| Author |
Message |
    
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5557
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 11:04 am: | 
|
Despite the assertions of President Bush, supported by the “tortured” reasoning of Attorney General Gonzales, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the Geneva Conventions do apply to the treatment and trial of all prisoners held by the U.S., even the “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-184 (Argued March 28, 2006 - Decided June 29, 2006)
A.G. Gonzales had described the Geneva Conventions as "quaint", in his "CYA" memo that was written in order to protect his superiors from claims that allowing torture was a violation of U.S. law. The Administration may have to revisit that view.
I know this will be terribly upsetting to supporters of the Administration. There will probably be some serious bloviating about this on the cable news shows and among the other usual suspects. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5198
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 11:33 am: |
|
Leave it to Clarence Thomas to write another idiotic fascist-style dissent.
Quote:Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy." The court's willingness, Thomas said, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."
Never mind treaties and laws, if the politicians are determined to do something why shouldn't they?
On they other hand, the political branches might someday have a determination to enforce environmental regulation, or worker safety, or something; Then the court has a duty to second-guess them. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10006
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 11:37 am: |
|
Clarence looking to continue his record
 |
Parkbench87
Citizen
Username: Parkbench87
Post Number: 4562
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 11:59 am: |
|
And the real funny thing is that Rehnquist is still tied with Thomas. I bet Rehnquist edges ahead of Thomas in the near future. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14842
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 12:19 pm: |
|
I don't see what's so funny. A judge is supposed to apply and uphold the law, not determine whether the law should or shouldn't be in place. Thomas is clearly doing the latter.
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3062
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 12:36 pm: |
|
The court decided that the President overstepped his authority. I've thought so too, ever since they set up Gitmo with the intention of making it a place outside both US and international law.
I feel less lonely now. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
How much you wanna bet Bush continues to do whatever he wants. He'll no doubt have to verbally make the right statements so as not to anger the court, but I don't see the Admin changing directions much. |
Mr. Big Poppa
Citizen
Username: Big_poppa
Post Number: 739
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 1:09 pm: |
|
I agree with you Southerner. This Admin hasn't listened to Congress, so why would they listen to the SC. Would be extremely ballsy for them to piss off another branch, though. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14843
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
How do you feel about that, Southerner?
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Clarence Thomas is an activist judge.
Actually Thomas is not qualified to be a judge and never was. He is without a doubt the least qualified. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 961
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 2:20 pm: |
|
How do you feel about that, Southerner?
If I had to guess, I'd say he loves it. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 8:55 am: |
|
Reingold,
Good question. Of course, you know, I agree with the minority opinion. Therefore, like anyone in the minority, I hope Bush continues to push it. Bush will have to change direction a little to please the SC, but that doesn't mean the Admin won't find another type avenue. There are a lot of options out there even though our press and the usual spin makes it seem otherwise. I'll be the first one to admit I am no expert on the arguments for either side. I just know that government is such a bureaucratic entity that there are always multiple ways to accomplish the same task. Do I believe these guys will be given a domestic type trial within the U.S.? Heck no. Do I believe they will be let free because of this SC decisioin? Heck no.
I don't have a solution. At this point, if the majority of these guys have no more intel to give, then let's turn them over to Saudi and let them do what they want. Or keep them at Gitmo until the Supremes gets their baliffs to take custody of these guys. Either way, you got to admit, the President has the power. Congress and the SC can scream all day but neither of them hold the title of Commander in Chief. Bush will have to tap dance a little, but so will Congress, and don't be surprised if down the road some sort of compromise is worked out in the form of another case with the SC. This is how the game is played and I know the Admin will hold firm. Bush pretty much said this during his brief statement. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14845
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 9:21 am: |
|
I learned in eight grade about the constitution. There are three branches of government. Each has its role, and none is supreme over the others. The president has more power than any one person, but the executive branch is not above the others.
At this point, it is now official that the president has overstepped its boundaries. The court is saying the president must back down. You may be happy or unhappy about this ruling, but it is the law.
If I'm reading you right, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying the president is going to act as if he doesn't care about the ruling and will keep the course, now deemed to be illegal. In other words, he knows he is violating the most basic principle of the constitution (balance of powers) and doesn't care.
How do you feel about THAT?
Should any president say "balance of powers be damned"? Or just the ones you like?
Are we a nation of laws or of men?
I recently served on a jury. The judge reminded us that when we render a verdict, we are not to decide whether the law is just. We were to render according to what the law is, not what we think it should be.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1968
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 9:24 am: |
|
It's people like Southerner that make it okay for people like Bush to abandon the principles of our once-great country. In other words, the lowest common demoninators. Thanks a lot, Southerner. You deserve to live in a red state! |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3445
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 11:45 am: |
|
I'm curious. If Bush said to hell with it, and ignored the ruling, what consequences would there really be? The SC cannot remove him from office, Congress will not, and I just don't see DC cops pulling up to the Wire House and arresting him for violating a court order.
