CNN Breaking: Supreme Court stops Bush's military tribunals

[Atman]

Remands decision back to lower courts. Still breaking now...


"MAJOR DEFEAT" for Bush administration.

5-3 decision (John Roberts recused himself).

[Karenca]

1. On MSNBC too

Isn't this very good news for us ?......
SCOTUS says bush overstepped his authority.

[karlrschneider]

2. Good news for Democracy (and democracy)

[katty]

105. yes, it's a good day for democracy

[Atman]

4. This is VERY good news

Bush has been bitch-slapped by the SCOTUS big time.

It is being called a "spectacular ruling" and a "major defeat for Bush" by CNN's legal dudes.

[Karenca]

21. YES! They just said that

it's a major blow for the administration.....!!

that * has been interpreting law as if he
is a government onto himself.
(I hope I wrote that correctly).

[saigon68]

102. Here is the slug

[tfj2]

138. thanks for the pix.!!!!!!!!!

[katty]

126. o, this is a blow for bushco-time to decapitate monsterboy bush

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Barad Simith]

171. freerepublic.com

that's the hate group you're looking for

although I have a feeling you didn't need me to guide you to them

[saigon68]

174. Au Revoir

Enjoy your stay

It will be short

[FighttheFuture]

124. It's irrelevant and predictable. See my post later.

[Beetwasher]

3. Whoa!!

Roberts recused????

Honestly though, this means nothing, they'll just ignore the decision and dare anyone to stop them.

It's nice to see though that there are still five sane justices.

I'll be interested in seeing Roberts reason for recusal. That is an intersting development.

[Atman]

7. Roberts was part of the original ruling in the lower court

So he couldn't rule on it. At least he had the ethics that Scalia lacks.

Bush is going to speak about it at 11:30

[Beetwasher]

11. What Was The Lower Court Ruling

That he was involved in?

[Atman]

14. Roberts was on the lower court which said the tribunals were okay. nt

.

[Beetwasher]

17. Wait A Sec, How Does This Stop The Tribunals Then?

If the lower court said they were ok, and the SC remand the case back to them, can't they (the lower court) rule again that the tribunals are ok?

[Atman]

22. Tune in if you can...

The details are pouring out faster than I can type them.

I haven't heard them mentioning the "remanding to lower courts" again, that was said during the very first "breaking news" segment. I'm still looking for details. So far, this sounds very serious for Bush. The court did rule that Bush does NOT have the powers he claims he does.

[Beetwasher]

24. I Can't Tune In, But I Read The Posted Article

It doesn't mention the remanding part, so hopefully that was incorrect and this ruling will stand on it's own. Great news!

[Bake]

83. No.

SCOTUS only clarifies/states what the law is. It then remands the case to the lower court for proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Bake, Esq.

[CTLawGuy]

142. the reason they remand

is so that the lower court can deal with other issues. The lower court may NOT just overrule the supreme court, the issue that they decided here is settled.

[New Government]

Delete

----------------------
Contradictory info

[Atman]

39. Really? Thanks for the info.

I swear I heard them say he originally ruled in favor of BushCo.

But then, they haven't mentioned the "remanding to the lower court" thing again, either. Maybe CNN's legal guys were just spewing faster than they were fact checking.

That is actually even better news...that means Bush's defeat would have been even more severe. Cool!

ON EDIT:

I see you deleted your post while I was writing mine...CNN just reiterated that Roberts DID rule in favor of BushCo in the lower court.

[Beetwasher]

40. Contradictory Information, This Article Says Otherwise:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908

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

[robinlynne]

113. That's not contradictory. that is ruling in favor of bush.

[Beetwasher]

116. One Article States One Thing

The other article states the exact opposite, that's contradictory. Or at least it WAS. They have since fixed the CNN article that said Roberts ruled AGAINST the gov't, when he actually ruled in the govt's favor.

[unda cova brutha]

144. Roberts should resign over this ruling.

It clearly shows he doesn't know what he is doing or how to be a judge.

[saigon68]

75. Roberts has no ethics

He is the Chimpanzee's BUTT BOY

[still_one]

9. they said the vote was 5 to 3

I wonder what Ralph Nader would say now that their was no difference between al gore and george bush?

I can tell you Al Gore would have appointed judges that didn't want to destroy the seperation of powers

THIS IS AN ISSUE THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD JUMP ON. ONE MORE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, and we are screwed

[Beetwasher]

10. Roberts Recused Himself From the Decison

There are 9 justices. 5+3=8.

[Atman]

12. 5 + 3 equals 8

There are 9 justices. Roberts did not participate due to his involvement in the original ruling saying the tribunals were okay. So, even if Roberts had sat in on this one, Bush STILL would have lost!

[tfj2]

139. recused--he already ruled on it!!! guess which way....

[mucifer]

5. good news for people being held illegally

[BOSSHOG]

6. Its only a Supreme Court Decision. How will that effect bush?

He'll do whatever the fuck he wants.

