US Supreme Court Stops Guantanamo Military Tribunals

[Pangloss]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.tribunals/

 

Wait... I thought this was supposed to be an ultra-conservative court, packed with Bushie's friends?! What the heck is going on here?!

[ecoli]

Heh, history repeats itself. Nixon appointed Warren Burger, hoping he would make conservative desicions, but he wound up making more liberal rulings, Roe v. Wade, for example.

[bascule]

Wait... I thought this was supposed to be an ultra-conservative court, packed with Bushie's friends?! What the heck is going on here?!

 

Blatant violations of human and civil rights?

 

And this:

 

"It seems clear that the commissions at issue here meet the standard" established by the government to try the accused terrorists, Alito wrote.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the case because he ruled on the case, in favor of the government, at the appellate level.

[silkworm]

I can't wait for more "activist judges" allegations.

[Pangloss]

But will the left remember this if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, or will Alito et al suddenly become the tool of Jerry Falwell again?

[silkworm]

But will the left remember this if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, or will Alito et al suddenly become the tool of Jerry Falwell again?

 

What is there to remember?

 

Judicial decisions should not be a favor to anyone. If that's what you're looking for, perhaps you should reassess your own understanding of the purpose of the judiciary in the 3-branch system.

 

Some things exist outside the sandbox Pangloss.

[ecoli]

Judicial decisions should not be a favor to anyone.

 

Key word *should. What actually happens and what is ideal are rarely the same. Least of all in government.

[Pangloss]

What is there to remember?

 

Judicial decisions should not be a favor to anyone. If that's what you're looking for' date=' perhaps you should reassess your own understanding of the purpose of the judiciary in the 3-branch system.

 

Some things exist outside the sandbox Pangloss.[/quote']

 

If you think there's nothing to remember here, you should have tuned in right-wing radio today, which was aghast, or left-wing radio, which was elated.

 

Obviously I understand this well -- I post about it incessently. It's the extremists (on both sides) that fail to get it. That's why I'm hoping they're remember this case the next time the Supremes make a decision they dislike.

[Skye]

These growing feathers that we pull from Caesar's wing

Will make him fly at an ordinary height,

When otherwise he would soar too high to be seen

and keep us all under him and afraid.

[bascule]

But will the left remember this if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

 

Yes, I'm confused as to what you mean. Bush appointed two of his cronies. One ruled in his favor in the lower courts, and the other ruled in his favor in the SCOTUS decision. So, at least in this instance they acted just like "the left" would expect...

[padren]

It just shows how wacko-right things have gotten - that we even have the issue of tribunals to make a ruling on in the first place at all.

 

If they overturn roe vs wade, and put us back behind.....I think its every other first world nation in yet another department....of course the left and a huge amount of the middle will cry bloody murder.

 

If someone is against the death penalty, and sees the supreme court rule against executing a child prisoner, it doesn't make the other executions more palable or less outrageous, so all it does is give one less outrageous act to fight over.

 

I think you are confusing the issue: you seem to think this vote should give them credibility they can leverage, whereas it just prevents what little credibility they have from erroding further today, and a bad roe vs wade vote would really errode it yet more.

 

 

If they want credibility with the left, they could rule in favor of something moderate, instead of against something so far to the right you can't believe its on the table at all.

[Jim]

It just shows how wacko-right things have gotten - that we even have the issue of tribunals to make a ruling on in the first place at all.

 

Have you read the dissenting opinions? What in them do you find to be "wacko-right?"

 

If they want credibility with the left, they could rule in favor of something moderate, instead of against something so far to the right you can't believe its on the table at all.

 

I would be interested in your critique of the dissents. Better yet, how about showing me exactly where Judge Randolf, with then circuit judge John Roberts, were "wacko" in the DC Circuit court opinion. I haven't had time to digest the opinion but you should be very leary of any opinion formed on the basis of news reported within minutes and hours of the issuance of the opinion.

 

If you feel very strongly about the case, you might review the transcript of the oral arguments.

[Jim]

If you think there's nothing to remember here' date=' you should have tuned in right-wing radio today, which was [b']aghast[/b], or left-wing radio, which was elated.

 

Obviously I understand this well -- I post about it incessently. It's the extremists (on both sides) that fail to get it. That's why I'm hoping they're remember this case the next time the Supremes make a decision they dislike.

 

I completely agree Pangloss. Anyone spending 30 minutes scanning this opinion, the DC opinion, the transcript of the oral arguments and any of the briefs filed in the case would come away knowing that this was a legal issue on which reasonable minds can differ. Yes, the orientation/judicial philosophy of the Justices played a role in the outcome but this was a complex issue on which I would not even begin to opine. Literally hundreds of lawyers spend countless hours at a cost cetainly in the millions.

 

At the end of the day it was a 5-3 decision which would have been 5-4 had Roberts not recused himself. I do not get how anyone could pretend this wasn't a highly complex case which could have fallen in either direction.

[mr d]

hello

 

remember though that the court ruled based on the president over extended his powers by first not getting the approval of congress to set up the tribunals. not that tribunals are as such illegal. no doubt bush is already starting plans to get that approval, however with elections coming up in november, and many americans now in favor of closing gitmo, he may not have as easy a sale of it as before.

 

mr d

[Pangloss]

That narrow view is not supported by Congress or the politics of the situation in Washington. You're forgetting that the general word from Congress is "we support what you're doing, we just don't like the WAY you're doing it".

 

What will likely happen is that the dozen or so detainees who are presently scheduled for military tribunals will instead receive court cases under special conditions determined by an agreement between the executive and legislative branches. If the administration perceives that that went well (i.e. a reasonable number of convictions were obtained, and no key secrets were revealed that they didn't want revealed), then the other 200 or so detains will receive similar treatment.

 

There's popular opinion, and then there's governmental action. Never make the mistake of assuming that one leads directly to the other in all cases.

[KLB]

I personally didn't view this as a right vs. left decision. I viewed this as a rule of law issue and a balance of powers issue.

 

What I took from this decision is that the Sepreme Court basically said that the President didn't have the authority to create the military tribunals, this was a responsiblity of Congress. The Supreme Court did leave open the option for Congress to write a law that does what Bush wants.

 

Sure the extreme right and left want to paint this as a right or left issue, but this is only to stir up their base. They try to paint everything as a left vs. right issue. Those who buy of on this line of BS are missing the fact that this is a matter of balance of powers between the President and Congress (both of which are in Republican control).