Supreme Court rules 5-3 for Hamdan

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Supreme Court rules 5-3 for Hamdan

#1 Postby x-y-no » Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:33 pm

This decision has big implications not only for how military tribunals are constituted, but also because the majority opinion clearly states that Article 36 of the UCMJ and Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions clearly apply to the current conflict. This directly contradicts the legal theory the administration has advanced in a number of other issues besides the specific one in the Hamdi case.


(there - I think I managed to say that without injecting any political content) :D
0 likes   

User avatar
bvigal
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 2276
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:49 am
Location: British Virgin Islands
Contact:

#2 Postby bvigal » Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:02 pm

The entire civilized world just became a little bit less safe today.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#3 Postby x-y-no » Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:55 pm

bvigal wrote:The entire civilized world just became a little bit less safe today.


I don't agree at all.
0 likes   

User avatar
Audrey2Katrina
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4252
Age: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Location: Metaire, La.

#4 Postby Audrey2Katrina » Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:59 pm

Just as a history review, aside from any politics... the US Supreme Court has passed down some beauts in the past... the most obvious that comes to mind was the Dred-Scott decision.... that abomination aside, this will rank right up there with the Eminent Domain issue as legislation by judicial fiat. Somehow or other I thought treaties and the international dealings were the province of the Congress, and there is nothing in the US Constitution granting this power to the SCOTUS, but hey... what do I know.

A2K
0 likes   
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#5 Postby x-y-no » Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:21 pm

Audrey2Katrina wrote:Just as a history review, aside from any politics... the US Supreme Court has passed down some beauts in the past... the most obvious that comes to mind was the Dred-Scott decision.... that abomination aside, this will rank right up there with the Eminent Domain issue as legislation by judicial fiat. Somehow or other I thought treaties and the international dealings were the province of the Congress, and there is nothing in the US Constitution granting this power to the SCOTUS, but hey... what do I know.

A2K


Actually, this was the opposite of "legislation by judicial fiat." What the court did today was to affirm the rule of law - declaring that even the President is not above the law.

From Justice Breyer's concurrance:

Congress has denied the President the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. . . . Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation’s ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation’s ability to determine—through democratic means—how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our Court today simply does the same.


This was a good day for our Constitutional Republic.

EDIT: Just an addendum. Had the court endorsed the administration's legal argument, then I would say that would have been an affirmation of "legislation by executive fiat" - something I hope we all oppose as well.
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests