Say Anything Blog

This is bad news.

Next you’ll be telling me women will get the right to vote.

[b]Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this could be their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce. 
And they go down fighting.

The Supreme Court liberals OVER-RULED the conservatives.... 5 to 4

OK, ALL YOU HARD-CORE CONSERVATIVES. KEEP TELLING US THAT IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER BARACK OBAMA WINS IN NOVEMBER AND THAT IT MIGHT BE A GOOD THING.

AND WHEN YOU’RE DONE WITH YOUR RANTS, READ RBB’S POST AGAIN.

Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he will appoint judges and justices who sympathize with the ‘little guy’.

Does anyone with a brain not understand what that means???

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Does anyone with a brain not understand what that means???

We will actually follow our own laws again?

Excuse me, you were saying?

Historically, ‘living document’ judges and justices have interpreted the Consitution to mean that they can legislate from the bench. 

Not a good idea.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

The official syllabus, and published opinions can be found here.  They are lengthy, but worth the time spent reading them.  As one might expect, Anthony Kennedy was again the “swing” vote. 

pparets has it exactly right.  Ginsburg and Stevens are hanging on by their manicured fingernails, hoping for a Democrat win in November.  Kennedy isn’t very far behind.

RBB,

You comment is not only wrong-headed, but statutorily wrong as well.

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

Should have just waterboarded them each a few times to clean them out of any useful intelligence, then dumped the bodies in the sea.

In any event, what this come down to is that those now held at Guantanamo are going to be there a whole lot longer.

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

We will actually follow our own laws again?

As usual you don’t know what you’re saying?  Our constitution has rights for non-citizens?  Even you should know that’s not true.

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

Our constitution has rights for non-citizens?  Even you should know that’s not true.

Well dd, I guess you know better than our Supreme Court.

Maybe you should give them a call on this one.

Excuse me, you were saying?

It is difficult for free societies to restrict or ignore such fundamental concepts as habeous corpus and thus the decision shouldn’t be too surprising. The decision merely affirms the detainees’ right to a proper hearing and doesn’t rule on whether they should be detained or not. If Congress wanted to suspend habeous corpus then they should have done so as the Constitution prescribes.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

It is difficult for free societies to restrict or ignore such fundamental concepts as habeas corpus and thus the decision shouldn’t be too surprising.

Mike,

Of the nearly 200 countries in the world today, I wonder if you could give us a quick count of just how many actually acknowledge and enforce the “fundamental concept of habeas corpus”?  Particularly as it pertains to illegal enemy combatants.

(I think we can overlook for the moment what your country is doing to the “fundamental concept” of freedom of speech!)

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

I find it rather telling that so many liberals are celebrating the fact that foreign terrorists will now be able to spend taxpayer monies to defend themselves in US courts. 

O happy day!

Mike,

You shouldn’t have to suspend something that was not afforded to foreign terrorists until now.  Granted, given liberal ignorance and their opposition to any war, we probably should have seen this coming.

(I think we can overlook for the moment what your country is doing to the “fundamental concept” of freedom of speech!)

And that to its own citizens!

Mike,

This was a stunning reversal of over 200 years of precedent. Captured enemy combatants have never been extended the right of the writ of habeus corpus under U. S. Law, and I challenge you so find a single counter example (i.e. a court hearing a petition for a write of habeous corpus for a captured enemy combatant)in the history of U. S. jurisprudence (prior to 2001).

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Well dd, I guess you know better than our Supreme Court.

Anybody knows better than THIS court except you who applaud every activist decision.  As Rodney posted this decision flies in the face of 200 years of legal precedent that aliens have no constitutional rights.  60 or so years ago, the best that terrorists could hope for was a military trial which usually ended with a death penalty.  To reverse the earlier courts decisions requires a certain amount of contempt for the entire judicial system and the liberal members of the court who voted in favor deserve be impeached.

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

Well, DocDave, they aren’t going to be impeached. But 2 or 3 of them will be replaced in the next 4 years.

