Say Anything Blog

Good find, Rob!

Save America; boycott the MSM.

This is addressed in the ruling.  Please go read it.

Their opinion.  Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade—which was based upon lies.  Just a few of the SC’ts opinions.

Communism is evil

President Bush has no need to even acknowledge that this ruling - unconstitutional by definition - was ever made.

But will he do it.  He doesn’t tend to go against the courts even when they usurp his authority.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

This crap happens because we the people have allowed SCOTUS to engage in legal mumbo jumbo, appealing to archaic legal principles, relying upon European Law, making their decisions so complex, so ghastly large with judicial pontifications and partisan rhetoric; that we have come to believe they are doing their job thereby. The one thing the Supreme Court has made clear in the most recent decision wherein they usurped Executive Branch authority is that they will not rely on our Constitution at all, only their perverse readings of that document.

I don’t blame them, or even Congress, after all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No, they are just doing what human beings do, grabbing for money and power and the devil can take the hindmost. I blame the people in their laziness, in their fat ease, in taking the Constitution for granted and not insisting that it alone be the Law of this land. I blame them, even conservatives pigs, like many commenting here at SA that, in order to bolster their own massive egos, they actually think that the legal machinations of SCOTUS are anything more than a cover for their wanting to control ever human being through their bastardized legal decision making. I blame stupid fucking conservatives for arguing fines points of law, even here at SA, so they can have a place at the table, instead of decrying every decision by SCOTUS not made entirely based upon the actual words in the original Constitution.

In my opinion, if the Constitution was the sole document used by SCOTUS, over 90% of our national laws would have to be terminated immediately and this country would return to the kind of nation our founders gave us. It won’t happen because even bullshit conservatives cannot, they will not resist playing the game along with SOCTUS and thereby taking our country into the fucking sewers of history. Conservatives are worse than liberals, they know better and don’t give a damn.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

President Bush has no need to even acknowledge that this ruling - unconstitutional by definition - was ever made.

But will he do it.  He doesn’t tend to go against the courts even when they usurp his authority.

Right on both counts! Bush does not have to nor should he obey SCOTUS in this matter; but like the fucking coward he is, he will obey just to feel nice and fucking liberal.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

So Neiman you want a fearfull SCOTUS that will bend with the wind.
Not good.

Furthermore if a Democrat is elected president and he refuses to obey the constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS you would be enraged just the same.

Ellinas: Why do you jump to that conclusion? Why will SCOTUS be feared if they just do their job, just decide if a law or government policy conforms to the exact, original words of the Constitution; if it does not return it to congress to amend or withdraw, if it does it is acceptable under Law. Short, easy job as it was intended, worth less than $80k a year for each Justice!

The tyranny you should fear is a SCOTUS that can so confuse every issue, bring in a vast number of laws and philosphical points that the Executive and Legislative branches are subservient to them, as they are now, to the Judicial Branch. That is a kleptocracy, a government by a ruling elite, wherein three separate but equal branches of government cease to exist and the Judiciary via SCOTUS is the Supreme Branch of government. That is what you should fear!

Why do you and others, even conservatives here fear the Constitution as written? Why do you fear that it alone is needed to decide whether any law or policy conforms to itself? Why do you want a complex judiciary that no one understands, that can exercize absolute power over the people? Californians said no homosexual marriage by referendum, government of and by the people; the state Supreme Court said no, this is government by and for the Judiciary; and that is what you prefer?

SCOTUS said that the Executive Branch no longer has power over prisoners of war during a time of war, rather they are under the control of the Judiciary and the Executive Branch must butt out! Oh, and Americans must pay for the care, feeding and all legal costs for every bastard that tried to kill Americans and destroy this country. That is just fucking stupid! That is national suicide!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Furthermore if a Democrat is elected president and he refuses to obey the constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS you would be enraged just the same.

It would depend on the issue! I would not impeach him for it, I would fight against him and fight to get people in office to turn the country back in a Constitutional direction! But, the Constitutional corrective, one you truly must fear, is called the electorate.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

This is addressed in the ruling.  Please go read it.

