I think ya got it… good solution…

McCain needs to get to the Senate and submit a bill that says the Supreme Court does NOT have jurisdiction over Gitmo… Done deal then, and perfectly Constitutional as its a Constitutional power of the Congress to LIMIT the jurisdiction of the Supremes…

Don’t need a Constitutional amendment.

Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 3:20 PM

That’s fine for this case, however, over the long haul, the SCOTUS is WAY overdue for term, and/or age limits. Plus, a Constitutional Amendment for the senate to overturn them. Because presently, the SCOTUS are not accountable to anybody, including even heaven or earth.

Mr. Obama issued a statement calling the decision “a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo” that he said was “yet another failed policy supported by John McCain.”

Would that it were so. But the fact is that McCain was a more significant and effective critic of the WH’s Gitmo policy than was Obama.

The phrases “Drop your weapon”, “Stop or I’ll shoot”, “Don’t move or your a dead man” will go out of style.

Those who succeed in surrendering will be turned over to reps from their home countries who will extract any useful information they may have (probably not by water-boarding) They will then be shipped home where security forces will have more questions that will need to be answered. Many will never be seen again.

Most in Gitmo will be released to the security forces of their home countries. It’s not likely they will be thanking the supreme court. It is likely that will be wishing they were still in Gitmo.

There will be liberal outrage and cries of “Rendition!” The official response will be, “The supreme court gave us no option.”

5 to 10 Gitmo prisoners will be selected and used for show trials to feed and occupy the liberal media machine and the hate America crowds here and across the world.

In 2011, the republican controlled congress will act to right this wrong and limit the powers of the court with regards to our armed forces abroad. It will be signed as soon at it hits the republican president’s desk.

Mr. McCain said here Thursday morning that he had not had time to read the decision but that “it obviously concerns me,” adding, “These are unlawful combatants; they’re not American citizens.”

Mr. McCain said he thought “we should pay attention” to the dissent by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., which argued that the steps established by the administration and Congress in creating review tribunals run by the military were more than sufficiently generous as a way for detainees to challenge their status.

Obama’s reaction, meanwhile, will please left-wing law professors and Bush-hating Democratic primary voters:

Mr. Obama issued a statement calling the decision “a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo” that he said was “yet another failed policy supported by John McCain.”

“This is an important step,” he said of the ruling, “toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law….”

Of course, as Paul noted last night, what the Court’s majority overturned was not a decree by the Bush administration, it was a statute that was passed by large majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2006. The Military Commissions Act passed the Senate on a 65-34 vote, with Democratic Senators Carper, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, Nelson (Neb.), Nelson (Fla.), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar and Stabenow voting with the Republicans. Likewise, in the House 34 Democrats joined with 219 Republicans to pass the statute. In Obama’s view, were all of these Democrats part of an attempt to “create a legal black hole at Guantanamo?” Evidently so.

This incident should remind us why Obama is regarded as the most liberal member of the Senate, a back-bencher who, unlike many of his colleagues, virtually never reaches across the aisle to cooperate with Republicans on any issue, large or small. (powerline)

theregoestheneighborhood on June 14, 2008 at 7:28 PM

Actualy, not they didn’t. They did NOT prohibit the Supreme Court in that decision, just the District Courts… which was the problem….

The need to say:

Persuant to U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2, clause 2
and the Congress’s ability to limit the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, we hereby declare that Enemy Combatants, and Unlawful Enemy Combatants, as so designtated by Military Tribunal, will be considered an Exception to the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Add in some legalese about time of Emergency… and its a done deal.

Problem is that they NEVER MADE THAT ARGUEMENT to the Court… so the court did not have to rule whether it was a valid arguement or not. Courts IGNORE anything not brought before them, thats normal law…

Romeo13 on June 14, 2008 at 7:57 PM

Do you really think that would make a difference. I’ll grant they didn’t specifically removed the jurisdiction from the Supreme Court, but they did give the exclusive jurisdiction to the D.C. court.

I suspect if the MCA had specifically revoked the Supreme Court from jurisdiction, they would have interpreted that as an unconstitutional attempt to limit their power. It would also have been a provocation to the Supreme Court, effectively daring them to do something about it.

Would be interesting to see, though…

Congress already has the constitutional power required to deal effectively with this treasonous act by the Supreme Court LIBERAL-5.

