Hamden, dissenting opinions - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 07-04-2006, 11:12 PM

A couple of articles on the Supremes overstepping their bounds (5 of em anyway). They ignored a law passed by congress restricting them from acting on Haebus corpus petitions by enemy combatants held outside the US.

link:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...jkxYmI4ZmY4NmU

Quote:

The Supreme Courtâ€™s decision to impose by judicial fiat a treaty that no politically accountable official would dare propose â€” a one-sided compact wherein the United States gives elevated due process to al Qaedaâ€™s terrorists while they continue slaughtering civilians and torturing their captives to death â€” is an abomination.

An Outrage 06/30

Window on the Week â€“ 6/23/06 06/30

Junk Ethics 06/28

Not for Burning 06/27

Stop the Leaks 06/26

Window on the Week â€“ 6/23/06 06/23

Franck: Construction Deconstructed

Blyth: Memories of the 4th

Robbins: Fourth at the Front

Zalenski: July 2, 2006

Malpass: Inflation Remains the Key Variable

Arkes: Through the Looking Glass

Editors: An Outrage

Ledeen: Itâ€™s the Terrorism, Stupid

Editors: Window on the Week â€“ 6/23/06

Boyles: Billâ€™s Secrets

Murdock: Southern Corruption

Norquist: We Raise Taxes, They Cut Spending?

The extent of the abomination is difficult to quantify. Thursdayâ€™s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld gets worse the more one studies it.

To begin with, the Court had no business deciding this case at all. Not only did it target the presidentâ€™s commander-in-chief authority to determine what is militarily necessary in wartime, it also imperiously slapped down the U.S. Congress. In last Decemberâ€™s Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), Congress â€” acting on its constitutional prerogative â€” rescinded the unprecedented jurisdiction that the Supreme Court, in the 2004 Rasul case, had tried claimed over alien enemy combatants captured in wartime and held outside the U.S. (that is, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts). This Court, however, acknowledges no limits on its powers â€” whether imposed by Congress or by the English language, which it had to torture in order to construe the DTAâ€™s unambiguous limitation of its jurisdiction as an invitation to meddle.

And meddle it did. It rewrote legislation that clearly authorized the military commissions for captured terrorists that President Bush ordered in late 2001. It rewrote the Geneva Conventions. And it claimed for itself the mantle of final authority over both international relations and military necessity â€” matters in which it is wholly lacking institutional competence and which the Framers committed singularly to the chief executive.

How could this conceivably be insufficient due process for alien combatants with no legitimate claim on Bill of Rights? The Court fretted that the procedures might not permit captives like Salim Ahmed Hamdan â€” the driver and bodyguard of Osama bin Laden â€” to be present at every stage of their trials. This is perhaps the most deplorable of the excesses endorsed in Justice John Paul Stevensâ€™s majority opinion (joined by Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer). First, the concern is sheer speculation. There hasnâ€™t been a commission trial yet, and there is no way to know whether Hamdan would have been excluded from any part of a trial, much less whether the degree of exclusion would have been unjustifiable. Second, the rules allow for the combatantâ€™s military lawyer to be present even when he is not. But third, and most fundamentally, safeguarding national security is the highest obligation of government. The commissions wouldnâ€™t have guaranteed Hamdanâ€™s right to be present at every stage of the trial in order to preserve the governmentâ€™s ability to conceal from the enemy, during wartime, our national-security secrets, as well as our methods of obtaining them. Protecting Americans from attack depends on that ability. But five justices of the Supreme Court, completely unaccountable to the Americans whom the government is obliged to protect, have subordinated that obligation to the hypothetical interests of enemy operatives who have no judicially enforceable rights under American law.

and for your reading pleasure:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=23204

Quote:

One troubling aspect is the Courtâ€™s confusion over the issue of separation of powers. Keeping the citizens of this country safe is the first duty of the President of the United States. And, as commander-in-chief, the president is vested with Constitutional responsibility for the handling of the war against the global terrorist threat, which necessarily involves his making decisions of life and death regarding enemy combatants. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ignored the Presidentâ€™s inherent Constitutional authority as commander-in-chief as well as prior Supreme Court precedent and held that only Congress can authorize the appropriate military tribunals for trying the detainees during wartime, which it did not do in this case. At the same time that the Court ruled that the Presidentâ€™s power in this regard was subject to express Congressional authorization, the Court ignored Congressâ€™ intent to circumscribe the Courtâ€™s own jurisdiction in these cases, which is Congressâ€™ prerogative under the Constitution. Moreover, the Court refused to consider the handling of enemy combatants as a â€œpolitical questionâ€™ to be worked out exclusively between the two political branches of our government without any judicial interference.

Imperial judicary anyone?