I wouldn’t say it’s addressed so much as baldly asserted in wholly conclusory fashion.  It’s the weakest part of the opinion.

Why will SCOTUS be feared if they just do their job, just decide if a law or government policy conforms to the exact, original words of the Constitution;

But we know they don’t and won.t do that.  They sit there in their all known robes and make law instead of just interpreting it.  All the wrongs in this country eventually fall on the judicial system because they could put a stop to those wrongs if they had the guts to make the right constitutionally supporting decisions.  Think of it - no more welfare, no more FDA, DEA, and a hunderd more alphabet soup agencies would no longer exist IF the government had to adhere to the strict interpretation of the constitution.  The courts have that power, indeed that responsibility and they are shirking it.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

DocDave: I have no thought the Supremes will ever change, not unless the people get sick and tired of their crap. I am arguing for a principle, being that the Supremes have long exceeded their constitutional authority and they have deliberately clouded every decision with legalistic nonsense, doing so that they might have power, absolute power of this nation.

I am trying to get people to stop playing their (SCOTUS) game and debating this legal gibberish and whether this law or that applies; but rather to insist the Constitution be the only ground for such debates.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I am trying to get people to stop playing their (SCOTUS) game and debating this legal gibberish and whether this law or that applies; but rather to insist the Constitution be the only ground for such debates

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

DocDave: Fair enough, so we just surrender to this crap and do nothing? Are we to passively submit to judicial tyranny? When and where do we resist? Shall evil prosper while good men do nothing? I would rather die a thousands deaths than submit to lies and to allow the Truth to die without a defender.

Maybe it is just senile tilting at windmills, but at least I have some sense of personal honor in resisting evil!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I think Rob’s reading is pretty astute; what’s weird, though, is that question is barely, if at all, discussed, in the decision & dissents.

jpe, I’m sure that the majority justified their decision with some legal mombo-jumbo which I don’t care to waste my time on.  I read Roe v Wade in its intirety and that was enough to make me ill.

In this case, the judges are so obviously wrong that all their reasoning will not affect my contempt for the majority.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

DocDave: Fair enough, so we just surrender to this crap and do nothing?

How good are you in starting a revolution because that is probably what it will take to take back our country.  Jefferson even acknowledge that a time would come when the people would have to shake off the shackles of an oppressive govenment.

About 8 years ago I wrote a new version of the Declaration of Independance with similar language substituting the Federal government for the king.  I was somewhat amazed to discover that most of the abuses listed in the original document are present today.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

For those NOT too pig-headed to actually read the opinions, Justice Scalia makes the very point in his dissent that the Court was grabbing for itself authority that was properly left with the nation’s two electorally accountable political branches… Congress and the President - who also happens to be the Commander-in-Chief.

During today’s Town Hall meeting in NJ, John McCain addressed this patently fallacious decision, and heaped much praise on Chief Justice Roberts and his dissent, which is also well worth reading… at least for those who aren’t too lazy or too doddered to do so.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

at least for those who aren’t too lazy or too doddered to do so.

This from a man with contempt for facts, the truth and knowing no difference between right and wrong!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

jpe, I’m sure that the majority justified their decision with some legal mombo-jumbo

Yet the dissent didn’t jump all over it. 

Justice Scalia makes the very point in his dissent that the Court was grabbing for itself authority that was properly left with the nation’s two electorally accountable political branches

That’s a different question than whether the Congress can strip the courts of jurisdiction.  Scalia talks about how the political branches are better suited for these political questions, but never, as far as I can tell, strongly asserts that jurisdiction was yanked and the court can’t even hear the question.

When I thought about it, I thought Rob was dead-on correct.  But now I’m completely mystified as to whether the dissents didn’t hammer at this.

How good are you in starting a revolution because that is probably what it will take to take back our country.  Jefferson even acknowledge that a time would come when the people would have to shake off the shackles of an oppressive govenment.

I would love to rebel against this Court and try and take our country back, but we would have to fight all the enemies of liberty like certain conservatives here, who love all the legal language and enjoy the Constitutiuon being perverted to serve their own megalomanical ends. We need to get people mad, damn mad and start a true peoples revolution, a street revolution to take this country back to the Constitution, and to wrest control out of the hands of the forces of liberalism.

