Justice Kennedy Strikes Again

Another Kennedy betrayal, only this time it's the Kennedy on the Supreme Court - he voted with the Liberals on the Hamdan case. Isn't it past time for him to retire? Roberts sat out, which wouldn't have made a difference, given the way Kennedy went on the case.

Noone ever elected Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter or Kennedy, nor should we want to let some number of aging inside the beltway lawyers assume the role of CIC.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti- terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.

Comments

[tester]

According to cnn, Roberts:

"Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the Hamdan case. He had ruled against the government last year when the case was argued in a lower federal appeals court."

[rwilymz]

What were we going to prosecute Hamdan for doing as a "war crime"?

That is the essential question. We very very clearly have the GenCon authority to prosecute a captured combatant [or civilian serving the enemy combatants] for actions that would be prohibitable for US soldiers. I can find the place in the GenCons that says so.

I'm just not sure "driving ObL around the countryside" is a war crime.

[tester]

Someone needs to slap cnn.

[Rogers Cadenhead]

"Noone ever elected Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter or Kennedy ..."

I'm pretty sure the other five weren't elected either, unless there's some kind of Bush signing statement I missed that changed how Supreme Court justices take office.

[Dan]

"Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the lead the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan."

AT link above. Maybe you heard wrong.

[rwilymz]

Frankly, it's not so much that the High Nine shot down military tribunals for "being Osama's driver" -- which is not a crime in any way.

The way I'm reading this, the USSC is redefining the definitions of international law. The GenCons are veryveryveryveryvery clear on who is [and by exclusion, who is NOT] a prisoner of war and thereby entitled to de minimus GenCon protections. The people at Gitmo were sent to Gitmo because they did not fit the GenCon definitions and are, by IntLaw, not subject to those protections.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

[tester]

"AT link above. Maybe you heard wrong."

Friggin' CNN originally reported it backwards. They have corrected it now.

[Ed]

"Noone ever elected Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter or Kennedy, nor should we want to let some number of aging inside the beltway lawyers assume the role of CIC"

Well, I'm glad you finally clarified your opinion opposing the Constitution and the balance of power between the three branches of government. Now I understand the drivel you write, you just want a authoritarian dictatorship!

It's a good thing the founding fathers anticipated your point of view, isn't it?

[rwilymz]

What's significant, Ed, is that this is the first time the High Nine has limited the CinC's authorities qua war-fighting.

In roughly 230 years.

Every decision, bar none, has always maintained that the Constitution designates the prez as the CinC and the Congress has only the authority to eliminate funding if they don't like the CinC's CinCing.

This is the first time the USSC has declared "...oh by the way, Congress also has the ability to pass laws describing your limitations as CinC."

The first time, Ed.

Interesting, no?

[Dan]

Well, I'm glad you finally clarified blah blah blah ...

Thank you for coming by and playing stupid for us today, Ed. You see, while none of the justices are elected, the justices which dissented against this pathetic ruling understand what it means to be a justice, as opposed to an executive. So your "stupid" claim that I favor a dictatorship carries no weight at all. As usual with all too many Liberals, the logic in any argument escapes you, once it becomes the least bit complex.

[Ed]

What they said is that the AUMF does not give the Executive power over and above what is specified in the Authorization i.e. the Executive was not authorized to operate outside of existing laws and treaties. If Bush wants to go to Congress and ask for those powers he may. The President does not have absolute authority even during times of war. Do you really say this is bad thing? If it was a Democratic President asserting exclusive juristiction you'd be screaming like a stuck pig. Even 3 Republican appointed Justices agree with me, so maybe my logic isn't really that extreme.

[rwilymz]

"If it was a Democratic President asserting exclusive juristiction you'd be screaming like a stuck pig."

You say this because.... you are Dan?

Frankly, Ed, as someone who was in the military and escaped, I'm fully aware that the military construct is about 180 degrees removed from what the non-familiars are comfortable with. The CinC ***does*** have absolute authority.

That concept doesn't sit well with those thinking that the entire world and everything in it should be open to interpretation and question and, indeed, rebuke. But a military defense of a nation cannot be undertaken if -- as we were constantly lectured -- if the privates had the equal-citizen authority to question the general's orders to take the hill.

It is one of those paradoxes that plague democracies.

Unfortunately, the USSC went cherry-picking to give the privates -- and the enemy's privates at that -- the authority to hamstring our CinC.

[jamie]

What is it that the Bushies have against the Constitution? The whole concept of separation of powers is just lost on you people. It's like they just left it out of your history books.

Somehow, I don't think you people would feel the same way if, for example, Clinton had tried to assume the kind of absolute power claimed by the current executive branch.

[Rick]

"Now I understand the drivel you write, you just want a authoritarian dictatorship!"
Posted by: Ed

God!!! I so WISH for it EVERYFREEKINDAY! I'd love to see it.

[Rick]

"What is it that the Bushies have against the Constitution?"

We'll tell you what we dont like if you'll tell us first. Amazing how you people are such constitutionalists when it fits your "wehatebush" blather......but think it's out dated and needs changing on SOOOOOO many other occaisions.

[rwilymz]

"What is it that the Bushies have against the Constitution? The whole concept of separation of powers is just lost on you people. It's like they just left it out of your history books."

Um ... what is it those 5 USSCers have against the Constitution? The whole concept of Separation of Powers is lost on it. Congress isn't "co-CinC". The prez is, all by his lonesome.

The USSC just ruled that Congress has to be given co-CinC authority.

...didn't they cover the Constitution in law school?