I have not seen anything in the Constitution (granted, I haven't studied it in detail) that would indicate any recourse the SC has to enforce their ruling. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1169
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 12:40 pm: |
|
When Harry Truman and Richard Nixon has the opportunity to throw the nation into chaos, they both backed down.
Every now and then we get a Chief Executive with policies we don't like much, but we've never had somebody bent on destroying the nature of our fragile system.
TomR |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3450
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 1:21 pm: |
|
But Tom, is there any mechanism in place to enforce the decision (or any SC decision on governmental policy)? |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 842
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 4:00 pm: |
|
I am sure Al Queda will return the favor. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3456
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 4:03 pm: |
|
This is not about Al Queda. It is about our President following the laws of our country. As the Breyer said, if Congress passes a tighter law, this issue goes awway. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1172
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Rastro,
I'm not sure whether willful disobdience of a Court Order, or even contempt, would constitute an offence authorizing the appointment of an independent counsel who would then report his findings to the House of Representatives. Hell, I'm not even sure whether the independent counsel statute is still in effect.
However, as always, we have the old Gerry Ford rule for impeachment.
TomR |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1609
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 5:05 pm: |
|
"independent counsel statute."..... its long gone. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3066
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 5:23 pm: |
|
1809981%2C00.html?gusrc=rss,http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,180998 1,00.html?gusrc=rss |
sylvester the investor
Citizen
Username: Mummish
Post Number: 136
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 5:58 pm: |
|
The job of the supreme court is to interpret and apply the laws of the Constitution. I don't see any of that happening here. What does this issue have to do with the Constitution?
And this means nothing. We own the house and senate, so Bush can still torture all the damn terrorists that he wants and you dems can do nothing about it. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1174
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Foj,
Thanks for confirming.
I guess its the Gerry Ford rule or nothing.
TomR |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5566
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 6:04 pm: |
|
"The job of the supreme court is to interpret and apply the laws of the Constitution. I don't see any of that happening here."
The Supreme Court interprets the laws AND the Constitution.
And in this decision, the Court pointed out that Congress had passed laws which did not allow the President to set up tribunals on his own.
And that's what's "happening here". |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Rastro,
Your question is a good one. The balance of power discussion is great for theoretical purposes and discussions, but you hit the nail on the head. When push comes to shove, the SC has very little recourse.
Reingold,
Bush nor I would never violate a SC order. Therefore, hold your indignation until it is genuinely needed. Your question tells me you didn't understand the ruling or my post. The SC basically told the Executive that he can't do what he was planning on doing with the tribunals under current law. The SC never said to release these guys or shut down Gitmo. Like I stated earlier, the Admin will find another way to go that will in the end get the blessing of the SC. Something tells me when this happens most of you libs will instead of lauding the SC, you will be denigrating them, which has become the normal liberal routine. When Congress passes a law giving the Pres the authority (closing the loophole Bush was trying to use and creating a system) then this ruling will be meaningless. In the meantime this gives the Repubs a great little stump speech. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14849
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 1:25 pm: |
|
I guess you equate denigrating with disagreeing and lauding with agreeing. I've seen people of all political stripes do both with Supreme Court decisions. Don't you think that's fair game?
|
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 875
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Sylvester: Speaking of the Constitution...
Quote:Article III, Section 2. 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.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5206
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 2:41 pm: |
|
That seems pretty cut-and-dried. So even if Congress were to pass a law to put, say, the pledge of allegiance outside the Court's purview, the Court has the right to review that law, and declare it unconstitutional. I'm sure the framers, in setting up checks and balances, weren't going to allow some loophole where Congress could create a whole class of laws not subject to judicial power. If that were possible, then they could shove all laws through that same loophole.
I imagine Thomas can find some way to bloviate around it, but I don't think Scalia would even go along. Maybe Alito, too soon to tell how off the reservation he is. The others, forget it. |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 876
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Tom: Some people interpret this passage as giving Congress the ability to regulate the Court's ability to hear cases:
Quote:III.2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
I don't buy that; this particular clause gives Congress the power to regulate the distinction between original and appellate jurisdictions. It doesn't give Congress the power to place a law outside the Court's jurisdiction. It's telling that the clause preceeding this one makes no reference to regulation of the Court's authority; it does the exact opposite in expounding on the power of the Court, and in using the word "all". There would be no reason to define the reach of the Court so well if it were intended to be curtailed by Congress.
Furthermore, nothing in Article I gives Congress any power over the Supreme Court, only over "inferior Courts". |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Tom,
I totally agree with your last. The bottom line is Bush will have to change course. This doesn't mean the end results won't be the same. In my reading of the decision, the SC left so many loopholes available that it won't take a room full of neo-con lawyers long to figure them out and exploit them. The SC had the power to say a whole lot more, and they didn't. This is one of those situations where both sides can be relatively happy. The libs are happy because Bush got rebuked and they feel justified in their mantras. Me and my fellow neo-cons are happy because the SC didn't shut the door and we know that basically nothing has changed. Those terrorists are still sitting at Gitmo and no trials are scheduled, and Congress is scrambling. This will be a great political tool for the Repubs during the fall campaign. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1175
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Albatross,
I'm not following your reasoning.