I don’t know about you, but I DO NOT want Obama appointing new justices!

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Of the nearly 200 countries in the world today, I wonder if you could give us a quick count of just how many actually acknowledge and enforce the “fundamental concept of habeas corpus”?  Particularly as it pertains to illegal enemy combatants.

Five off the top of my head but I’m sure there’s more.

(I think we can overlook for the moment what your country is doing to the “fundamental concept” of freedom of speech!)

I would suggest that you don’t believe the hype. For a bunch of people whose speech is being stifled, those Canadian speech warriors are making quite a racket.

HG...I consider my comments “celebratory” only in the sense that I’m happy that the SCOTUS recognises the rich tradition of freedom and the requirements of your Constitution. There’s still much work to be done in terms of ensuring that the disposition of the detainees’ cases is handled judiciously and as expeditiously as possible.

RG...I’ll poke around when I can but I’m sure you’re more familiar with the history of American jurisprudence than I am. If you say that an enemy combatant has never been granted a hearing in America based on a writ of habeous corpus then I’m inclined to believe you.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

requirements of your Constitution.

5-4 is hardly a conclusive interpretation.  One less anti-war liberal on the court and this nonsense is out the door. 

Habeas Corpus for enemy detainees… ridiculous. 

In the future HC will have to be suspended to avoid this sort of thing. 

The amazing ignorance of liberals is a distraction and hinderence to the progress of liberty.

Should have just waterboarded them each a few times to clean them out of any useful intelligence, then dumped the bodies in the sea.

In any event, what this come down to is that those now held at Guantanamo are going to be there a whole lot longer.

They should water board the judges. Second this is the first time in our history that we have given Habeas Corpus right to enemy combatants. This is shameful. Legislate from the bench. The supreme court just hurt out country today. These criminal combatants are going to put a show for the whole world this going to be circus. These same terrorist thugs that would cut our head off.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

HG:

One less liberal on the court and this nonesense is out the door.

Not if Barack Obama is making the appointments for the next 4 to 8 years!

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Goon: 

Legislate from the bench

That’s what activist, liberal judges do best.

There will be more, many more of them if Barack Obama is doing the appointing.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

I wonder if the 5 Supreme Court Justices gave any thought to the law of unintended consequences before rendering their decision. I’m guessing, due to this decision, there will be a sharp decline in detainment of terrorists, illegal combatants, etc., mirrored by a sharp increase in field executions of same.

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

HG...your point about the close split is noted. I think when you’re faced with unusual circumstances such that the GWOT presents then you can’t expect the traditional and formal rules of warfare to apply as neatly as you would like. I think it’s kind of arrogant to unilaterally determine what detainee is subject to what form of justice, who is a POW, an enemy combatant, an illegal combatant, etc. without expecting some form of check or balance or review.

The right to habeas corpus is a pretty small price to pay IMO...it’s not like we’re expecting a mass exodous of detainees from Gitmo as a result of this decision. Why not follow the rules and traditions that have served us well for centuries?

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Spartacus...I think your conclusion underestimates the professionalism of your armed services.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

I’m guessing, due to this decision, there will be a sharp decline in detainment of terrorists, illegal combatants, etc., mirrored by a sharp increase in field executions of same.

I’ve been thinking the same thing, a lot of ‘accidental’ deaths on way to detention.  What also might happen is that we will give these terrorists to their respective governments for trial and disposal.

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

The right to habeas corpus is a pretty small price to pay IMO...it’s not like we’re expecting a mass exodous of detainees from Gitmo as a result of this decision. Why not follow the rules and traditions that have served us well for centuries?

Mike,

You are incorrect on quite nearly every point you make.  Those “rules and traditions” you speak of have never before been applied to enemy combatants, much less to illegal combatants as defined by the Left’s precious Geneva Conventions.

That “small price” you mention is another bit of sadly unrealistic, wishful thinking… exactly the sort of self-delusional pablum used by the majority in making the argument to extend the writ.