U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2, clause 2

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

With a simple majority vote, Congress could enact a law the would restore the long standing process that existed before the Boumediene decision. Within that same act, Congress could remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to review said act. . .

Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Unfortunately, the Democrats control the Congress, and they like this decision.

The Court has left the military with only one way of dealing with these terrorists and barbarians: take no prisoners—shoot them.

theregoestheneighborhood on June 14, 2008 at 7:28 PM

Actualy, not they didn’t. They did NOT prohibit the Supreme Court in that decision, just the District Courts… which was the problem….

The need to say:

Persuant to U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2, clause 2
and the Congress’s ability to limit the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, we hereby declare that Enemy Combatants, and Unlawful Enemy Combatants, as so designtated by Military Tribunal, will be considered an Exception to the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Add in some legalese about time of Emergency… and its a done deal.

Problem is that they NEVER MADE THAT ARGUEMENT to the Court… so the court did not have to rule whether it was a valid arguement or not. Courts IGNORE anything not brought before them, thats normal law…

Congress already has the constitutional power required to deal effectively with this treasonous act by the Supreme Court LIBERAL-5.

U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2, clause 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

With a simple majority vote, Congress could enact a law the would restore the long standing process that existed before the Boumediene decision. Within that same act, Congress could remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to review said act.

I think it’s time for Congress to give the treasonous LIBERAL-5 of the Supreme Court a harsh rebuke. They have got it wrong on this issue three times in a row, it’s time for Congress to say they have struck-out on this issue and remove the court’s jurisdiction to review the matter.

Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM

All very true, but the fact is Congress already did exactly that with the Military Commissions Act. The Supreme Court just declared it unconstitutional, saying it was an “inadequate substitute” for habeas corpus rights.

If Congress passed such a law again, I would expect the Supreme Court to “overturn” it again.

Even so, I hope they do. I’d love to see Congress take the exact Military Commissions Act that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional and pass it again. MAKE the Supreme Court rule against it again. Make it plain that the Supreme Court mouths rhetoric about the need for restricting the power of the President and Congress, but accepts no limit on their own power.

There is only one way to reign in the Supreme Court, and that is when all the people in the country are tired of judicial activism, and make it plain to Congress and the President that they’ll support the effort to reduce the Supreme Court to be no greater than the other two branches of government.

What the ruling indicates, above all else, is how the Supreme Court has become in-your-face pawns of the ACLU and Trial Lawyers Association. Imagine the loot which can be realized by their self-perpetuating lawyering cronies should every non-citizen POW or terrorist get a citizen’s trial. Remember the old adage that a town which can hardly support one lawyer can easily support two.

1. We admitted we were powerless over the MSM bias. That our realities had become distorted.

2. Came to believe that only a conservative and his values could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to do our own thinking and research.

4. Admitted to a conservative, to ourselves and to another liberal the exact nature of our wrong thinking and votes.

5. We entirely ready to have God remove all our liberal defects of character.

6. Humbly asked God and every conservative to forgive my support for every liberal Supreme Court Justice on the bench.

7. Made a list of all persons we harmed by supporting every socialist/communist program that came down the pike, and became willing to work hard to repair the damage I caused.

8. Made direct amends to those we had harmed wherever possible, except to those who had already died as a result of my policies based on lax morals and lazy intellectual thinking.

9. Having experienced this reality check, we tried to carry to message to all other liberal lemmings.

U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2, clause 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

right2bright on June 13, 2008 at 4:03 PM
With such exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Pass a law making this an exception… its an inherent power of Congress, and part of the Balance of Powers… the Supremes are already fostering a Constitutional crises, Congress needs to fire back.

Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 4:07 PM

For heavens sake, the original Military Commission legislation already did that. The Court ignored the restriction and ruled anyway. The only thing that would get the Court to pay attention would be a public rebuke by the President or Congress and a flat statement that they will not obey an unconstitutional decision.

Gotta give McCain credit for being right on this one…

Now, if he can just do somthing about it… maybe start a bill in the Senate? Sense of the Senate condemning this?

Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 1:58 PM

He could say that as president he would ignore this unconstitutional judicial reach. His popularity would go up 10 points in the party overnight and he would be doing the right thing.