[Rose Siding]

8. The writ is the writ!

"Now wait a minute!" Justice Souter interrupted, waving a finger. "The writ is the writ. There are not two writs of habeas corpus, for some cases and for other cases. The rights that may be asserted, the rights that may be vindicated, will vary with the circumstances, but jurisdiction over habeas corpus is jurisdiction over habeas corpus."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[WyLoochka]

52. Justice Souter

The best "mistake" Poppy Bush ever made! Yeah, Justice Souter - he doesn't take any bull crap.

[Critters2]

92. I've been screaming about habeas corpus ever since they

opened Gitmo. People tell me I don't understand the law. Well, tell that to a SCOTUS justice, rethugs!!

[Zynx]

13. Bush will just ignore this. After all, he's The Decider.

I never thought I'd live to see an American dictatorship, much less so early in my life.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. Let him try

He won't last much longer.

[Tesha]

79. Bush can ignore this. But the non-gods who run Gitmo can't.

Bush, personally, probably could at least try to ignore
this ruling based on separation-of-powers issues, and
he might get away with it.

But the lowly every day 'Muricans who run Gitmo
can't ignore this ruling; courts have mechanisms
at their disposal to enforce their actions and that
certainly includes sending Federal Marshals to haul
away to jail the people trying to ignore their rulings.

Tesha

[iverglas]

Thank You - it's very important to counter this "Bush will ignore..."

Ignoring a Supreme Court ruling is really a very serious thing, and in a constitutional democracy, the executive branch doing that would be tantamount to putting the jackbooted thugs in the street with machine guns. It would be comparable to firing Congress.

[kestrel91316]

155. Bush WILL ignore it or find a loophole. Mark my words.

[LiberalFighter]

163. You mean Alberto Gonzales will find a loophole for him.

[The Brethren]

127. If you live long enough

you'll see everything. I never thought I'd see a public servant like junior declare war on his own country.

[ClintonTyree]

137. I never thought I'd ever see a "public servant" like junior........

period! If he's a "public servant" then I'm Britney Spears. The only people he serves are himself and his rich pals. Everyone else has been left out of the "bush economic miracle".

Really, I never thought I'd see someone as ignorant and self-serving as bush become President of this country. America is a mere shadow of it's former self.

[The Brethren]

150. Yes

As demeaning as it is to his inflated ego, and while he may be at the highest level, he is still a public servant. One who took an oath to serve the people and to also uphold the Constitution. Both of which he has forgotten; or never intended to do in the first place. For these reasons alone, he should be impeached. And as far as I'm concerned, he's a traitor to his country.

We've had Presidents who've made their fair share of mistakes in the past and have done things I don't agree with in both parties. However, he is by far the worst and the most dangerous.

[Cocoa]

153. add it to the impeachment case

[redqueen]

15. Thank goodness. n/t

[jerry611]

18. It doesn't really change anything

The decision doesn't close the base or force those held there to go to a trial.

[Bacchus39]

131. I agree with your assessment, it doesn't tell Bush to do anything

it simply says he has to do something else other than military tribunals.

[me b zola]

162. You are wrong. This decision was significant.

The two biggies that I take away from this ruling are:

a) That bush* must comply with American law and the Geneva Conventions.

b) The Supreme Court has ruled that the scope of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force – issued by Congress in the days after 9/11 – is not a blank check for the administration.*


This is a major victory for those who respect the Constitution.




*http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[lthuedk]

19. I got lucky on this one:

Regards,

Stephen Pitt

[annabanana]

20. Hey!.. Good one!

(Roberts shrouded in the back there, nice)

[Atman]

23. Wow!

Nice work, man!

[Judi Lynn]

62. Amazing! The sheep are a nice touch, sorta! n/t

[NoSunWithoutShadow]

97. Your Political Imagery Cartoons are Awesome!! - eom

[me b zola]

121. Very nice work...and prophetic!

[jbnow]

25. What a relief

Honestly I wasn't sure we had any branch of government likely to go against bush's desire on something so big.

As you noted Roberts recused himself. He had ruled on this case in a lower court.

What drove me crazy was that Roberts was hearing this case as he was first being interviewed for Supreme Court position. His eventual decision supported bush administration.Let me find a link that says it better than I could.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050919/editors
For one thing, based on his Senate questionnaire, we now know that the judge is at the center of an ethics scandal. Attorney General Gonzales, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and other top officials interviewed him for the nomination in May, the very period he was hearing the Administration's appeal in the crucial Ahmed Hamdan case, a sweeping challenge to the extraordinary military commissions at Guantánamo. Indeed, Roberts was first interviewed by Gonzales on April 1, before Hamdan's appeal was heard. These secret meetings should sound an alarm across the partisan divide. Roberts and two other judges ruled in favor of the commissions just four days before the White House announced Roberts's Supreme Court nomination. Hamdan's lawyers knew nothing about Roberts's secret job interviews. As legal ethicists Stephen Gillers, David Luban and Steven Lubet pointed out in Slate, these interviews "violated federal law on the disqualification of judges," specifically the statutory principle that judges should step aside if their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The huge stakes for Roberts, and the equally massive stakes for the Administration in its challenge to the Geneva Conventions and other impediments to the military commissions, raise Roberts's role in the Hamdan case beyond mere appearance of conflict to the real thing. Does anyone really think that on July 19 Bush would have introduced Roberts as his nominee if four days earlier he had voted the other way? Roberts should have recused himself from the case. He could at least have notified Hamdan's lawyers of his conflict of interest. The fact that Judge Roberts--a wired-for-life GOP activist who advised the party in Bush v. Gore--didn't do either means that his impartiality fails the smell test.

This never became the issue it should. Part of why I am sure of that is I have an Uncle who is a judge and VERY ethical (goes overboard to protect from any conflict of interest or even the appearance, and a Republican. He loved Roberts but thought this should rule him out, that it totally violated ethical code.

[myrna minx]

26. Thank god!

Are checks and balances returning to the USA?

[AngryAmish]

27. Bush is Hitler

[Atman]

32. That is just plain WRONG!

Bush is LIKE Hitler. Hitler himself is dead, remember?

[Jack Rabbit]

48. and . . .

Hitler was a self-made man. Can any one say that about the Frat Boy?

[AngryAmish]

51. true, true

[gauguin57]

56. And, Hitler was a painter. Bush: proud of his lack of interest in culture.

Say "Wagner" to Bush, and he'll tell you it's some kinda pickup truck!

[Vidar]

69. Good news. How will Rove & Gonzales twist the signing

statements to apply here?

[zonmoy]

160. Did you forget about reincarnation

anyways I think either bush will be stopped or he will end up making hitler look like a saint.

[Rose Siding]

28. AP Link- Justice Stevens called trials illegal under US law and Geneva

Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.
...
The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration. 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.

Thursday's ruling overturned that decision.

Bush spokesman Tony Snow said the White House would have no comment until lawyers had had a chance to review the decision. Officials at the Pentagon and Justice Department were planning to issue statements later in the day.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_GUANTANAM...

[Sam Odom]

29. "The Supreme Court has made its decision. Now let them enforce it."

Andrew Jackson

[Pirate Smile]

54. So true. The Supreme Court's only enforcement mechanism is the executive

branch's agencies fulfilling their (Supreme Court's) orders.

[Caoimhe]

81. that's funny

Someone on Freep-puketard.com used the same quote but attributed it to Abe Lincoln re: habeas corpus.

[Hosnon]

170. That was said about two hundred years ago. The Supreme Court is a lot

more legitimate today - its ruling do not go unnoticed.

[peaches2003]

30. No Way

Sorry, but the King and Dictator CANNOT be overruled. Just as he can ignore laws passed by Congress and signed by hi, he can and will ignore the Supreme Court also. The Decider is the Supreme Being, don't they get it? Let them eat cake!

[Atman]

31. I fear you're likely correct.

[Karenca]

33. MSNBC : DEALS A BLOW THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE INHERENT POWER

That's what they're saying now.

That * has to follow the rules.

That the Geneva Convention applies.

[Roland99]

34. Some sense of what America represents still exists in D.C.?

[Karenca]

41. Oh, I hope so!!!!!!! . eom

[htuttle]

58. Hope we can take this precedent and run with it

Doesn't 'no inherent power' mean no 'Signing Statements', no ignoring Geneva, no wiretaps without warrants, no 'Unitary Executive'?

Seems like all those things are built upon the assumption of the 'inherent power of the president' over and above statuatory authority.

[LiberalFighter]

164. If anyone had inherent power it would had been George Washington

but even he refused to serve a 3rd term.

Now Washington might had convened a military trial and had the dimwit executed. In fact he may not have even bothered with a trial for the dimwit.

[cal04]

35. from this article Kennedy "joined the liberal members"

The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908 /

[New Government]

42. Roberts had recused himself

Unlike Scalia, at least he had the ethics to recuse himself as he was involved in the lower court decision,

[RangerSmith]

87. And what really has me curious

The ruling, a strong 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 international Geneva conventions.

Maybe Roberts was sending a signal about where he stands on this now if Bush trys to push this?

Not that his vote would actually matter even if he favored Bush, but I think him writting this decision is very interesting.

[maxrandb]

78. Please don't call them "liberal member's" MSM

This always "effing" floored me. All but two of these 9 were appointed by Republicans (or was Stevens JFK's nom?)

The Repukes, you better bet your ass, are going to use this decision as a huge wedge issue this November. I can already see the 30 second ads saying that the "liberal" Supreme Court sided with Bin Laden's driver. I know you are simply posting what the MSM wrote, but to suggest that Nixon, Reagan, or either Bush appointed "liberal" judges to the Supreme Court is ludicrous.

Dems ought to seize on this in three ways.

- First of all, slam it home that the Supreme Court had to step in put the little would be dictator back in his box. Imagine the prick's power with one more appointee. This is not a ruling in favor of "terrorist" as you know the Repukes are going to spin it. It's a ruling in favor of freedom and the American way of life

- Second, point out that if you don't like the way the Supreme's are ruling, you better stop electing Republicans to power. Repuke appointees support a unitary executive.

- Third, NOT ONE MORE SINGLE BUSH JUDICIAL APPOINTEE whether it's for the Supreme Court, or the traffic court of "bumbfucked Iowa" gets out of the Senate.