Finally, the “mass exodus” is far more likely than you might imagine, given the fact that the liberal majority in its profound lack of wisdom (and judgment) established no rules at all, but left it to the district court.  There are very specific, and immutable reasons that in times of war, evidence against a “defendant” and the witnesses against him are NOT to be produced in open court.

Read Justice Scalia’s dissent first.  Then the majority opinion, and then Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent.  In that order.  This is little more than a power grab by liberal justices who cannot abide the notion that they don’t have the last word on everything.

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

I think your conclusion underestimates the professionalism of your armed services.

mike..to me professionalism means doing the job precisely to the detail specified. Bat can correct me if I’m wrong on this, but to my knowledge there is no provision in the G.C. or U.C.M.J. offering protection to terrorists, illegal combatants, etc. So, from my POV detainment of such entities was just a nicety provided by our military, since the court decided to piss all over that nicety a professional would just finish the job.

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Mike,

The customary laws of warfare are reciprocal in nature.  Given what the terrorists have done to our civilians and to those few unfortunates they have captured, we are under NO obligation to accept surrenders from them.

Time to hoist the <acronym title="No Quarter Offered or Accepted">Black Flag</acronym> and be done with it.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

What also might happen is that we will give these terrorists to their respective governments for trial and disposal.

Good point, but not the Yemenis’.

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Under separation of powers and the war poeers act President Bush does not have to obey the court in this matter. The Executive Branch is NOT subservient in any way to either of the other two branches. The President has a right and a duty to interpret the Constitution as he deems appropriate and if he believes he need not give any of his war powers to the SCOTUS or that SOCTUS is exceeding the authority, he is free to disobey the Court.

The Legislative Branch would have no right to impeach Bush for asserting Separation of Powers, such actions are not high crimes and misdemeanors. The only Constitutional remedy is via the electorate, the people that are supposed to rule this country. The Congress and SCOTUS can bellow and bully, but they have no such power over the President.

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.

Our constitution has rights for non-citizens?

Absolutely.  The Bill of Rights are rights for all people, not just citizens.

As Rodney posted this decision flies in the face of 200 years of legal precedent that aliens have no constitutional rights.

Please cite the precedent that aliens have no Constitutional rights.  I am willing to bet that you cannot.

The idea that this is a liberal court is asinine.  This is a conservative court that ruled this way.

Are you the good Neiman or the bad Neiman?

Which ever Neiamn you are, you are wrong.

Excuse me, you were saying?

Good point Neiman. But once Congress initiates the W.P.A. what determines the suspension of it? Another act of Congress? The reason I ask is could the court interpret the Presidents declaration of victory over Saddams Iraq an end to the W.P.A. congress granted him?

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

mirrored by a sharp increase in field executions of same.

Which should be mirrored by a sharp increase in court martials. 

You really don’t have a very high opinion of the military.  They will do there job regardless of the ruling of the Supreme Court

Absolutely.  The Bill of Rights are rights for all people, not just citizens.

You conveniently forgot to mention the on U.S. soil part. Last time I looked Guantanamo Bay was still in Cuba, and to the best of my knowledge, we’re still renting it. Surely you’re not indicating our B.o.R. applies world wide, otherwise you’d be indicating adulterers in Iran are covered by it.

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Lestat: Only US citizens and lawful residents of the US are covered by the US Constitution.  The Gitmo scum don’t fall into that category.
Other countries are, of course, capable of granting those same rights to their citizens, if that’s what they want.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

The real consequence of this sadly misguided decision will be, I hope, that upon capture, illegal combatants will be subjected to very nasty battlefield interrogation, then executed.  It will save us a lot in taxes.  No more coddling them at taxpayer expense.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Are you the good Neiman or the bad Neiman?
Which ever Neiamn you are, you are wrong.

Are you still sucking Bat Ones penis and letting him butt fuck you? We know you are a homosexual, so it was a legitimate question! Fun to ask stupid questions, huh moron?

