June 11, 2012

THEY ARE NOT WE:

The Supreme Court's Passive-Aggressive Gutting of Habeas Corpus (SCOTT LEMIEUX, JUNE 11, 2012, American Prospect)

Since it requires four votes to hear an appeal, however, we know that at least one of the Court's Democratic appointees voted not to hear the appeals. This could mean a number of things. The worst-case scenario is that one or both of President Obama's nominees do not take habeas corpus rights as seriously than the moderate Republican nominees (John Paul Stevens and David Souter, both part of the Boumediene majority) they replaced. It's also possible that one or all of the more liberal members of the Court didn't trust Anthony Kennedy to critically evaluate the standards established by the D.C. Circuit, and made the strategic calculation that not hearing the case was better than establishing a bad precedent. Either way, as of now Boumediene has essentially be reduced to an empty shell, holding out a promise of constitutional protections the federal judiciary has no intention of actually fulfilling.

What's alarming is anyone taking seriously the notion that foreign enemies have habeas corpus rights under the Constitution of We the People.

Posted by at June 11, 2012 4:15 PM
  

blog comments powered by Disqus
« POUNDING THE WOODEN STAKE IN: | Main | THE EXISTENTIAL CRISIS: »