You cannot SUE the Supreme Court (there is no venue to TRY them) for any un-Constitutional over-reaching of their powers into the realm of war-making decisions, so impeachment is likely the only way to rein-in their follies on this issue of national security.

Then support the Federalism Amendments.

njcommuter on June 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM

The proper response to rein in overreaching by the Supreme Court is for them to be stopped by the other 2 branches that are equal to it. Congress has the power at any time to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Congress did exactly that in this case, and the Supreme Court still ruled that prisoners of war still had the right to sue for habeas corpus. What needed to happen at that point was for Bush to say, like Andrew Jackson did, “[The Supreme Court] has made [their] decision, now let [them] enforce it.” Because ultimately, if the President doesn’t enforce the Supreme Court decisions, then nothing happens after all.

It’s interesting that Congress and the President historically have clashed over their authority numerous times, but no one wants to take on the Supreme Court.

These are not citizens of the U.S., and were captured in the pursuit of war. The only person empowered to conduct war and foreign policy in the Constitution is the President.

The only way the courts can claim any power over these people, not being citizens, is by claiming jurisdiction of the Americans holding them. And since those are acting directly under the President’s authority, who is co-equal with the Supreme Court, not under it, there’s quite simply no room for any federal courts to be a court of appeal.

Court sides with WH on Bagram detainees, temporarily
The novelty over the last few years has come from the federal
judiciary. The Constitution gives them no role in waging war,
especially abroad; it leaves the declaration of war to Congress and……

You cannot SUE the Supreme Court (there is no venue to TRY them) for any un-Constitutional over-reaching of their powers into the realm of war-making decisions, so impeachment is likely the only way to rein-in their follies on this issue of national security.

Then support the Federalism Amendments.

A winning strategy in a country of 51% uninformed guilt-riddled airheads.

This is simply one more two-faced attempt to play both sides of an issue until it is so confused that he can rely on a mocha smile and his stentorian b.s. to keep his fawning lickspittles disoriented and in line.

You cannot SUE the Supreme Court (there is no venue to TRY them) for any un-Constitutional over-reaching of their powers into the realm of war-making decisions, so impeachment is likely the only way to rein-in their follies on this issue of national security.

They and their lower court idiot colleagues have gotten away with this illegitimate nonsense and they have endangered the nation with such moronic rulings as the Boumediene case, etc. that cede rights to civilian courts and legal procedings ~and not simply the commonly prescribed military tribunals~ to terrorists in wartime or during an invasion.

9/11 was an invasion… and the war it openly declared continues.

No court has the power to declare any war over or any invasion non-existent. Only the Congress can do that.

We live in a time of Judicial Tyranny.

And a supine Congress that clearly doesn’t undertsand their own breadth of stated powers, or the Constitutional limits of the Courts’.

But the Obamas got a puppy.

Decisions like this make me wonder if the same judge would have done the same thing if it wasn’t Obama that was asking. In other words, was it a political decision or was Holder continuing a Bush initiated appeal and stay of decision?

Scott

My question as well. I suspect strongly that the this judge would not. It may be that he would have behaved the same way had it been the other way around, with Clinton setting up Gitmo and Bush requesting the say, in which case he just needed to be told something by two opposite pols. But more likely he simply was not prepared to listen to a Republican argument, but is thinking more soberly now that he sees that the candidate who agreed with him has changed his mind.

It may be good news about the case, but it’s putrid news about our judiciary. We may hope that this judge has learned his lesson, but that seems unlikely.

Can someone explain to me how a non-citizen terrorist in another country has the rights of a citizen? That is one heck of a penumbra.

Vashta.Nerada on June 2, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Well since you no longer have to prove citizenship in this country, to vote….perhaps you attain those same rights, simply by putting terrorist before your name.

the judge who ordered the Department of Justice to grant habeas corpus to suspected terrorists held at Bagram in Afghanistan

Can someone explain to me how a non-citizen terrorist in another country has the rights of a citizen? That is one heck of a penumbra.

The Constitution is remarkably silent on that. Impeachment?

Steve Z on June 2, 2009 at 1:26 PM

no its not…congress can rule on which cases the court can hear and not hear…the court OVERRRULED congress in Boumediene…Bush should have ignored the court…like Jackson did, tell them to stick it…

have a question. How can the other two branches rein in the judiciary if they overstep their constitutional boundaries?

promachus on June 2, 2009 at 1:18 PM

The Constitution is remarkably silent on that. Impeachment?

Scott

Will the trolls stay away from this thread too?

ladyingray on June 2, 2009 at 1:00 PM

ROFL!!!

Troll: Bush was wrong. Obama has it right. He’s the be all, and end all, and the smarmiest…err smartest President we’ve ever had. *bows*

You should release them. Down here RC South. Pegasus will habeas their corpus.

hawkdriver on June 2, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Only if they get a 5 minute head start and we get to see the footage.

What’s that I hear? HuffPo and KOS kids heads exploding?

Kudos to the Obama administration for sticking to the right position on this issue, but it would be nice if they acknowledged that they had it wrong during the campaign.

Good luck with that.

You should release them. Down here RC South. Pegasus will habeas their corpus.

hawkdriver on June 2, 2009 at 1:01 PM

I think hawk has the solution!

Kudos to the Obama administration for sticking to the right position on this issue, but it would be nice if they acknowledged that they had it wrong during the campaign. Hopefully, the appellate court will reach the rational, historical, and Constitutional position.

Yes, they were right to stick to the right position on this…but…they have consistently undermined this position with their own rhetorical demagoguery…which they still bring out, on occasion, when it suits them.

The result is a series of contradictory positions that constantly shift and add up to nothing. All Obama really wants is for the issue to go away…he’s not committed to the right outcome. So, even if they won a small, rear-guard action here…long term, they’ve lost the war.