Either we have three separate but equal branches of government or we don’t! If they are separate but equal, no single branch or two together have any power over the other to force them to do their bidding. If the Judiciary can say that they have all legal authority over prisoners captured during war, then the have usurped executive powers and war powers and are a super Judicial-Executive Branch of government. If the Legislative Branch can pass laws restricting authority and powers of the Executive, other than through the powers of the purse, they are a super Legilative-Executive Branch, and in that case and that of a Judicial-Executive Branch the Executive Branch is no more than a puppet of the other branches to do their bidding.

Today, the Judicial Branch usurped Executive Powers that are provided via the Constitution to the executive alone and we are becoming a kleptocracy, having a 9-person ruling elite over the other branches.

There are checks and balanaces to prevent a President from becoming power mad and himself becoming a dictatorial, super Executive-Legislative or Executive-Judicial Branch. But, three separate but equal branches of government are fundamental to our Republic and if one can asssume powers delegated to another branch, that doctrine has been unconstitutionally eliminated from our national government.

Are you the asshole rbb or the fucking asshole rbb?

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.

Only US citizens and lawful residents of the US are covered by the US Constitution.

You are wrong.  Please continue to show your ignorance.

Illegal aliens even have Constitutional rights. 

This is settled law.

You conveniently forgot to mention the on U.S. soil part. Last time I looked Guantanamo Bay was still in Cuba, and to the best of my knowledge, we’re still renting it.

The court held that because we claim sovreignty over the naval station that the writ applies.

Can anyone honestly think that our Constitution applies to everyone else in the world?  It is for US citizens by the people and for the people.  Were Indians included?

Communism is evil

Only US citizens and lawful residents of the US are covered by the US Constitution.  The Gitmo scum don’t fall into that category. Other countries are, of course, capable of granting those same rights to their citizens, if that’s what they want.

The real consequence of this sadly misguided decision will be, I hope, that upon capture, illegal combatants will be subjected to very nasty battlefield interrogation, then executed.  It will save us a lot in taxes.  No more coddling them at taxpayer expense.

EXACTLY!

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.

Illegal aliens even have Constitutional rights.

Please quote the Constitution to back up your claim.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

You really don’t have a very high opinion of the military.

Not true. However, what I don’t have a high opinion of is self employed patent attorneys masquerading as constitutional lawyers.

Since I am in private practice as a patent attorney, it usally doesn’t come up.
Lestat on June 7, 2008 at 08:40 pm

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Illegal aliens even have Constitutional rights. 

Just because it is settled law, STARE DECISIS - Lat. “to stand by that which is decided;” The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts it is still a most pernicious evil. SCOTUS, without any legal precedent extablished a RIGHT to abortion that does not exist in our Constitution, and just because a liberal Congress and RINO Republicans have allowed it to stand as law, it is said to be decided and thereby the Bill of Rights was amended not by the people as the Constitution demands, but by judicial fiat!

That may be okay with you, but I believe it perverts our 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.

A declaration that the immigrant never was a U.S. citizen, see 14th Amendment.
But this is about illegal combatants, enemies of the US.

A discussion of the above is here:
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Reid v. Covert expressly overturned the rule that the Bill of Rights did not apply abroad, calling it a relic from another era.

Reid declared that ‘when the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield [of] the Bill of Rights...should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land.’

Technically (emphasis added), the Court’s holding was limited to citizens alone. Nevertheless, some of the language in Reid is so sweeping that it strongly suggests (more emphasis) [so here is an interpretation by non-jurists--their opinion only] an extension to non-citizens. They, too, are protected by the Constitution when they confront the U.S. government within the U.S.; why should its protections be stripped away when they confront the U.S. government abroad, just because they “happen to be in another land?”

Thus, it is not too surprising that, in an unusual case in 1979, U.S. v. Tiede, a U.S. court in occupied Berlin built on Reid’s logic, holding that even non-citizens abroad possessed constitutional rights.  A court in occupied Berlin??

