June 12, 2008
FORGET LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH, THESE GUYS ARE REFRAMING:
Supreme Court again says Guantanamo prisoners should have rights (David G. Savage, 6/12/08, Los Angeles Times)
The Supreme Court, for the third time, rejected President Bush's policy for holding and trying foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and ruled today these men have a right to seek their freedom in a hearing before a federal judge.In a 5-4 decision, the high court struck down as unconstitutional an administration-backed law that barred the detainees from going to court. The right to habeas corpus is fundamental to American law and cannot be suspended except in times of national emergency, the majority said.
"The framers [of the Constitution] viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court. [...]
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented and predicted the "ambitious opinion" will have "modest practical results."
"I believe the system the political branches constructed adequately protects any constitutional rights aliens captured abroad and detained as enemy combatants may enjoy," he wrote. "I therefore would dismiss these cases on that ground." Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined him in dissent.
It is such a fundamental misreading of the text to classify enemy combatants as part of "We the People" that the President has a Constitutional obligation to ignore such a ruling. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 12, 2008 1:26 PM
Has anyone since Andrew Jackson done that?
Posted by: b at June 12, 2008 2:21 PMI think anyone who is held by anyone anywhere in the world should be able to file habeas briefs in the U.S.
Posted by: Benny at June 12, 2008 3:25 PMHaven't read the opinions yet, just excerpts.
I can't say that I disagree with Kennedy. Six years is just too damned long. This matter should have been brought to a conclusion--a Law of War conclusion--years ago. We all keep going back to Quirin,the Nazi U-boat commando case, for LoW principles. Those war criminals swung in a matter of weeks.
Posted by: Lou Gots at June 12, 2008 5:24 PM
I've long maintained that all three branches of the Government are equal and separate. The Judiciary can impose upon itself the unwritten power to declare the acts of another branch unconstitutional, in their lights, then any branch can say what another branch did is unconstitutional. It is absurd to say the human beings in the Congressional Branch can inadvertently run afoul of the Constitution, but the humans in the judiciary can't. So its, rock paper scissors. Let's say the President, in deference to his Oath and as Commander in Chief, joins the Congress in saying what 5 of the 9 on the Court did was Unconstitutional, and alot of people would side with him. To avoid a crisis, He could then send it back down to Congress for a vote. If Congress votes with the President, two against one, The S. CT. loses. If Congress votes with the Court then the President defers. Seems a nice way out and maybe the Court would find out they aren't all powerful, and equally as capable of screwing up as the other branches.
Posted by: George Clarke at June 12, 2008 5:40 PM