Unforunately, both you and I know that is not the way the end of this world is written. We know that the forces of darkness and a Leftist One-World government is our short term destiny.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

jpe: I enjoy a different view fdrom you, we need many more so that the truth might emerge!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Unforunately, both you and I know that is not the way the end of this world is written. We know that the forces of darkness and a Leftist One-World government is our short term destiny.

Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t.  Ultimately God is in control which is something that I try never to forget.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

I’ve just ventured around legal blogs, and was surprised as all get out to find radio silence on the question.  Until, that is, I found a post by Stephen Bainbridge.

Excerpt:

One legal issue that I have not seen adequately dealt with is why the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the relevant statutes do not have the effect of foreclosing these sort of law suits....Why wasn’t the revised statute struck down today construed to create such an exception?

I’m hoping the comments will be illustrative.  Not to say you’re not a legal scholar, Rob, but when there’s nada on the question at Overlawyered, Volokh, Instapundit, and Patterico, I tend to wonder.......

And thanks, Neiman.  This thread constitutes my annual quota of non-annoying commentary, I s’pose.  Enjoy it while it lasts!

jpe: While I have beat it to death, my big concern is a massive document behind the decision and the idea that most of it involves complex legal arguements, mostly (90+%) extra-Constitutional; which drowns out the real facts of the case; that is, does the Court according to the Constitution have the right to seize legal authority over prisoners of war, during a time of war, from the Executive Branch? Is this such an usurpation of power or not? Surely, they should have been able to find clear language in the Constitution itself that would have supported their decison, and if it required extra-Constitutional support, can it indeed be Constitutional?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

While I have beat it to death, my big concern is a massive document behind the decision and the idea that most of it involves complex legal arguements [sic], mostly (90+%) extra-Constitutional; which drowns out the real facts of the case…

Sanctimony aside, yours, how would you know what that “massive document” says and doesn’t say, if you can’t be bothered to read it?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I don’t have to read the Devils Bible (on your reading list I am sure) to know how long it is and that there is nothing but filth inside.

Besides asshole, the idea isn’t that it should not be read at all, if one is interested in the minutiae of the legal nonsense (arguements). But, to read and accept any legal arguments that are outside the Constitution itself, the archaic rulings, the laws of other nations and times is to get caught up in what should not be used at all as the basis for interpreting the Constitution. If the arguments were over original historical documents relative to writing the Constitution or the Constitution itself, then there is much to be gained. To read that this foreign court said this or that or this legal scholar said this or that is to bury the clear words of the Constitution in special langauge and take it away from the people.

The Constitution was written by and for the people and no where therein are we told that anything is necessary to interpret the Constitution but the Constitution.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Actually, Neiman, this decision was fairly unusual in that there was a great originalist duel between Kennedy for the majority and Scalia in dissent.  Both spent substantial chunks of their decisions on the English common law that (presumably) informed the drafters of the Constitution.  And, for both of them, their originalist analyses pretty much decide their respective decisions. 

I went back over some of the briefs for some of the Gitmo cases, and the problem of the Exceptions Clause (as the clause that enables Congress to strip jurisdiction from the Court is called) is only briefly mentioned.  The argument against allowing Congress to strip jurisdiction can be summarized thusly: “C’mon!  The Constitution can’t really mean what it says! Not when it says that!”

Again I note how surprised I am that neither Scalia nor Roberts (or, especially Thomas, come to think of it) ripped into that. 

Not much of an argument.

If the arguments were over original historical documents relative to writing the Constitution or the Constitution itself, then there is much to be gained. To read that this foreign court said this or that or this legal scholar said this or that is to bury the clear words of the Constitution in special langauge [sic] and take it away from the people.

What utterly contemptible nonsense.  The in the first place, again for the dense and intellectually infirm, you don’t know for a fact what is actually said unless you read it.  Duh!

Secondly, only people who actually know what is said are equipped to understand what has, and what has not, been “taken away.”