***DarrylS*** · 07-05-2006, 04:54 AM

This is the same thread theme that goes along with the activist judges rants, heard Bush several times say he was waiting for the decision of the Supreme Court on this and other issues. If he was proactive and dealt with a diverse inner group, he may have come with an alternative solution to the mess in Cuba. A question I pose is how do we get out of the Cuba mess with all the insurgents detained there?? Instead he does not deal with others than those who think like he does, so there is not a lot of creativity in his decision making. A case in point is several weeks ago he was supposedly convening a diverse group of people to discuss the Iraq conflict, I thought that was a good thing. Next thing I read he is in Iraq, so the diverse group of people thing was a smokescreen and lipservice. I guess a photo op was more important.

Criticize the SC as much as you want, but it is how our country works, like it or not the balance of power thing is what makes our country great. The reality of the SC is that it is one of the components that makes our Gov't really great, I do not like its composition, but more often than not their decisions are made on law not emotion or public opinion.

***DarrylS*** · 07-05-2006, 04:57 AM

One more thing I find it interesting, that one of the premier think tanks of the right, Cato Institute filed an amicus brief on behalf of the detainees at Guantanamo. There seems to be a lot of consensus that these folks are entitled to some form of due process, that is what makes our judicial system great. Don't come back and say did our tortured soldiers have due process? We are not like them we are Americans and it is our responsibility to show how it is done correctly.

***Patters*** · 07-05-2006, 07:31 AM

The ruling basically said the president does not have the ability to unilaterally make these decisions. Creating law must be done in conjunction with Congress. It was a far reaching decision in that it restored the balance of power.

Pats726 · 07-05-2006, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJAJ15

One more thing I find it interesting, that one of the premier think tanks of the right, Cato Institute filed an amicus brief on behalf of the detainees at Guantanamo. There seems to be a lot of consensus that these folks are entitled to some form of due process, that is what makes our judicial system great. We are not like them we are Americans and it is our responsibility to show how it is done correctly. The reality of the SC is that it is one of the components that makes our Gov't really great, I do not like its composition, but more often than not their decisions are made on law not emotion or public opinion.

VERY good posts...There are some on the right who also see a problem with the fact that there is no due process at Gitmo..there are two systems of justice in place now (the military system and the civil/criminal court system..) and there are some that wish for a third..a military tribunals. Theproblem with a third is that there is no history and no legal precendents to build on...
Lt Comander Swift noted that in most cases there would be issues..some issues..with a tribunal and NO history, everything would be an issue..In other words a real chaos. Yes, those at Gitmo need dur process, the large question is what process. There was also a comparison to the Barbary pirates but that was a long time ago, but it may be more similar than different to the terrorists now.
You are so correct though.we are NOT them..thank the lucky stars we are not!!! We need to show the world one..that we will not in anyway fold our democracy because of terrorism..(THAT we have bent any is a disgrace..and shows that the terrorists have won in some way) and two that while we deplore terrorism and those that cause it, that we in no way lessen our strong stand on human rights and will treat those taken accordinly. (Unfortunately with Gitmo and other practices, the country which led the human rights movement many years..has tumbled a bit..)
I agree with your statement about the SC and I too do not like the composition of it..but the fact that THIS court ruled this way speaks volumes of its importnace. If it were anything close to a left leaning court, one could argue that..but one can't with this makeup. And yes..the law is more important than emotion or public opinion...absolutely.

Pats726 · 07-05-2006, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

But they forgot one thing. Bush thinks he is king.

I saw him trying on his Burger King crown...didn't work....

***patsfan13*** · 07-05-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

The ruling basically said the president does not have the ability to unilaterally make these decisions. Creating law must be done in conjunction with Congress. It was a far reaching decision in that it restored the balance of power.

One of the points of the article was that congres did pass a law regarding this, and the court chose to ignore the law limiting their jurisdiction in this matter.

The court has taken the position that it is superior to the other branches of goverment, this takes us away from balance of power, and towards an imperial judiciary.

Pats726 · 07-05-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The court has taken the position that it is superior to the other branches of goverment, this takes us away from balance of power, and towards an imperial judiciary.

Imperial judicuiary??? THAT is laughable...

***patsfan13*** · 07-05-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pats726

Imperial judicuiary??? THAT is laughable...

Why do you feel that it is OK for the Courts to ignore the legislature and write their own law?

***Patters*** · 07-05-2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Why do you feel that it is OK for the Courts to ignore the legislature and write their own law?

Are you defending segregation and opposition to interracial marriage? There are many cases where the courts have to do what the popularly elected are unable to do. Also, the court directed the administration to work with the Congress on Gitmo, so I don't think this example particularly supports your point, unless you believe the Congress can pass a law that says, "The President can do whatever he wants and no one can stop him." The Congress has a responsibility under the Constitution. They cannot give up that responsible even if every right-winger wants them to.