Arkansas Blog

Greatest of news for the Fourth-
The Constitution and Bill of Rights
live.

Thank God, the Supreme Court and our founders for leaving us this wonderful system of checks and balances.

Down with King George!

It's a great and glorious day for Constitutional and International law!!

In addition to toasting the health of the constitution, I also raise a glass of water to the continued good health of Justice John Paul Stevens.

Amen and Amen Spirit!

I'd love to see this thread remain at the top of the page for the day in honor of the rule of law. It's been a long time since I have felt so good about our system of government.

Hurray! Oh....wait. Can Bush just whip out a signing statement and ignore the Supreme Court? If you can ignore over 750 laws, what's one more? I figure at some point in the near future those justices who don't bow to King George will be kidnapped and taken to a black site prison in Easter Europe and never heard from again.

As much as I jump for joy whenever Bush gets a slap on the wrist like today, I notice it does nothing to slow him down on his quest to dominate the world.

Could someone order an inspection of his genitals? Kinda knocked the wind out of Clinton and Michael Jackson, ya know. Might give him a scare like that pretzel incident, might find Condi's lipstick, might find Rove's. Might end up saving the world.

Now comes the real test..another POTUS once said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Respect for the law and our institutions are all that keep them afloat. The only thing that can force POTUS to do anything is threat of impeachment. That is non existant with his toadies in control.

The only thing that can force POTUS to do anything is threat of impeachment. That is non existant with his toadies in control.
Posted by: FortSmithBoy

There's hope. Remember that even the Republicans finally turned on Nixon. Arlen Specter is already mad at abuses of Congress by the POTUS.

I don't see Bush pushing a constitutional crisis with elections looming and his popularity already at very low levels.

But he'll do what Cheney tells him, and Cheney prefers a fight to a negotiation.

Could this be the Stalingrad of Bush's war against the Constitution? I hope so.

From the NYT story: "Justice Thomas took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in his 15 years on the court. He said that the ruling would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy." "

Isn't Thomas arguing for the kind of "results" based decision that conservatives are always attacking "activist" judges for?

He doesn't discuss the law or the Constitution, only the effect the decision will have on the President.

Clarence Thomas is a fool...by the way.

Yes, the Constitution lives, but will Georgie Porgie obey the law of the land, or will he take his ball and go home with more signing statements?

I can see it now:

"I, Georgie Porgie, hereby declare that I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, and torture anyone I want, including, but not limited to, suspected terrorists, liberals and especially musicians.

I, Georgie Porgie, herby declare that I can ride my new bike whenever and wherever I want, except in Mommy's house, despite national or international emergencies, and am not to be disturbed after 8:00 beddy by time, unless it is to sign a law keeping a brain dead person on a feeding tube. Have you seen my new bike? It's red...vroom vroom!"

Isn't Thomas arguing for the kind of "results" based decision that conservatives are always attacking "activist" judges for?
He doesn't discuss the law or the Constitution, only the effect the decision will have on the President.
Posted by: arkie

Scalia and his lapdog Thomas have already said they have no problem with legislating from the bench. But yes, the inconsistency you point out will be totally ignored by right wingers who constantly talk about activist judges, a term which in their mind can only be applied to judges who rule against things they want.

Amen, arkie.

The very fact that the notoriously muted Thomas spoke at all, much less what he said, is indicative of just how far slanted the Justice is. No way you're gonna see him retire under a Democratic administration...

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but if you actually read the decision and not just the media reports, you'll find that all the president has to do is go to congress and ask for the authority to convene the tribunals. Do you actually think that the courageous Democrats are going to filibuster in favor of terrorist's rights during an election year? Good luck with that one.

Every blogger on this thread so far is the same old liberal socialists that is on here every day. Max, you need to get new bloggers to write in. These kooks have no one to argue with. Almost all the good folks that used to post here have quit because it is now so boring and the same old same old.

Then go find a reich-wing blog.

You claim Justice Thomas "doesn't discuss the law or the Constitution, only the effect the decision will have on the President."

If you want to be informed--even more informed than you already are after reading the all-encompassing wisdom of the NY Times--you might try READING THE 49 PAGE OPINION that Justice Thomas provided.

I'll warn you though, there's a lot of quotes to boring stuff like the Constitution, and statutes, and judicial precedent. Very little of the grandiose Philosopher King prose that you enjoy from the likes of Stevens, Kennedy, etc.

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but if you actually read the decision and not just the media reports, you'll find that all the president has to do is go to congress and ask for the authority to convene the tribunals. Do you actually think that the courageous Democrats are going to filibuster in favor of terrorist's rights during an election year? Good luck with that one.