A few hours after the SCOTUS ruling concerning Gitmo…

“…[I]t is a decision that the Supreme Court has made,” McCain said. “Now we need to move forward. As you know I always favored closing Guantanamo Bay and I still think we ought to do that.”

That response apparently didn’t poll very well over night with “his wingnuts” so…

“…John McCain weighed in on the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the rights of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to challenge their detention in U.S. courts at a town hall meeting Friday, calling the 5-4 decision “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

Oh John, wherefore art thou John…?

McCain needs to get to the Senate and submit a bill that says the Supreme Court does NOT have jurisdiction over Gitmo…

Congress already passed such a law. The Supreme Court ignored it.

Rights are rooted in ownership of the property in question, and this very concept is God-ordained, thus we say that our rights are “God-given.”

They are NOT granted by government. They are NOT merely a privilege of citizenship.

Of course, rights are a privilege of citizenship. That’s why Chinese citizens cannot petition the US government for their right to free speech. Americans have their rights because they are Americans, not because they are human. A casual look at humanity shows the truth of this.

I thought he made a good point, that our founding principles were based on human rights, not “American Rights”.

If he said that, then he was wrong.

It’s my understanding that under the Patriot Act, that an American citizen can be labled a “terrorist”, and i only assume that leaves them subject to be placed in a place like Gitmo.

You assume incorrectly.

Since here in America, those same inalienable rights are our law, those subject to our jurisdiction under our custudy, are therefore subject to our laws, and everything that entails.

You just claimed that the German and Japanese POW’s in WWII were entitled to the exact same rights as US citizens. You realize that’s what you said, right?

You just claimed that any Al Queda members we capture are entitled to the exact same rights as US citizens. You realize that’s what you said, right?

your criticisms are your criticisms, what do I care?

RMC1618 on June 14, 2008 at 1:53 PM

I would respond, but since they are your comments, what do I care? Sheesh!

JiangxiDad on June 14, 2008 at 12:41 PM

I dont’ think you responded to my criticisms of Ritsema’s points.

your criticisms are your criticisms, what do I care?

Do you know who the US Constitution was written for?

the peoples of these United States.

The government it created governs whom?

The Peoples of these United States and the persons and places under it’s jurisdiction.

We were not creating a system to govern mankind! If others want our system, let them copy it.

I don’t believe anyone said that was the case. the Constitution only protects the rights we have as Human beings, from the hand of Man taking them away, the Constitution itself does not “give” us any right at all, it protects them, and puts restrictions on the Government, telling it what it may not do, (Congress shall make no law).

Since here in America, those same inalienable rights are our law, those subject to our jurisdiction under our custudy, are therefore subject to our laws, and everything that entails.

As for Americans captured as terrorist, does John Walker Lindh come to mind? How was his situation treated?

From my understanding, john Walker Lindh commited treason as defined under Section 3, Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
“Treason against the united States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to the enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
I understand that he was tried, Convicted, and now sits in prision.

RMC1618 on June 14, 2008 at 12:25 PM

I dont’ think you responded to my criticisms of Ritsema’s points.

Do you know who the US Constitution was written for? The government it created governs whom? We were not creating a system to govern mankind! If others want our system, let them copy it.

As for Americans captured as terrorist, does John Walker Lindh come to mind? How was his situation treated?

Finally, since you, RMC, made no comment re. the quote, I assume you are Mr. Ritsema, or agree with him.

JiangxiDad on June 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM

I thought he made a good point, that our founding principles were based on human rights, not “American Rights”.

And if we hold those thruths to be self-evident in theory but not in practice, what’s the point of having them at all?

It’s my understanding that under the Patriot Act, that an American citizen can be labled a “terrorist”, and i only assume that leaves them subject to be placed in a place like Gitmo.

Finally, I am not Mr. Ritsema, I found his article on a different blog site.

JiangxiDad on June 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Actualy quite a bit worse. What this guy believes leads us to the point where the American Judicial system would HAVE to cover EVERYONE in the world, not just US citizens.

Its already settled law that those inside the US get US Civil Rights… if you take the view that ALL must be given those Rights, as they are from God, then it leads us rapidly to the silly position of imposing American standards on the entire world.

Which I know is a NeoCon type of goal, but not one with fits with reality very well.