[mcscajun]

140. Stevens was nominated by Ford, not JFK

Only Ginsburg and Breyer were nominated by Clinton.

[LifeDuringWartime]

36. lemme guess

he's gonna start doing those 'signing statements' in regards to the SCOTUS now too

[54anickel]

114. Nah, he'll have Congress put through whatever they want and just

tack the signing statement to that. Sort of like what he did to the "torture bill". Congress pats themselves on the back and takes credit for pulling in the reins while Dimson's legal council writes up the signing statement that over-rides both the Congress and this SCOTUS ruling.

Haven't you heard him walking the halls singing to himself.....

Here I am, baby,
Signed, sealed, delivered
I'm yours!!

[chill_wind]

37. This is very significant.

Good news that our democracy, somewhere, still has a thready feeble pulse still left.

"U.S. Law" and those quaint "Geneva Conventions" still figure into something somewhere? Wow.

K&R!!

[LostinVA]

38. Jaw dropping in amazement n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

43. Excellent

The Supremes get one right. For once. They've had a pretty bad track record lately.

[stop the bleeding]

44. Freepers heads are exploding I bet :) n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

45. Who cares what they think

I don't.

[stop the bleeding]

57. it was for the humor factor --- like any of us really care about what

they actually think.

Sorry for suggesting something that could be potentially hilarious - I'll just go back to my hole and celebrate in some other boring way

[gauguin57]

60. Let's go to the tape, shall we?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657724/posts

Oooo ... here's a pithy little response from a Freeper:

"Take the Gitmo prisoners and move them into the SCOTUS members neighborhood and give them welfare and food stamps too. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"

[stop the bleeding]

71. thank you here are a few keepers

To: Constitution Day
From now on we should kill them all where they stand.



29 posted on 06/29/2006 7:16:47 AM PDT by Bikers4Bush (Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Vote for true conservatives!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies >




***********************


To: b4its2late
OK Line them up and shot the lot of them.



50 posted on 06/29/2006 7:19:28 AM PDT by Dog (The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies >

************


Heartless MORANS - yep they are PRO life and full of morals

[otherlander]

118. "Impeach the Supreme Court"...

Freepers..

"I don't like lawyers." Hah! So sad for them...

[MiniMe]

158. Check out this winner quote:

No its time to ignore SCOTUS. This is an unconstitutional ruling and what will SCOTUS do, send federal marshals to Gitmo. Just pretend it doesn't exist. Also, our courageous republican congress should strip the courts of all jurisdiction over detainees.



Just unbelievable the way these people think.

[Sam Odom]

46. (Reuters) "Court ruling to have little impact on Guantanamo"

By Jane Sutton

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE (Reuters) - A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on war crimes tribunals being held at Guantanamo navy base will have little effect on the detention camp that holds 450 foreign captives, the camp commander said.

"I don't think there's any direct outcome on our detention operation," Rear Adm. Harry Harris, the prison commander, said in an interview this week.

[WyLoochka]

55. They can now file for habeus corpus

and get real trials or be set free? That is what should flow from this ruling, I think.

[Sam Odom]

66. There will be no OPEN court trials

IMHO

[jerry611]

76. Technically that is not correct....

The Constitution does not grant rights to non-citizens outside the borders of the United States. That is clear.

So no, they have no right to demand trial. And the Geneva Conventions allows us to hold them indefinetly untill the war is over provided they are well taken care of.

[WyLoochka]

82. Thanks for the info -

I was afraid I was not warranted in getting my hopes up that these people could have a real court check out whether or not there is real reason to detain them.

[appal_jack]

136. constitutionally, it IS correct

I know that there are a lot of case decisions that disagree with what I'm about to write, but I don't really give a damn. Here is one simple farmer's understanding of the US Constitution.

The founders of our nation had successfully rebelled against a king (or unitary executive if you will) named George, who had tried to endlessly impose his will and power over the American colonies. Having just shaken off one oppressive government, the founders were justifiably nervous about setting up a national government of their own. So on behalf of the (at the time only white, male, propertied, yadayadayada) citizens of the birthing nation, they CONSTITUTED a government via a document that described the powers that the new federal state would be granted FROM THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE via their informed consent, and desire to secure the blessings of liberty, promote the general welfare, etc. At the time, the sentiment that the rights of the people were ABSOLUTE and INALIENABLE was so widespread that some of the founders thought the Bill of Rights was totally unnecssary. Fortunately, Jefferson & co. won out, and said Bill was added to the Constitution, just to make sure that the rights of the people were protected via ten wonderful Amendments.

In other words, the Constitution tightly outlines, circumscribes, and regulates the power of the state, while affirming that fundamental freedoms such as assembly, petition of government for redress of grievances, security of person & property, habeus corpus, etc. are UNIVERSAL.

Somewhere along the line, we Americans were sold a bill of goods. We have been told that the power of the state can expand exponentially with nary a Constitutional amendment, but that we must split hairs to the nth degree and find exact text to uphold any of dozens of rights that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, & co. would have taken as completely sensible and non-negotiable.

