Translation: My
misguidedmoronic liberal counterparts are kool-aid drinkers consumed with power and conceit.Rovin on June 12, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I think the Supreme Court majority basically, with this ruling, is seeking to force the administration to close Guantanamo and send the prisoners to another foreign prison.
Seixon on June 12, 2008 at 11:43 AM
John Galt couldn’t have said it better.
Valiant on June 12, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Does this mean the GITMO detainees can bring civil action against the U.S. government? If a woman can get $12m from McD’s for spilling a hot cup of coffee, these terrorists will get trillions for 7 years in GITMO.
txsurveyor on June 12, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Well, Anyone read the whole decision yet?
Have they been given the right to vote in our elections?
Do they each get a pony?
LegendHasIt on June 12, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Because they are now in our justice system with attorney fees footed by the taxpayer. Follow the money. On the bright side, Gitmo’s climate may be preferable to that of Fort Leavenworth.
a capella on June 12, 2008 at 11:45 AM
The real problem with Obama is the war crimes trials that our Predator pilots will face … and our fighter pilots, and our artillery troops, etc.
Move the GITMO folks to Leavenworth. I know KS has said they don’t want them (Sebelius anyone?) but tough shit. It’s her party that has lead the charge on this issue, so I guess it’s her time to not play NIMBY, right?
Anyhow, I’ve said this before…once the ‘human rights activists” and other trash have to drive themselves all the way to KS instead of getting cushy US taxpayer funded flights into Cuba, interest in visiting these folks will likely fall dramatically.
Yeah, they will make a big show of it for a month or two, but Leavenworth just doesn’t offer much in the way of 5 star dining and lodging, and you can’t enjoy the Caribbean climate either.
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:45 AM
You’re assuming that the judges would not strike down the amendment process as unconstitutional. They have made it clear that such an idea is not unthinkable.
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Better yet can they sue US Soldiers for capturing them or killing their buddies ?
William Amos on June 12, 2008 at 11:45 AM
we’re screwed…
Kaptain Amerika on June 12, 2008 at 11:46 AM
You are talking about SCOTUS right? If so, I agree 100% :)
rgranger on June 12, 2008 at 11:46 AM
tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Pandora’s box, for sure.
txsurveyor on June 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Does the Supeme Court have the authority to overturn a constitution admendment ? Or do they argue they an simply interpret it a certain way ?
IF what your saying is true the 9 justices can overturn any admendment including voting rights ?
William Amos on June 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Yep. And McCain says Roberts is his archetypal SCOTUS guy. Somehow I doubt Obama shares his opinion…considering that Obama voted against the Roberts appointment and all.
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM
More realistically, they would better have simply been killed where they were found. The notion that POW’s now have domestic US legal rights is not only stupefying, but impracticable. Do they have to be Mirandized upon capture, too?
Blacklake on June 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Romney was more liberal then McCain on what issue that matters? Name one.
Romney was against illegal immigration/Amnesty McCain was for it.
Romney was for interrogation techniques that work McCain was agaist them.
Romney was against Campaign Finance Reform McCain had his name on the bill.
Romney saw the federal gvt as the problem where as McCain saw the private oil companies as the problem.
Romney was against affirmative action where as McCain was for it.
Romney was for drilling in ANWAR where as McCain was against it.
Romney was against ruining the US economy in an attempt to alter the temperature of the planet Earth where as McCain was for it.
Romney wanted to maintain Gitmo where as McCain wants to shut it down.
Now tell me. Which issue is McCain actually more conservative? Name one.
Zetterson on June 12, 2008 at 11:48 AM
OH, and you want McCain to have to nominate conservative justices? Get out and work your asses off to support conservative Senate candidates like Pearce in NM and Schaffer in CO.
And you better make sure you support Cornyn in TX as thanks for his efforts, because squishy headed pollsters and MSM types think he’s in trouble this year.
Quit dogging McCain, use him to defeat Obama, and tie his hands by electing conservative Senators.
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Absolutely correct. Thanks to the justices who helped this bolder roll down the hill. I bet they are just so proud of themselves. And if anything does come about that threatens America from this action - you know that all of the journalists and other liberals/democrats wont place the blame to the justices that did this. It will all be places at the feet of George W Bush.
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM
hehe, gotta love the Kos Kiddies, America is evil and hurting all the poor brown people:
JamesLee on June 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Let’s add this hot topic into the presidential election.
McCain should come out and ask if these are the kind of judges that Obamaa is going to select to the Supreme Court.
Oh yes, and my Senator from New York, Senator Schumer…When you start asking quesitons of the next judicial nominee before the Judicial Committee, are you going to ask the same STUPID question about following precendent, you know, like the past 200+ years!!!!!
Morons!!!!!
HarryStar on June 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Yep. But lok at the bright side. When our soldiers and Marines are put on trial for killing the enemy, the prosecutors may plea bargain it down to manslaughter so they would do less prison time for doing their jobs. This should also do wonders for military recruitment.
a capella on June 12, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” …
Well… I hope they remember this when there is a disaster of some sort, Katrina, and the Fed tries to take aways peoples rights in the interest of “safety”.