Don’t bother sending in that MENSA application any time soon, old man.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

docdave - But will he do it.  He doesn’t tend to go against the courts even when they usurp his authority.

The courts are usurping our authority.

They just pissed all over our explicit demands as spelled out in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Our Constitution doesn’t extend to the enemy during time of war nor does it extend to any other country in the world. It extends to us.

The Supreme Court got it backwards. They denied the Constitution to American citizens and granted the Constitution to enemies picked up on the battlefield.

If Barack Obama gets in, expect more judges who rule exactly like this.

Neiman, this decision was fairly unusual in that there was a great originalist duel between Kennedy for the majority and Scalia in dissent.  Both spent substantial chunks of their decisions on the English common law that (presumably) informed the drafters of the Constitution

Okay, I’ll accept that and I am appreciative you are still examining the matter! But, are we to be governed or supposed to be governed by what English Common Law may say about the matter, or only what the Constitution itself actually says? If the former is true at all, then the Constitution to some degree is inferior to what English Common Law says it should mean. Granted our founders were well versed in European laws and those of other civilized societies and drew upon that knowledge when drafting the Constitution. Yet, IMO either the words they chose all have exact and clear meanings or not one word of the Constitutiuon can be said to mean exactly what it says, rendering it meaningless for us to trust.

I am no legal scholar, but I don’t believe our framers wrote our national laws and by-laws for legal sholars, but for the people to be able to read, understand and trust for their liberty. Yet, the courts have made the Constitution only understandable to the ruling, legal elite by deliberately wrapping those clear words inside legal mazes.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

jpe,

Please take the time to explain the relationship of English Common Law to both the Constitution, and the writ of habeas corpus.  Neiman doesn’t read very much, nor apparently very well, so the significance of English Common Law is unfamiliar to him.

Just be sure to use small words and short sentences.  He is intemperate for his age and loses focus easily.

I’m bored.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I’m totally staying out of that.

Likwidshoe:

The courts are usurping our authority.

They just pissed all over our explicit demands as spelled out in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

This really, seriously concerns me! I don’t see how, no matter the words used or the arguements made, how this does not erode separation of powers.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I’m totally staying out of that.

WISDOM there jpe!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Nieman, if you want to go by what the founders intended than the Constitution was meant to be a framework around which to establish the rules of the government.  It was not meant to replace the English Common law system of the courts.  They weren’t looking to throw out hundreds of years of jurisprudence and just start over with a whole new criminal law and civil law system.

...if you want to go by what the founders intended than the Constitution was meant to be a framework around which to establish the rules of the government.

Wrong.  The Constitution was not a “framework”; it was an explicit set of instructions that limited the power and scope of govt, leaving the people free to make their own choices, most of the time.  It’s “the govt of, by, and for the people,” not “the people of, by and for the govt.” You should know that.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

The Tenth Amendment makes this very clear:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

It’s ironic to try to refer to the Constitution. The Constitution is not in force. If it was, Congress would not be regulating energy, transportation, banking, health, or education, and we would not have a Federal Reserve or Iraq war. There would be very little, if any, inflation. There would be no Social Security or medicare. The federal government would not have billions to give to other countries. Whether or not we would have an IRS is yet to be settled. If the Constitution was in force, this issue would not have come up.

The really frightening thing is that the Senators and Congressmen, least of all McCain, do not understand the Constitution or its intent. They ignore and violate it on a daily basis.

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” -Thomas Payne

Rob, the net affect of your post if it were true would be to make the Supreme Court subservient to Congress. This hasn’t been true since Marbury v Madison, which had the net effect of ruling that, in a conflict between Congress and the Constitution, the Supreme Court as the final appellate court of the land has the power to negate laws passed by Congress if the Supreme Court believes those laws are in conflict with the Constitution.

Ever since this ruling the Judicial Branch have served as a third branch of Government.

Rob,

The Supreme Court had no authority to issue a ruling on the status of habeas rights for Gitmo detainees per the Constitution itself.

Congress cannot strip original jurisdiction issues.

Art. III, § 2 (matters of original jurisdiction):

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States[;—between a State and Citizens of another State];—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States[, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects].