If the second sentence of Art. III, cl.2, doesn't grant Congress the authority to make exceptions to the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction, what does it do?
That authority, coupled with Congress' authority to remove certain classes of cases from the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts, would, to me, seemingly grant the authority to completely remove cases from federal jurisdiction.
The arguments for either position cannot be characterized as specious.
I just don't want to see the fight, and that's why I bring up things like H.R. 1100, every now and again.
TomR |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 877
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 10:59 pm: |
|
TomR: As I read it, the second sentence of the clause grants Congress the ability to make exceptions to the rules defining the original versus appellate jurisdiction. As a hypothetical: suppose a case involves two private entities in different Circuits; Congress might elect to give the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction over the case.
Given the explicit and wide scope of cases within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, original or appellate, I don't think that the scope was intended to be curtailed. If it was, I think it would have been explicitly stated in either Article I or Article III.
As far as Congress' authority over District and Circuit courts: that authority arises from their power in Article I (as reinforced in Article III) to constitute those courts. Congress doesn't have the same sort of authority over the Supreme Court; the SC's power is embedded in the Constitution rather than an act of Congress. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1177
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Albatross,
I think your suggestion would require that the two separate sentences of CLause 2, be treated as a single sentence, as in:
Subject to such Exceptions, and under Regulations as the Congress shall make: in all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction; and in all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact.
But who knows. The Court might buy such an argument depending on how they feel that day.
I readily concede that the scope of the federal judiciary's jurisdiction is both explicit and wide. However, Congress has previously removed certain matters from the both the Supreme Court's, and the inferior Courts' jurisdiction, and I don't recall a successful challenge to such curtailment.
With regard to your suggestion that any Constitutional grant of authority to curtail the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction would have have to have been explicitly stated, I suggest that the explicit statement you seek is that damnable exception and regulation subordinate clause of Art. II, cl.2, s2.
Read the Hamden decision again. I think the Court acknowledges that Congress has the power to curtail the Court's jurisdiction, although any such curtailment must be explicit, and is not to be easily inferred.
If we continue this discussion, I think it might be easier if we put Article I, aside. We agree that Congress' power under said article doesn't extend to the Supreme Court.
Stay cool. Talk with you later.
TomR
|
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 879
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 8:20 pm: |
|
In the Hamden decision, the Court addressed jurisdiction as it related to problems in the statute's language. I do see how it considers that a more specific statute could have the effect of removing jurisdiction, but refused to decide the matter; it focused on problems in the existing statute.
One other thing that caught my eye in the decision was this passage; I wonder if the Court would be willing to apply the same reasoning to the Constitution:
Quote:See id., at 330; see also, e.g., Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (“‘[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion’”).
(I assume that the 'damnable' clause is the one from Article III, not II, and that it was a typo, unless I completely missed something in Article II). |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1179
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 11:32 pm: |
|
The "damnable" clause is, indeed, in Article III, and the error was a typo, as was Hamden in place of Hamdan. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
That being said, it appears that we are in agreement, or at least getting close, that the question of whether Congress has the authority to remove a class of cases from the federal judicial power, is an open one.
As for your query, the Courts do apply a similar analysis to Constitutional provisions.
When I did the research twenty some odd years ago, I was pretty much stunned at the wealth of support for the position that Congress could undercut the Court's appellate jurisdiction. Since then we've gotten "Felker" (1996), and now "Hamdan", if not other decisions with which I am not immediately familiar.
If Congress ever passes a statute like the Marriage Protection Act of 2005, I think, from an academic observer's viewpoint, we're going to see some very interesting developments. From my viewpoint as a citizen, I don't want this fight to occur.
Just in case I dont get back to the board before then, a good July 4th to you, and yours. And remember, it ain't about the burgers, dogs, and fireworks. Its about what the smart dead guys did for all of us 230 years ago.
TomR |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 881
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Here's to smart dead guys, indeed. The same good wishes for the Fourth to you as well.
Can you remember any particularly interesting cases from twenty years ago? |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1181
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Albatross,
When the predecessor of H.R. 1100 was in the Senate, I looked for the research file but was unable to locate it. My parter didn't think she had retained her file either.
IIRC, the argument was largely based upon statements from the Court like those found in Hamdan and Felker. None of them said the Congress could; but they were too consistent in implicitly acknowledging the power of Congress to do so, to be dismissed out of hand. I believe we also found strong support in the Federalis Papers although I cannot recall to which of the authors those specific writings were attributable.
I grant the argument is counterintuitive, but its not without a sound foundation.
TomR |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page