I hope they remember that.
jharada on June 12, 2008 at 11:52 AM
No, that is not our option. We are not living in the old Soviet Union. We are free to vote for anyone we wish. It would be nice if the supposedly liberty loving Americans had one tenth of the courage and independent spirit of the Iraqis and the Ukrainians.
Republican voters make a horde of lemmings look like radical free thinkers.
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 11:53 AM
heh, I went to U of KS, grew up in the area. I guarandamntee you the climate is better at GTMO
funky chicken on June 12, 2008 at 11:53 AM
How about some compensation for the detainee from Gitmo that blew himself up and killed a soldier….What say you know..Compensation.HA
HarryStar on June 12, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Thank you.
Indy Conservative on June 12, 2008 at 11:54 AM
IF we dont stop obama this will turn from a trickle to a flood of insantity from our courts. THe leftt believes that many things need to be decriminalized. That doesnt reduce crime it only legalizes it.
William Amos on June 12, 2008 at 11:55 AM
And they are meant to apply to Americans, not the whole damm world and all its people. The “We the people” who created the Constitution were not the human race.
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I disagree.
This nation will not be a nation as we know it anymore after we sold our nation to foreigners and terrorists.
We lost America.
Indy Conservative on June 12, 2008 at 11:56 AM
you need to close your font tags good buddy.
triple on June 12, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Just let them all go. Maybe one of them will fly a plane into the Supreme Court or the Capitol. Either one would be progress on the home front.
sdd on June 12, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Romney to the left of McCain:
1. For gay marriage:
2. Anti Reagan :
3. Made healthcare statewide as governor (ie national healthcare at presidential level)
Thats 3, need more?
Don’t get me wrong I would have happily voted for Romney if he had won the nomination. But he changed big time whem running for president. But its time people get a grip.
tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Maybe this was asked before…if it was I didn’t see it.
By what authority does SCOTUS dictate war-fighting to the Executive?
JohnTant on June 12, 2008 at 11:58 AM
According to the BBC the American lawyer for Bin Laden’s driver is already preparing a motion to dismiss all charges….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7451139.stm
Limerick on June 12, 2008 at 11:58 AM
This sort of thing sums up the problems we face. A commenter on this web site is clearly unaware that McCain supports this decision. Perhaps Obama will come out and ask McCain if these are the sorts of judges that McCain is going to appoint to the court.
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Yep.
MadisonConservative on June 12, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Can you show me where he has supported this position(granting enemy combatants American rights)?
Show me and I will eat my crow, no problem
tottoritodd on June 12, 2008 at 12:03 PM
You guys sound less like “conservatives” and more like liberals posing as conservatives. Why is that?
wise_man on June 12, 2008 at 12:03 PM
What a joke. You cite things Romney said a dozen years ago and has changed on, while letting McCain off the hook for moving in the opposite direction. Look at the direction each man has moved in over time. Look at the platform each man was running on. There’s no contest, McCain is way to Romney’s left.
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Yes that was a rant! A rant against the idea that we can actually have “none of the above” as POTUS. I have never seen such abject ignorance of the Constitution and the electorial process. Hey all you MDS people. We don’t have a “none of the above” option. It is either McCain or Obama. Stop bitching about it. If your views weren’t accepted during the primaries, compromise and go to the aid of your party.
As a piece of information, the only country with a “none of the above” option was the Soviet Union. If the “none of the aboves” got the majority, then the communists put up another slate.
Now, I’m having other thoughts. Are any of you MDS folks that are disrupting this thread really working for the Obama campaign? Why are you trying so incessantly hard to get other people to doubt their vote or not exercise it, when doing so will only elect Obama.
Spend your time getting local candidates that agree with you into local and state offices. Then move to the national legislature. When you have generated a power base, then go after the executive. That is how we do it in The US of A.
Old Country Boy on June 12, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I dont think America is lost I just think people have been deceived by the democratic party on a grand scale. We will have some serious buyers remorse in a few years.
Im more ashamed of the GOP letting things slide this badly. We are in this state because the GOP leadership is clueless to know how to run political campaigns anymore.
William Amos on June 12, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Funny, I’ve always thought that about you. If you disagree with liberalism at all, you’ve managed to hide that fact pretty well in all your commenting here. The fact that you are supporting a liberal does not help your case.
flenser on June 12, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Terrorists rights to Kill civilians trumps Military holding them in the Brig
Our courts as always are out of control. Next they will require soldiers to give terrorists their rights prior to shooting back at them. The courts now think they can determine how our soldiers will fight. Will they start calling our brave soldiers criminals because they are shooting at terrorists without reading them their rights. Does each patrol have to take a dozen lawyers with them on a combat sweep so the terrorists can have their rights observed. I like the idea of putting the lawyers and judges on point while sweeping for enemy terrorists. Would they talk differently.
These people making these decisions have no clue what our troops are facing. Next they will rule that all american soldiers are guilty of war crimes because they will determine what is a crime or not
danfinrud on June 12, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »