The Supreme Court has declined to rule on whether the Bush administration has the right to hold American citizens indefinitely without charges or trial. The high court's lack of action in defense of Due Process moves the U.S. closer to dictatorship and leaves the Constitutional basis of our republic in doubt.Specifically, the high court refused to rule on an appeal by Jose Padilla, designated an "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration and held in a military brig in South Carolina for more than three years. The court's failure to act, is, in fact, a victory by default for Bush who claims all manner of inherent and implied war powers that, in fact, do not exist. Bush's war powers are spelled out in the Constitution.Rather than clarifying, the high court has but muddied the waters. Rather than making a definitive statement in support of an embattled Constitution, the high court has but encouraged a would-be dictator. Bush's bogus and fallacious rationalizations are left standing to set dangerous precedents. If the high court's passive consent is allowed to stand, then all Bush need do to silence a critic is to term that critic an "enemy combatant". An "enemy combatant" is whatever Bush says is an "enemy combatant". This is the absurd logic that flies in the face of the very rule of law. This is the threat to both Democracy and justice that this court has let stand.According to the BBC:
Jose Padilla was moved to civilian custody in January after being held for more than three years without charge. Government lawyers argued that the Supreme Court appeal was no longer relevant in the light of that move.Justices David H Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer voted in favor of granting the appeal, one vote short of four votes needed to grant an appeal.Earlier, according to the Washington Post, the federal judge overseeing the Padilla case imposed tight restrictions on the handling of classified material including:
Additional resources:Results of surveillance conducted by the FBI in a separate investigation authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees eavesdropping and other monitoring of suspected foreign agents in the United States. A request to limit defense questioning of a witness about the chain of custody of a specific piece of evidence. No details were given, but the defense has raised questions about a "mujahideen data form" Padilla allegedly filled out to attend an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. Information provided to the U.S. by an unspecified foreign government. The material may eventually be declassified, prosecutors said. Written and recorded statements Padilla made while in military custody. Some information about Padilla's interrogations has already been made public and the Justice Department is seeking declassification of most of the remaining evidence. —Washington Post, Padilla Judge Restricts Classified Info
- Supreme Court rejects Padilla appeal on indefinite detention
- US court rejects Padilla appeal
- Supreme Court Rejects War Powers Challenge
ACS v. Federalists
Abner MikvaWith Samuel Alito's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice, some pundits predict that we may be witnessing the final act in a great drama that has riveted the nation for decades. Fifty years ago the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education placed the courts at the forefront of the struggle for social justice, and there they remained, largely unchallenged, for three decades. But then, during the Reagan Administration, a conservative legal movement symbolized by (but not limited to) the Federalist Society rapidly rose to prominence. Its agenda was clear: Government--all government, but especially the courts--must be hobbled and the struggle for social justice initiated by Brown halted. Now, with Alito joining fellow conservative John Roberts on the Court, some on the right seem to believe that their great project is nearing completion.
They are, however, dead wrong. Justices Roberts and Alito will take an already conservative court even further to the right, but the struggle for social justice will go on. And I am pleased to report that a new force--full of energy and optimism and new ideas--has entered the fray on the side of those who are committed to our founding values of liberty, equality and justice. It is the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS), which employs many of the undeniably successful techniques perfected by the Federalist Society, but in pursuit of liberal ends. ...
11 comments:
When the Democrats take back the majority in the House and Senate, Bush and Cheney won't be the only ones who will be impeached.
There are still three judges on the Supreme Court who will also be impeached, because they unconstitutionally selected Bush as president in 2000.
Kevin Schmidt, Sterling VA
Indeed, Kevin, mere impeachment won't help. Bush is but a puppet. The ENTIRE Bush administration is crooked to the core. This is much, much, much, much worse than watergate. We need a new government, a new administration...and we need to organize the arrest and detention of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Gonzales and Ashcroft et all. They need to be bound over for trial for felony violations of U.S. Codes, Section 2441. Later they need to be turned over to the international tribuanal at the Hague for trial for war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity.
I agree Len,
It has been nothing but perpendicular movement to the right for some time now with our Supreme Court. In the past, it always seemed like a hand-wringing convention when the Dem's had a pick, with all the niceties etc. I will say they usually got who they needed, but I guess it is all about timing and now clout. Even when the Dems had "clout" they never threw it around like the Repugs, "conservatives" (? These people can’t “conserve” anything…)
Anyhow, once we have thrown the yoke of this pernicious administration, I only hope there is a way to thin that court of extremist judges. I also believe and what many folks do not fathom, is the loss of status in avenues of governance institutions as the Supreme Court lose when you have undignified behavior, or ideological extremism mixed in to the judgments. Or as you mention above, they just don't do the job that has been given...separation of powers has no meaning to these shills. This loss of status or form may develop into a contempt by the people, and weaken our system in many ways.
I for one started losing respect when the conservatives tried to foist Bork on the system, and then after failing at that, they got a rote "yes man" like Thomas (who came with a closet load of undignified and a box of low watt bulbs). It is hard to believe these are the very one's who thump their Bibles and wag their finger in our faces telling us they represent "Family Values" and shall rid the court of "Liberal activist" Judges who threaten our American way.
The hypocrisy and gall of this group knows no end. At some point in time one hopes everyday working Americans will snap out of their material stupor, and find the ambition to round these fools and trouble-makers up and run them out of power. For the time being it is just sentries like us taking pot-shots while the corporate centrists try to regain their typical loose footing...but at least DeLay is gone (for now)...just 990 more to go...(or there a bouts) Some cause for celebration.
Indeed, benmerc, the Bork nomination should have awakened the Democrats. I trace the radicalization of the GOP to Texas. There were few GOPPERS in Texas until John Conally, who had been governor of Texas, switched parties back in the 70's. Watergate had already brought down Nixon by that time. From that time, the national GOP became increasingly conservative and enamored with the rising star out of CA —Ronald Reagan. Already, Tom DeLay was working in the Texas legislature to gerrymander Democrats out of their jobs. In short, the radicalization of the GOP has been going at since Nixon left the White House in shame.
I don't have space to summarize the horrors of the Reagan administration. But since the late 70's the GOP has ceased to be a party of the loyal opposition. It is at best a fascist party and erstwhile crime syndicate and at worst a subversive organization determined to destroy the Constitution and install either a totalitarian dictatorship or a radical theocracy.
I never interpreted Connaly as an idealog of any sort, more of a someone that could cozy with corporate...yea. But it appears your state was ripe for that movement. I wonder if if he would be proud of the mess he help create.
There's not enough space on the server to get into Reagan, Len.
You are correct about Connally. I never thought of him as a radical rightest either and still don't. I even met him on several occassions and, as a fledgling reporter, shouted a few questions at him from amidst a gaggle of other reporters. It was the timing — comming as it did in the midst of a GOP resurgence radicalized by the Watergate crisis. Watergate should have moderated the GOP. It had, rather, the opposite effect. It radicalized the GOP and created the conditions underwhich a Tom DeLay might one day flourish. And it must also be remembered that the Democratic party was itself not all that liberal. The "Conservative" Democrats in Texas in those days may have made Orrin Hatch blush. Though not an ideologue himself, Connally's move just made it safe for right leaning politicians to call themselves GOP. And it must be remembered that it was Southern Democrats who ran rough shod over Civil rights throughout the South from the end of the Civil War until LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. About both, Lyndon admitted that he had forever ceded the South to the GOP. And the GOP has been exploiting bigotry ever since.
Station agent, you are correct. The definitive book on Reagan hasn't yet been written. Most of the books have been of the star struck fawning type. The worst being "Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan" by an obsequious Brit, Edmund Morris.
Reagan was an even better liar than Bush; he got away with them. Reagan made up the WHOPPER about the cadillac driving welfare grand momma in Chicago; the rationalization for the attack and invasion of tiny Grenada was bullshit on its face; his war on terror was every bit as bogus and ineffective as is Bush's, and, like Bush now, Reagan NEVER told a single truth about the economy. Reagan may never have kept a promise. I certainly can't think of one. He promised to reduce government but instead he doubled the size of the Federal Bureaucracy. He promised a balanced budget but tripled the national debt upon historically high deficits. He promised to put people to work but presided over the worst depression since Herbert Hoover. He promised to stimulate the economy but began the process of hollowing out the American steel industry and presided over the loss of manufacturing jobs to Japan and elsewhere. And he was an enemy of every working person, a cozy kiss up to corporations.
He was also an opportunistic coward of no integrity. Mihail Gorbachev put total nuclear disarmament on the table at Rekjavik. It was Reagan who blinked and turned down what might have been our last chance to rid the world of NUKES. He did so because he would have lost his fascist base back home. Reagan sold out people of the United States for politcal expedience.
Reagan was no hero but enjoyed play acting them in corny, mediocre, and often stupid movies.
In addition to the plethora of lies and crap, Reagan rallied the bigoted, the extremist, the fascist with a seemingly endless fussilade of meaningless platitudes, slogans, and high sounding catch phrases. ("family values", for one) The key to his success was that of a cult leader i.e. he made his sorry minions feel good about themselves when maybe they should have been losing sleep at night.
That was a good one Len...
thanks, benmerc.
I think we need to impeach and try most of the Bush administration AND we need to convene a new national convention and create a government!
Post a Comment