Look in the Bill of rights. It protects PERSONS, not just citizens.

-app

[stepnw1f]

149. Thanks for the Info (nt)

[tabasco]

47. I suppose even the conservative court doesn't want to see

a dictatorship in the good old USA.

[kurth]

74. Nah, nothing the GOP Congress can't fix

Just rubber stamp it like the Supremes said, and it's legal all over again.

[The Brethren]

128. I pray you're right

and maybe the Supreme Court realizes that if King George gets any more full of himself (if that's possible), he may decide that we don't need a Supreme Court to begin with....we have him.

[Supersedeas]

49. Justice Kennedy must have come through for us!!!!

[grytpype]

50. Great for democracy, bad for the Bushist scum...

... this is a day to celebrate!!!

Now let's see Bush attack the Supreme Court for being soft on terror... you know he will.

[Judi Lynn]

53. Is there a "next" logical step, like a challenge to keeping them without

charges, indefinitely?

Kansas City local talk radio is unfortunately owned by Fox. They are featuring Judge Andrew Napolitano, and his guests. These rightwing idiots are bouncing off the walls. Wildly furious. Gibbering.

[WyLoochka]

59. I think they will be able to file

a writ of habeus corpus.

"A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

[Judi Lynn]

64. Thank you! n/t

[mike923]

125. Is there anywhere to donate....

to these guys upon their release? I'm sure they'll have very little resources after spending so much time in custody.

[wicket]

61. Glory, Glory Hallelujah!

[Caoimhe]

63. SCOTUS BITCHSLAPS POTUS

This is a good thing. It means that indeed, Bush is NOT king.

[Human Torch]

65. I wonder if Junior knows the difference between a "rebuke" and a "mandate"

...because the SCOTUS didn't give him a mandate.





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

[lonestarnot]

67. Post story

News Alert - http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RT03EE7623D7EDA6E7A...
10:17 a.m. ET Thursday, June 29, 2006

Supreme Court Rejects Guantanamo Tribunals -
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RT03EE768387EDA6E7A...

Justices rule that President Bush overstepped his authority by
creating military war crimes trials for detainees as part of
U.S. anti-terror policies.

For more information, visit washingtonpost.com -
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RT03EE767217EDA6E7A...

[jerry611]

68. LOL!! You should hear the righties on the radio!!!!

They say the Supreme Court can only rule on US law and has no jurisdiction with the Geneva Conventions. That they cannot rule on its interpretation or if we are in violation. They are calling it a "renegade court," making up laws, and "legislating from the bench."
And then they go into their same talking points..."liberals hand the terrorist a major victory today on our own soil without a single shot being fired."

Bunch of morons! Our own constitution states that we are bound by any treaty we decide to accept! That they become the "supreme law of the land." Maybe they should read the constitution before screaming that SCOTUS is overstepping their power.

"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;"
-Article 3, Section 2
United States Constitution

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
-Article 6
-United States Constitution

[Atman]

72. The LIBERALS handed the terrorists a victory?

It was a 5-3 decision! Bush was whooped, plain and simple.

[mcscajun]

141. Not only was it a 5-3, it wasn't the Liberals who handed anyone anything

The two justices appointed by Clinton would have been nowhere without:

John Paul Stevens - Ford (majority opinion - and he wrote the opinion)
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan (majority opinion)
David Souter - George H.W. Bush (majority opinion)

Beat the drums...Republican appointees handed Bush his ass, plain and simple.

[The Brethren]

135. would like to know

what the wingnuts' definition of a "terrorist" is? Could it be someone who deliberately threatens our Constitution, our rights, our livelihood, the safety and well being of our country, etc.???? And who should we be protected from?

I see, it's a "renegade court" when they actually follow the law and don't give the conservatives what they want? Do they pay any attention to who is in the SC and who put them there?

[Veronica.Franco]

70. The little emperor has no clothes and no right to break the law ...

AND was last seen screaming like a madman running nekked threw the castle ...

[Nothing Without Hope]

73. One more SCOTUS justice and all pretense of democracy and decency

are over. Five judges recently stood against blatant, done-at-will vote-suppressing redistricting too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
SCOTUS Votes 5:4 to Uphold Voting Rights Act: Democracy by a Thread

One more judge, and it's all over. May the five honest SCOTUS judges be well and live beyond this national crisis.

[FSogol]

77. RW Meme of the day: Activist Judges, probably treason!

Coming soon to all media outlets near you.

[onehandle]

80. Activist Judges! Activist Judges!

Why does the HIGHLY CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court hate America?

[young_at_heart]

84. Alito showed his "stripes"

If Roberts had been able to vote it would have been 5-4 and the outcry would be even stronger. The neo-cons are going to go after the Court and that will cause even more divisiveness than we already have.

[saigon68]

85. Alito is Scum

Thanks the the DINOS in Congress he is wearing a black robe

Instead of an orange Jump suit.

[Jersey Devil]

86. As I read this there still can be military trials if Bush goes to congress

and gets them to pass a bill giving him the authority. That may be the next showdown.

[flordehinojos]

88. REMANDS DECISION TO THE LOWER COURTS? THIS IS NOT OVER YET.

many bushintimate intimidated judges on whatever lower courts the case goes to will uphold the bushit boy's bloodthirsty jawls.

[Maven]

93. No, that's not how it works.

The lower court's decision was "reversed and remanded," which means that the case is sent back to the lower court for additional proceedings that may be necessary to fully resolve the matter, but those proceedings (and the lower court's ruling) must be consistent with what the Supreme Court has decided. The lower court can't just arbitrarily decide to disregard the higher court's decision.

[flordehinojos]

95. my head is spinning and i am confused.

[Maven]

98. Don't be.

Just know that we won this round.

[flordehinojos]

99. okay, i'll take your word for it and join you in a toast against the

bushit boy!

[Jazzgirl]

107. I understood it Harvey.

If I understand correctly, the supremes told them they were wrong and to send it back to the lower court but the lower cut betta not (sp on purpose) rule against what they said....or something like that!

[Atman]

109. That is basically it

As another poster stated, the SCOTUS sends it back to the lower court with guidelines as to what is unconstitutional/illegal/wrong, with instructions to re-examine the case using these guidelines. The poster was correct; the lower court can't just rule for Bush again. It MUST rule on the case now with the express instructions given by the court to fix what was wrong. They can't ignore it.

[earth mom]

89. "Overstepped his authority" is an understatement.

Still, it's good news, though I don't think * will care one iota what the SCOTUS ruled.
He's the "decider" after all.

[HuffleClaw]

90. bush has just said he's planning on IGNORING the court by

legislating a loophole around the decision, the fascist asshole that he is.

[Demeter]

91. Unfortunately, I Can See A Cloud Around This Silver Lining

Bush could argue in ICC that he didn't commit a war crime because he wasn't informed until the ruling in 2006, and if he smartly moves to shut it all down, then he's excused from retribution because once he was called on it, he fixed the problem.

Not that I believe in my heart that Dubya would do any such decent thing, but I can see Gonzales and Rove spiining like tops on this point.

Let's get the bastards to the Hague and see what happens, Okay?

[Imalittleteapot]

94. Wow. Just hearing the good news. Had Roberts

not recused himself, Bush still would have lost. Thank you Justice Kennedy!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

96. I wonder how Scalia and Thomas would have voted

if this had been an issue on Clinton's watch. In that case you can bet it would have been a unanimous vote across the board. Don't EVEN try to tell them that certain members of the SCOTUS are not politically motivated.

[jjrjsa]

100. THE SUPREME COURT SIMPLY SAID...

That the particular type of tribunal Bush set up was unconstitutional. Also, that the rules of Geneva and Military Justice apply. So, what happens now is that Bush is supposed to come up with a new system to give these people a trial and it's supposed to follow the regulations layed out today by the SCOTUS.

It's a defeat for the administration, but now they get to try it all over again.

The last thing they ruled on (Well, maybe not last, I don't know the order) was that the "Graham amendment" which denied Habeas Corpus to Guantanamo prisoners is not valid.

What I am trying to say is that this is a narrow decision (as it should be, IMO) and it doesn't say ANYTHING about Guantanamo itself, just the tribunals Bush had set up. So GITMO won't shut down, no one will be released due to this decision, etc.

Don't read too much into decisions...

[Atman]

101. I don't think anyone was expecting Gitmo to be shut down

This is about the constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and presidential power. What the court did was hand Bush a stinging rebuke. Knowing how much "hard case" Bush doesn't like to be told he's wrong, just the aggro it must be causing him is plenty satisfication for me. Lock up the whiskey, Laura, and hide in the closet. George is gonna be an angry drunk tonight!

The fact that our government has been told it must abide by the law, well, I wouldn't call that ruling "simply" anything.

[alcibiades_mystery]

106. Are there many posters on this thread saying the rulinmg shuts down GITMO?

No. There aren't. And yet you're the second person to insist that GITMO won't be shut down. Well, who the fuck said it would be?

Curiouser and curiouser...

[Atman]

108. You're not supposed to notice his post count

I didn't.

Now I did.

You're right...curiouser and curiouser.

[alcibiades_mystery]

110. Who said anything about that?

Not me...

[Fluffdaddy]

115. These mole Freepers are getting out of hand in here. We may need

the mods to do some exterminating.........maybe

[MissMillie]

112. Actually I think it more technically says

that if these types of tribunals are what are to be used, it is up to CONGRESS to set them up.

right?

[BigDDem]

103. Supreme Court hates our freedom

the terraists have won!

[katty]

104. Great News! This IS a sea change!! It's a good day!

[FighttheFuture]

122. Don't get too excited. It is not a "sea change".

[Up2Late]

111. Suck on that Fox "news"!

Problem is, he's already told Congress what "his interpretation is" of this (verbal statement, signing statement coming soon?).

[McCamy Taylor]

117. Another 5:4 decision for Democracy! Congress must go Democratic!

[chill_wind]

119. Speaking of Congressional Dems--- where ARE they on this momentious

news today?

Links, statements, anybody??

[dailykoff]

120. So I guess they'll have to head for Romania

so they can keep torturing all those Afghani taxi-drivers in Dracula's castle.

[FighttheFuture]

123. So many are excited here… don’t be, it was predictable…

Let’s level set a few things. These picks, Roberts and Alito are not Bush’s, per se. Also, the other ones, Scalia, Thomas were already pushed through as part of an ongoing multi-decade agenda or wealthy elites uber alles. That is a larger agenda at work. An agenda set on taking us back to the past of 1900’s, even before that, to a feudal type power structure of ruling elites over the masses with corporations and technology the tools of control.

Democracy is simply a cancer to these types, to be excised by any means necessary lest it ruin their plans—but it if they can subvert it, to maintain the illusion (e.g. our national elections), they certainly will. No need to deal with angry rabble if it can be avoided. Those who would seek this power are still vulnerable to many variables.

Bush is part of the plan, get it? Whatever he “does” is akin to a wooden puppet with a hand up its ass. Bush does not take a shit without permission, except when it is unimportant to the previously stated agenda. Then he can be his usual lifelong sociopathic dry-drunk fuckup self poinsed on the eve of his greatest failure--the future of the United States of America.

To rule for Bush on this would provide too much absolute power over ALL citizens such as “untouchables”, i.e. rich ones, to a unitary President who might be deluded enough to fancy themselves an emperor. So far, we are still on our way to $electing another one in 2008. Bush is not forever, nor do I doubt he could get away with a power grab of that magnitude, yet. He will be gone soon enough!!

That is not what those pushing these agendas want; not as long as we have a Democracy, or any central government. They do not want power or capability at a federal/central level that is answerable to citizens. Is is any wonder they have managed to, and actively seek to screw up government’s ability at very level and every way possible. Make everyone hate any form of government all the while forgetting our system is THE BEST, and often, ONLY CHANCE YOU HAVE OF MAKING MEANINGFUL CHANGES TO YOUR SOCIETY AND YOUR LIFE!!! That will not happen in mega-corporations and private centers of wealth and power, which are little more than fiefdoms with no accountability to society for the most part.

I submit that the ruling was quite predictable.

Now, when it comes to business issues, economic issues, issues that affect the wealthy and their pocketbooks and hold on power, have no doubt, this is the Supreme Court of 1907. The one that fought FDR all the way until 1938 in thwarting any form of social justice to temper the failures of Capitalism run amok. As long as wealthy interests’ trump citizen, labor and society, they are okay with that.

Gitmo, and the sad sacks and patsys’ within, are not one of those interests.

[brentspeak]

129. I agree that bread-and-butter issues are more important than Gitmo

What's there to jump up for joy on this? OK, so the military tribunals are now unconstitutional, good. But why don't I see this much passion over issues like offshoring, the dismantling of Social Security, etc.?

[SoCalDem]

130. Never fear.. Congress will make his Boo-Boo feel alllll better

They will just create a law thay says it's OkeeDokee..

If *² robs a 7-11, they would pass legislation saying that was ok too...for the supreme leaderissimo Bush

[goforit]

133. So true!

[The Brethren]

151. Congress

is suppose to be there to provide balance as needed amongst other things...not to be bushie's whipping boy. That's assuming they actually do their jobs.

[goforit]

132. The whole entire world vs. 9 justices............ no choice!!!!

[Miss Chybil]

134. Bush said there might still be a way to work with Congress to sanction...

...military tribunals for detainees and the American people should know the ruling "won't cause killers to be put out on the street."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_GUANTANAM...

[Just Me]

143. Wheels of justice slow,...but, sure.

FINALLY!!!!

Only problem,...a freakin' REMAND slowing the process even more. WTH couldn't they buck up and reverse, rendering a final decision? Oh, well, I haven't actually read the decision with so little time on my hands, for now. I'll check the CCR's take, later.

Bitter-sweet and SLOW. That would be "justice".

[Penndems]

145. The SCOTUS got this one right

If we've got evidence that the GITMO detainees are guilty, then let's put them on trial. If we don't, then what in God's name are they doing being detained?

[Fountain79]

146. Has any noticed that the courts did not outlaw tribunals...

they merely stated that Bush doesn't have the sole authority to enact them. He can still do so under congressional authorization.

[57_TomCat]

156. And there are other options as well such as

Courts Martial. This is a military tribunal that allows for a defense counsel. It is still an option as well as others. The original tribunals were NOT outlawed. They simply can not be instituted by the president ALONE. Who thinks congress will not go along??

[Ready4Change]

147. Not a minute too soon, 4 years too late.

We all knew this was criminal if not downright unconstitutional from Day 1. The only unbelievable part is that it took 4 years for someone to say "Boo" to this administration.

[reprobate]

148. This is the most important idea of this decision:

"Now wait a minute!" Justice Souter interrupted, waving a finger. "The writ is the writ. There are not two writs of habeas corpus, for some cases and for other cases. The rights that may be asserted, the rights that may be vindicated, will vary with the circumstances, but jurisdiction over habeas corpus is jurisdiction over habeas corpus."


It means that every prisoner at Gitmo has the right to have an independant court decide if he should be held, and if so, he must be tried by a court, not a military tribunal.

As Souter said, There's only one Habeas corpus.

[anotherdrew]

152. the bullshit newspaper The Oregonean called the trials "war crimes trials"

in it's headlines. AS IF. the trials ARE war crimes. Damned editors doing their "duty to mold public opinion" again - by telling lies. It's an outrage. boycott all mainstream media.

[VirginiaDem]

154. This is much better news than most here think...

according to this Slate dialogue between two legal experts:

http://www.slate.com/id/2144476/entry/2144825 /

In short, the ruling 1)cuts to the imperial presidency chase by disallowing the logic behind Bush's signing statements and 2)expressly states that the US is bound by some section of the Geneva convention which outlaws such practices as confinement without trial, torture, etc. Ruling says he can't do the extreme version of the signing statements (the I can ignore non-controversial Congressional laws as opposed to the two softer, traditional versions involving absence of Congressional activity or, worse, clearly unconstitutional Congressional action) and, according to one of the experts, this will be a strong deterrent against agents of the law who could previously hide behind the just-following-orders excuse. They will now be, essentially, expressly disobeying orders by waterboarding and the like.

Bush will likely try to push everything he wants through Congress, as many here fear but this Congress may not roll so easily.

We shall see...

[The Brethren]

161. what is your opinion

on the role of Congress and the laws pertaining to them in this matter. In particular, if Congress does roll over and give the chimp everything he wants to ignore the Supreme Court decision, can they then be held responsible by law for creating/endorsing laws to bypass the matter both with the SC and our Constitution?

Whatever actions they may take, i believe it is very important to write to our local Congressional members and voice our opinions. I routinely do so with mine - a combination of neo conservatives and a moderate Democrat. They may choose ot ignore what we say by writing back to us and/or their votes, but they can not ignore that their constituents are being very clear on the matter. A some level they have to acknowledge there are voters who are very angry about what is going on.

[VirginiaDem]

166. I dunno...

I don't know enough about this to express an informed opinion. My uneducated guess is that Congress would pretty much get away with what they want -- the Supreme Court seems to have said as much. So, yeah, it's up to us to make it clear to Congress via communication and then voting how we feel about this.

People here won't want to hear this but our worst case scenario is now significantly better than it was 24 hours ago -- even if Congress okays all this crap through legislation, it will at least been done through the rule of law.

I'm one of the moderates up in here. I believe that the system is not broken -- in some ways that made me more worried about Bush's imperial excesses as they truly had the capability of breaking the US system in part or whole. But the system is not broken (yet) is the lesson I've taken from yesterday's ruling. In a weird, limited and unsatisfying way it appears IMO to be surprisingly healthy.

[The Brethren]

173. I understand

what you're saying and I appreciate you for sharing it. I'd like to believe that the system is not broken as well. But w/ everything that is happening and keeps happening, even w/ the recent SC decision it seems that TPTB, for the most part, not putting blinders on. So even tho. the tools are in place to address important issues, it's becoming so frustrating.

One area that I've been thinking a lot about is our Congress and their role. Namely when the checks and balances are so blatantly off balance and not working. What options are Americans left with with a dictator like Bush and a majority support to him in Congress, who either will give him the rubber stamp on anything he wants or is too afraid to say otherwise? I'm afraid I don't see things getting better, only worse w/o major changes. And I doubt it'll come from the White House unfortunately.

[Matilda]

157. Rules for Treatment and Trial of POWs under Geneva Convention

Looking through this document, it seems there are few provisions that have not been flouted by
the Bush Administration.

Scroll down to Articles 105 onwards which detail how the trials are to be conducted: it would
seem, as most of us have thought, that there is probably not one detainee who could be found
guilty if tried under the rules of war.


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm


This pulls the rug from under John Howard in regard to David Hicks - he's backed Bush all the way,
gutless little cretin, and it's now time to bring Hicks home.

[usregimechange]

159. kicked

[sofa king]

165. Not stopped, just declared wrong.

There's a big, big difference. Treaties may be controlling law in the United States, but the United States is not in the habit of punishing itself for violations of that law, or even correcting itself when the violations are pointed out. The United States also has a long tradition of quietly recognizing treaty violations while simultaneously continuing to violate them--our Native American readers know exactly what I mean.

Combined with the clearly established fact that the Bush Administration is not in a habit of letting the law get in the way of their plans, this decision means nothing and will change nothing.

[Fountain79]

168. just to play devil's advocate...

Is it the Supreme Court's job to tell the administration that they aren't following the Geneva Convention?

[rman]

169. actually stopped it, or saying it's illegal?

[Marie26]

172. Great!

But this doesn't actually shut down the camps, right? Military tribunals weren't fair, but at least it was some kind of trial. I kind of worry that these detainees will keep languishing in limbo until Bush can get a congressional resolution approved by the SC.

[ast_liberal2008]

175. This totally illustrates how critical the current divisions in the SC are.

If any one of the concurring justices leaves, * can do whatever he wants and they'll rubber stamp it for him.