I assumed as much; and I fully expect King George to try to circumvent whatever Constitutional nonsense the Court puts in his way. But still it's good to have even a tiny Constitutional victory to celebrate...it's been such a long dry spell.

I'm not counting on much from the current crop of Dems. A few courageous ones don't seem to be able to make much headway.

"You claim Justice Thomas "doesn't discuss the law or the Constitution, only the effect the decision will have on the President.""

So Thomas' clerks managed to fill up 49 pages.

If the Constitution, the law, and precedent were all on his side, why did Thomas discuss the effects of the decision? That is still a "results" based argument regardless of what else is in his opinion.

To all the reich-wing nuts retching rabidly at the Supreme Court ruling, I quote one of your favorites . . . "You lost, get over it!"

"Does Bush think he has to obey the U.S. Supreme Court? "

??????????????? He obeyed the Supreme Court in December, 2000, did he not?

The lefties salivate at the thought that eventually every GI will have to 'Mirandize' combatants on the battlefield. Rules of evidence used in criminal proceedings will rule the day. However, another comment was correct in saying that the legislature can grant the President the power he wants. I just think that it is sad that we have difficulty differentiating between a crime and an act of a terrorist.

If you think that limiting the US during a time of war and wholesale release of state secrets used to combat terrorism is a victory for the Bill of Rights, you must think that Abraham Lincoln and FDR were tyrants. You need to spend more time studying your American History and less on political correctness.

There's hope. Remember that even the Republicans finally turned on Nixon.

Nixon was waging war against his political enemies not enemies of the United States. Can't you tell the obvious difference between the two?

"...Can't you tell the obvious difference between the two?"

Our problem is that the Bush administration doesn't differentiate between them either.

Great lines from the NYT story:

The chief justice [Roberts] sat silently in his center chair as Justice Stevens, sitting to his immediate right as the senior associate justice, read from the majority opinion. It made for a striking tableau on the final day of the first term of the Roberts court: the young chief justice, observing his work of just a year earlier taken apart point by point by the tenacious 86-year-old Justice Stevens, winner of a Bronze Star for his service as a Navy officer during World War II.

and this, from Hamdan's Navy lawyer:

I think he [Hamdan] was awe-struck that the court would rule for him, and give a little man like him an equal chance," Commander Swift said. "Where he's from, that is not true."

Today our government was run by Constitutional law. It's a BETTER day than the 4th of July.

The celebration continues at my house since my freedom loving, Constitution loving wife got home from work. We just finished explaining the importance of today's ruling to our kids so they'll understand we have a Constitution that must be followed and a people who pride themselves in equal rights for all, look pretty bad when they deny the rights of others.

This will not be the USA if we continue to hold people without charging them with wrong doing, year after year after year. I heard a prison expert on commie pinko NPR last week, talking about the 3 detainees that committed suicide a couple of weeks ago. The expert said torture, abuse and neglect was not the worst thing that can be done to a prisoner. Thousands if not millions have survived such treatment in prisons and prison camps throughout history.

He said these men killed themselves because they had been robbed of all hope. Punish the guilty, but do not punish those that spend years rotten in our prisons, secret or otherwise without being charged with a crime. The ruling today is a step in that direction.

A special thanks to Justice Stevens who took apart pre-Justice Robert's dirty work today. At 86 he still has the memory of winning a bronze star in WWII. He'd tell you he didn't risk his life in that war to watch Bush tear apart the fundamental laws of the United States, bought with the blood of 295,000 of his generation.

If the US can't be fair in war, they'll be no peace.

Justice John Paul Stevens

86 years (as in, you detractors are pip squeaks)

Bronze Star World War 2

Got that chicken-hawk war-pigs? You Anons never in uniform.

Got that chicken-hawk war-pigs? You Anons never in uniform.

I was in uniform during the Vietnam war. try again.

We have got to be more sensitive to the needs of those who happen to be confused as an enemy. Many of these people were picked up on circumstantial eveidence. Being in a war zone with weapons and firing at Americans does not necessarily mean that they are terrorists. They could have been on vacation and just accidentally stumbled into a fire fight.

All of that is bad enough but none of these poor souls were given their right to an attorney or dealt with humanely bu their captors. Interrogations were just not done in a sensitive way. Crying towels were not offerred and counselors were not provided to assist them in dealing with their fear.

Please. We must be more sensitive. We must show more diversity. We must demonstate more multiculturalism to our enemies.