In short, the role of territory in our legal system is unclear, or at least inconsistent.

Communism is evil

Please quote the Constitution to back up your claim.

Not once in the Bill of Rights does it mention citizens.  It mentions people.  However in the body of the Constitution it mentions citizens many times.  Do you think they didn’t know the difference?

However, what I don’t have a high opinion of is self employed patent attorneys masquerading as constitutional lawyers.

Where do you get your “expertise”?

Where do you get your “expertise”?

This nation was founded of, by and for the people. The Constitution was not as much a legal document as a set of inviolable principles for self-governance. Therefore, a citizen with normal intelligence and common sense will always trump those of a legal mindset in understanding that precious document!

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.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

People pretty much realized that we the people were citizens of the US and many had paid their dues by fighting for our freedom from England with their lives, liberty and sacred honor.

Communism is evil

Neiman: 

SCOTUS, without any legal precident, established a RIGHT to abortion…

As evil as the ruling was, the Supreme Court did NOT rule that women have a right to an abortion. 

In Roe v. Wade, the court ruled that women have a right to ‘privacy’ in medical matters and that the state has no compelling interest to warrant violating that privacy.

A very clever, back-door assault on right to life by the lawyers for the plaintiff.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Where do you get your “expertise”?

plenty of brushes with the law when I was young. I never hired

a patent attorney

Got malpractice insurance?

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Not once in the Bill of Rights does it mention citizens.

It doesn’t have to; The Bill of Rights was appended to the Constitution of the United States.  As such, it applies to US citizens, and we graciously extend it to non-citizens who are legal residents of the US, or are here in some legal capacity, such as a visa.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

As evil as the ruling was, the Supreme Court did NOT rule that women have a right to an abortion. 

In Roe v. Wade, the court ruled that women have a right to ‘privacy’ in medical matters and that the state has no compelling interest to warrant violating that privacy.

It amounted to the same thing! Where is the Right to Privacy in the Constitution upon which this new law was founded? What was the sole goal of that decision, was it or was it not to establish through extra-Constitutional means a right to murder babies in the womb? A rose by any other name still smells as sweet, and a law establishing a right to abortion by any other means, like a phony right, still stinks of abortion!

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.

For those who prefer knowledge to speculative quibbling, the syllabus and the opinions are found here.

The correct way to do this, as I noted above to Mike Adamson, is to read the syllabus first, then read Scalia’s scathing dissent.  Then read Kennedy’s majority opinion, then the dissent of Chief Roberts. 

Justice Scalia:

Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war…

The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires…

The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today…

What drives today’s decision is neither the meaning of the Suspension Clause, nor the principles of our precedents, but rather an inflated notion of judicial supremacy.

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

When were your qualifications added
Robot108?

As such, it applies to US citizens, and we graciously extend it to non-citizens who are legal residents of the US, or are here in some legal capacity, such as a visa.

For of those who believe that the Constitution codifies rights given by a higher power, under what theory do you deny those rights to anybody under our jurisdiction.

The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires…

When have we ever captured anybody and intentionally kept them off US soil for the purpose of denying them rights?

Habeas corpus is older than the United States.  English Common law has recognized it for centuries.  And historically it has been granted to aliens on foreign soil if England has sovereignty over that soil.

When were your qualifications added
Robot108?

What are yours WOOF?
Shirley your not one of teh Gleens sock puppets?

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

When were your qualifications added Robot108?

That is an incredibly stupid thing to ask! He is a reasonably, I would say very, intelligent human being, often winning his debates on the facts at SA and he is a citizen under the Constitution; and as it was written by and for the people, why would his views not be as valid as any Constitutional lawyer? In fact, his views would most certainly be superior to any lawyer as their sole job is to obfuscate and confuse, never to find truth.

It is bullshit to assume one must have legal credentials to be able understand our Constitution, just as it is bullshit and a waste of precious time to exhaustively read SCOTUS decisions once it is clear the justices usurped Executive Power or in some way isssued decisions which by use of common sense clearly are extra-Constitutional in nature. Everything said therein is cloaked in special legal language, wrapped inside appeals to ancient legal principles, written to advance their personal political theories and designed to confuse lawyers and common citizens alike, as therein lies their hold on power, power they were never meant to have by the framers of our Constitution.

Very often if not always, landmark decisions by SCOTUS are the making of new law (legislating from the bench) to advance their own social-moral agenda and always designed to grab more and more power over the citizens from the other two branches. The plain truth is, their only freaking job is to determine if any law or public policy adheres to or violates the United States Constitution as originally written. There should be need for appeals to precedent, no need to appeal to legal doctrines, it either conforms to or violates the Constitution - that is it, end of their freaking job (They have no Constitutional power to enforce their own decisions). If it is in violation, it is up the Legislative Branch to find a Constitutionally acceptable alernative and if such legislation is forthcoming, it is up to the Executive Branch to enforce that law.

Everyone wants to argue fine legal points, insist they have special credentials and in some way gain victory for their side of the political spectrum in any debate; rather than, just read the Constitution as originally written and say yea or nea about whether or not a matter violates or conforms to that precious document.

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.

just as it is bullshit and a waste of precious time to exhaustively read SCOTUS decisions

I agree, just wing it.  Don’t actually try to understand the reasoning.  The history of habeas corpus is inconsequential.  Let’s just kill them all.

For of those who believe that the Constitution codifies rights given by a higher power, under what theory do you deny those rights to anybody under our jurisdiction.

When people talk about self-evident, unalienable rights, they are referring to the Bill of Rights. Speech, worship, etcetera. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. The people understand that terorists and other foreign enemies have no rights under our Constitution at all.

Thus Lincoln did suspend that privilege, for the common safety during a time of war. Nonetheless, no matter what is in English Law, we are not governed by English Law, but our Constitution and that alone. Thus, non-citizens have no special right to habeas corpus, and it may be granted or withheld to even citizens by the Executive for the public safety during a time of war.

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.

rather than, just read the Constitution as originally written and say yea or nea about whether or not a matter violates or conforms to that precious document.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

What is the plain meaning of that Neiman?

I agree, just wing it.  Don’t actually try to understand the reasoning.  The history of habeas corpus is inconsequential.  Let’s just kill them all.

No one wants to just kill them all! Wekk, killing all the terrorists may not be a bad idea! If the decision is unconstitutional in nature, why do care on what basis they decided the case and came to an unconstitutional position? It isn’t winging anything, it is understanding the Constitution as it was originally written and demanding that SOCTUS not go outside that document!

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.

What is the plain meaning of that Neiman?

It is self evident! Kind of a neat concept, huh? The PEOPLE know it because it is self-evident!

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.

No one wants to just kill them all! Wekk, killing all the terrorists may not be a bad idea! If the decision is unconstitutional in nature, why do care on what basis they decided the case and came to an unconstitutional position? It isn’t winging anything, it is understanding the Constitution as it was originally written and demanding that SOCTUS not go outside that document!

Do you really think the founding fathers would of sanctioned disappearing anybody, whether they were a citizen or not?  Because that is what you are talking about.  Habeas corpus came about to keep the Sovereign from locking up people and never giving them the chance to defend themselves.  The Writ of Habeas Corpus has history of the United States that the Founding Fathers knew of.  It was not a right that was just given to citizens.  It was a right of anybody imprisoned by the sovereign.

It’s late, I am getting tired, can’t type well. Let us agree that I am probably right and your are probably wrong, that seems fair to me!

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.

When have we ever captured anybody and intentionally kept them off US soil for the purpose of denying them rights?

Lestat,

Wrong question!  The correct question is when have those captured during wartime by US forces and detained on foreign soil EVER been afforded been afforded the right of habeas corpus?

Any one instance will do.

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

Wrong question!  The correct question is when have those captured during wartime by US forces and detained on foreign soil EVER been afforded been afforded the right of habeas corpus?

As far as I know this is a unique case.  I can’t think of any time when we have had anything similar to Gitmo.  Give me some examples.

...it is bullshit and a waste of precious time to exhaustively read SCOTUS decisions once it is clear the justices usurped Executive Power or in some way isssued decisions which by use of common sense clearly are extra-Constitutional in nature.

Actually, the bullshit is in not having sufficient interest or initiative to inform oneself, but instead rely on the opinions and commentary of others.  If you don’t care enough to be directly and factually informed on an issue, you really have no business expecting others to take your opinions seriously.

Its all very well to say the justices “usurped executive power” or perhaps cited inappropriate precedent in constructing their decision.  But unless you’ve informed yourself sufficiently to actually know what you’re talking about, your opinions are just so much mindless drivel.

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

Bat One

This is little more than a power grab by liberal justices who cannot abide the notion that they don’t have the last word on everything.

With all due respect...I think that the reason America has a written Constitution is to ensure that disputes such as this are adjudicated on the basis of impersonal logic and justice rather than upon flights of partisan passion.

Finally, the “mass exodus” is far more likely than you might imagine, given the fact that the liberal majority in its profound lack of wisdom (and judgment) established no rules at all, but left it to the district court.

Yet if SCOTUS decided on the particulars and details then we’d hear even more howls decrying judicial activism. The Court appears to have affirmed a right common to all nations which share Anglo Saxon common law traditions while properly deferring to the legislative branch on matters of public policy.

RG

The customary laws of warfare are reciprocal in nature.  Given what the terrorists have done to our civilians and to those few unfortunates they have captured, we are under NO obligation to accept surrenders from them.

As a civilised society you do in fact have such an obligation. That’s why America is expected not to torture its prisoners even though American prisoners may be tortured abroad. You do the right thing because it’s the right thing and you can’t avoid doing the right thing because somebody else is doing the wrong thing. If you don’t, then why bother with any of the genteel trappings of civility, justice and righteousness? You can’t just turn it off and on at your pleasure...that is the point of the rule of law and the reason that such hard fought measures as habeas corpus exist as a bulwark against arbitrary authority.

It’s messy and not always satisfactory but it’s what we are.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Lestat,

If you read the case file, and Scalia’s dissent in particular you would know that the capture of combatants, legal and illegal by US forces and the detention of those captives overseas has happened quite a bit more than you think.

Saclia’s argument if far more persuasive than Kennedy’s majority opinion, which is a gruesome bit of ill-constructed folderol.  It is also a far better argument than that of the Chief Justice.

But you’d never know that if you haven’t read the opinions and the syllabus that precedes it.

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

Mike,

As much as I value your opinions, especially when they contend with my own, get back to me when you’ve read the syllabus and the opinions, as I’ve suggested.

What you say is soothing, and emotively persuasive.  But it is also wrong.

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

Do you really think the founding fathers would of sanctioned disappearing anybody, whether they were a citizen or not?  Because that is what you are talking about.  Habeas corpus came about to keep the Sovereign from locking up people and never giving them the chance to defend themselves.  The Writ of Habeas Corpus has history of the United States that the Founding Fathers knew of.  It was not a right that was just given to citizens.  It was a right of anybody imprisoned by the sovereign.

And it has never been afforded to enemy combantants. That is unacceptable.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

The chief case that Scalia uses is about German prisoners kept on German soil.  It is not about enemies caught all over the globe, not always on the field of battle and being transported to a military prison on a military base that was intentionally established to deny rights.  The test established was are we exercising sovereignty over the area.  I think that is a good test and the right answer was reached.  Scalia was a little sloppy in his historical analysis.  Habeas Corpus was granted with land that was controlled by England, but not officially a territory of the crown.  It was also denied sometimes.  But to expect 100% consistency over a 4-500 year period is probably not realistic.

If our government had done the right thing from the beginning you would not be debating this today.