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

The ruling was constitutional (sorry if you didn’t like it). By why stress it? The CIA will just find a new place to hold detainees… probably somewhere not so nice as Gitmo…

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

HP: I guess the real question then is: Are terrorist organizations considered to be “foreign States”, and are members of those terrorist organizations considered to be “citizens”?  IMO, when an individual joins a terrorist organization that is dedicated to a cause that is inimical to the concept of any particular nation, they then fall outside any sort of jurisdiction whatsoever, and are like rabid animals who can be shot on sight by anyone not so infected.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Hairy,

As I read Kennedy’s majority opinion, the Court majority barely acknowledged the question of jurisdiction, but rather blew past the precedent,

Eisentrager

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Lestat:

Nieman, if you want to go by what the founders intended than the Constitution was meant to be a framework around which to establish the rules of the government.  It was not meant to replace the English Common law system of the courts.  They weren’t looking to throw out hundreds of years of jurisprudence and just start over with a whole new criminal law and civil law system.

Okay, let’s say you are right, then English Common Law is superior to the Constitution as governing this nation? If there is a conflict between the Constitution and English Common Law, we are to now be governed by English Common Law, not the Constitution. English Common Law isn’t enshrined in the Constitution, and as far as I believe the Declaration of Independence was our National Charter, the moral-spiritual framework of our new country and the Constitution was our national Laws and by-laws, by which alone this nation would operate and be governed. Thus whatever was learned from English Common Law was codified within that document, it then becoming the sole law of the land and aside from God, the only sure guarantor of our liberty. We could, every citizen, read and know our rights and no matter what the Legislature or Courts might later decide for partisan or philosophical reasons, we could insist that every law and government policy strictly adhere to the Constitution, our appeal was to that document.

Therein lies, IMO, the problem with any appeal to other laws or human philosophy (extra-Constitutional factors), if they have any weight at all then we cannot trust the Constitution, as men will say this or that law (English Common Law) or human philosophy opposes what the Constitution seems to guarantee. Further, appeals to these extra-Constitutional factors become long, complex, confusing even to so-called Constitutional experts, let alone the average citizen and that confusion is used to undermine what the framers in the Constitution intended.

I most sincerely appreciate your attempts to educate me, and I feel yours is a reasonable, rational and intellectually sound approach to the matter; but for the reasons I’ve mentioned and many more, I feel the very things you mention undermine the Constitution and take it out of the hands of the people, allowing lawyers and the Judiciary to rule over the people, a judicial tyranny, a kleptocracy that has brought us to this moment in time wherein SCOTUS feels they are a superior branch of government and they have emasculated the Excecutive Branch.

It seems if you are right that, when we say we are a nation of Law, we mean English Common Law, as it is superior in nature to the Constitution, able to define or redefine what the framers said in the Constitution.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

We ought to just try the detainees that we have good evidence on. From where I stand, it looks like we have embarked on a policy of holding terror suspects for decades before they are brought before a tribunal. And where is the evidence? We know that many of those being held have no terrorist affiliation. Where are, and how will we interrogate, the alleged witnesses the government claim to have? In the meantime, we are spending millions of taxpayer dollars everyday to house and care for the detainees. It has been 4 yrs and not one of the 9/11 suspects has been convicted. Like I have said before: Either try the suspects swiftly or let them go. At a time of difficult financial times, this would be a good move on the part of the government in the best interest of all Americans.

...it looks like we have embarked on a policy of holding terror suspects for decades before they are brought before a tribunal.

Actually, we only need to hold them until the war on terrorism is over.  It’s up to the terrorists how long that will take.  Terrorism isn’t a street or civil crime, so they are not entitled to any sort of trial.
They chose the terrorist way, and this is what lies down that road.  Their choice.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

They chose the terrorist way, and this is what lies down that road.

Yea, but that pressuposes that they did what the government said they did. That’s the reason we have trials and habeus corpus (innocent until proven guilty and all that).

Either way. The point is, the above cited section of the constitution gives the 3rd branch original jurisdiction (unstripable) over certain causes, including this one.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera