Redstate

in practice it is unworkable. First you'll need a supra-majority of the House to vote out articles of impeachment. Next you'll need a supra-majority of the Senate to convict. We've been having trouble maintaining filibusters.

I lost confidence almost all confidence in the court after the Kelo decision. We no longer have 9 justices reasoning from the law, we have an oligarchy voting on what they think the law of the land ought to be, then practicing verbal jujitsu to make make the law fit their world view.

but symbolically I think it definitely says something significant, notwithstanding the little nitwits like Kucinich trotting out 'impeachment' after every weather change.

If the House GOP delegation brought impeachment articles out on Supreme Court Justices - which has certainly not happened in our lifetimes, if ever - and make it a matter of public record that judicial overstepping will not be forever tolerated, then SCOTUS is on notice that they serve at the pleasure of the republic.

It will not be voted out of committee, and will never reach the floor, although I am of the opinion that if the House GOP leadership wanted to badly enough, they could shut the House down until it is addressed on the floor.

This simple, relatively harmless act does two things. First, I don't think federal judges on any level have EVER heard their honor and integrity questioned in an official way, and they have become complacent, secure in the certainty that they have the final say in EVERYTHING, no matter what. They will hear it, and as arrogant and insufferably stupid as they are, the immediate result will be that in their ongoing effort to legislate from the bench, they will feel obligated to defend their ridiculous opinions with appeals to the Constitution. There will be no more phrases like "evolving standards", appeals to European courts, etc. That will stop immediately, because they are well aware of how lame that is, and now they know they can get impeached for it.

Second, having filed articles of impeachment against Supreme Court justices for the first time, there WILL come a time soon enough when we have functioning majorities in bouth House and Senate. Having had this precedent, the next time those sorry scumbag justices pull a similar stunt like they did last week, the cries for impeachment will immediately be heard. Supreme Court justices will have legitimate fears that usurping the Constitution will put them in the history books in a negative way, even if they do not actually end up being removed.

So, it costs nothing, and might lay groundwork for future actions. I say, do it.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

Gadfly,

I have to take exception to your comments and disagree. First of all I would like to point out, that the same thing was said about the impeachment articles against President Clinton back in the late 90's. The same arguments were put forth; oh that is a nice idea but...well, after people kept pushing and moving forward it was done. Yes, it was bitter sweet in the end, because it only amounted to censure, but the important thing was that the impeachment went through. To be honest, the left has never really recovered from that, but that is another story.

I am not an idealist (well maybe a little bit), but if we don't try then we will never know. Even if the matter fails, it will bring light to the issues of what the Court (and lower federal courts) are doing. Did you hear the one recently about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Justice in CA and the porn on his computer while he was listening to an appellate case involving porn? No joke!

Tell me that some of these guys don't need to be impeached…no I think that is exactly what needs to happen, to ensure that the judiciary begins to function as it once did, and works for the people again not the elites.

One of the movies that I like a lot, stars John Cusack, and was on HBO, called Jack the Bull. The movie is about a rancher who gets stepped on and fights back, loses his wife in the process, and eventually is arrested and hanged for his actions (which caused an innocent death and insurrection), which while justified in his mind, still called for the death penalty in the old west –1800’s.

The kicker in the movie is, (sorry for the spoiler but it is an old movie) that the rancher, played by Cusack, is let down by the judicial system and he is let down terribly! Actually one of the judges is working against him because he is profiting from something else. John Goodman who also plays a judge (and a fair one) sentences Cusack to death at the end of the movie. Then goes and tells the other judge that he has draw up articles of impeachment against him, because of all his actions. It was his fault that whole mess happened in the first place! The line I still remember from the movie is, when Goodman says to the other judge that if this country fails it will be because of people like you and me [meaning the judiciary].

I will get off my soapbox now, but if impeachment won't work then give me something else to throw at them. It is at least worth the effort and time.

Rev. Dn. +Panagiotis (Robert) Hanley
Respond to Email: skycop150@yahoo.com

You would need Congress to do that and the Democrat-Controlled congress isn't going to impeach the SC for doing things the left wanted to see done.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

The House GOP leadership has enough power to make a huge fuss, make a scene, put it in the national news. That's what I want.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

They could, but I believe that... in an election year anyway... such an act would be twisted by the MSM to make the Republicans look like mean and hateful folk who like to torture prisoners and 'not grant them their rights' (even though they have no rights under the Constitution, the voting masses don't know that)

If we had a fair and unbiased media (or just a neutral one) I think your idea would work VERY well, but when the MSM is in the bag for a guy with no experience and horrible judgement, they'll reach for ANY story that takes the light off of what he actually says and stands for.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

"giving terrorists access to the courts" is an extremely compact, hard-hitting message that I think most Americans would instinctively get.

The is poker baby. All in.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

One could try, I just don't see the MSM letting that compact message get out and would, instead, push this message:

"Republicans believe in taking away YOUR rights!"

The MSM has no problem outright lying to support their candidate.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Since it's apparent that the Democrats agree with the ruling, they should move to remove Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts. The Dems have the majority in Congress. They have the majority in national polls that ask for party affiliation. Let's forget that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. If we don't like the ruling, then let's elect a Republican president and Republican Senators that will appoint and approve justices that will rule in a manner more to our liking. All of the hysterics around this ruling and especially the calls for impeachment are incredibly unConservative.

At it was the 5 in the majority who made up a rulling that was (1) not based on precedent and (2) not based on the text of the Constitution.

If the Democrats in Congress had the votes, they could have passed a law doing what the Supreme Court did, and the decision would have been 9-0. However, there is no such law because Congress didn't "say" what the SC said.

If you disagree with (1) or (2) above, show me where there is anytning in the US Constitution that says US Courts have jurisdiction over illegal enemy combatants who are not US citizens and are captured in foreign jurisdictions?

Why don't we just charge income taxes to people living in Iran?

The ruling was an ABOMINATION. It is very conservative to identify it as such.

I understand that some, and most on our side, don't agree. However, that doesn't make this ruling an abomination. If you want to talk about basing a ruling on penumbras and non-Constitutional basis, I would put Justice Scalia's using the argument about terrorists waging war against people who want to kill us in that category. The Constitution does not cease to be in operation because we are at war. This ruling does not release anybody from custody. To say that the majority opinion is not based on the Constitution or on precedence is unfair and untrue. The concept of habeus corpus has been around since Magna Carta. These enemy combatants are in our custody. They are not random citizens of a foreign country. It makes sense for the government to have to prove that they have cause to hold these people. That is a Conservative principle.

Ok, in order:

If you want to talk about basing a ruling on penumbras and non-Constitutional basis, I would put Justice Scalia's using the argument about terrorists waging war against people who want to kill us in that category.

No, the Constitution is pretty clear that Congress and the President have a duty to combat those who would attack the United States, externally or internally.

The Constitution is also pretty clear as to WHO it applies to. For Reference, see the 14th Amendment. Enemy combatants captured on the field of battle in another country are neither native born nor naturalized citziens. They are enemy combatants and terrorists. They haven't even set foot IN the united states, they are being held in Cuba, on a site leased from Cuba.

It is ULTIMATELY clear that the Constitution does not apply to these people, which includes the Constitutional right to habeus corus. The United States does not recognize preexisting or international laws as superior to its own and is under no obligation to put to trial every person we capture on the field of battle.

The Constitution does not cease to be in operation because we are at war.

Very true, but the Constitution also does not apply to every living, breathing human being on the face of the planet. It specifically only applies to native born or naturalized citizens. (Again, reference the 14th Amendment)

To say that the majority opinion is not based on the Constitution or on precedence is unfair and untrue.

As I, a simple layman, have shown.... the majority opinion runs counter to the specific and clear wording of the Constitution.

The concept of habeus corpus has been around since Magna Carta.

Irrelevant as the Magna Carta is not the law of the United States, nor does it grant the enemy combatants/Terrorists citizenship within the United States or put them on the track ot citizenship that the Constitutional Protections would apply to them. They are enemy combatants and terrorists we captured on the field of battle shooting at our troops.

They are not random citizens of a foreign country.

Very true, they are islamic radical terrorists/enemy combatants that were captured on the field of battle trying to kill our troops.

It makes sense for the government to have to prove that they have cause to hold these people. That is a Conservative principle.

No, it really isn't. They were captured on the field of battle and are being held until the time is deemed sufficent to let them go (Hopefully once the war is over.)

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

the easy argument against your point of view is that it is already proven that not everyone that has been held without charges is guilty of terrorism or even of hostile actions against the US or our troops. It's easy to assume that everyone we capture and imprison is guilty. However, that is not the action of a free and democratic nation. Since when do Conservatives trust the government or give them the benefit of the doubt? I certainly don't and those of you who do should remind yourself that you will likely soon have to place that same level of trust on the Obama administration.

I can appreciate the arguments of those that oppose this SCOTUS decision. However, I do not appreciate their proposed solutions, ie impeachment, non-enforcement. For more considered Conservative opinions, please take a moment to at least skim the following:

CATO

George Will

Detained Doesn't Equal Guilty

the easy argument against your point of view is that it is already proven that not everyone that has been held without charges is guilty of terrorism or even of hostile actions against the US or our troops.

Regardless of their specific guilt as could be proven in our courts, they do not have the protection of our courts as a matter of not being a native born or naturalized citizen.

They are enemy combatants/terrorists that were arrested on the field of battle trying to kill our troops. There is no constitutional protection for them as even if they DIDN'T do what they were caught doing, they aren't native born or naturalized citizens.

It's easy to assume that everyone we capture and imprison is guilty.

Yes, I can clearly say it: Everyone that was captured on the field of battle trying to kill our troops has been detained as an enemy combatant during a time of war and has no constitutional right to our court system.

Since when do Conservatives trust the government or give them the benefit of the doubt? I certainly don't and those of you who do should remind yourself that you will likely soon have to place that same level of trust on the Obama administration.

I don't trust the administration, I trust the military that captured them and put them in Gitmo.

Why do you distrust the United States Military?

As for your links, I will dutifully read each after you have read and given a full report on this....

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

and then tell me to read the US Constitution? Too cute. And, intellectually lazy. First of all, not all of these detainees were caught in the field of battle trying to "kill our troops". Second, we have a legal classification for people that are captured on the field of battle - POW. That classification comes with its own defined rights as agreed to by the US when we ratified the Geneva Conventions. As for me trusting the military, you have got to be kidding me. That is the biggest strawman I've seen today. In case you forgot, or haven't learned yet, the military is overseen and controlled ultimately by the civilian government. They follow the lawful orders of the Commander in Chief. I am not blaming, in any way, our military for this situation. As a matter of fact, many brave men and women in the JAG have been vehemently opposed to our policy of indefinite detention with charges. Why do you hate our military, Lance?

So you are too lazy to read any considered opposing opinion and then tell me to read the US Constitution?

Well, no, not really. Though since we are discussing Constitutional Rights, perhaps we ought to go to.... the source.

And, given that you seem to feel people who are not native born or naturalized citizens have some sort of constitutional protection, that tells me that you may not have read the Constitution as readily as one ought.

I didn't say that I WOULDN'T read your links, I just said that I would dutifuly read them after you read through the constitution and submitted a sufficient report, specifically detailing (I might add) who the constitutions' protections apply to and why an enemy combatant captured on the field of battle ought to receive such protections.

That you take that to mean that I won't read your links suggests that you have no real desire to go to the source and read the constitution... which I hold to be MUCH more important than anything else when discussing the Constitution.

First of all, not all of these detainees were caught in the field of battle trying to "kill our troops".

Well, I'm sure we didn't capture them at the 7/11 trying to get extra sips of a slurpee. We captured them on the field of battle, be it in an open field or in house-to-house raids.... where people fought back at us.

We have even released quite a few from Gitmo, only to find them back on the field of battle attacking us again.

Second, we have a legal classification for people that are captured on the field of battle - POW. That classification comes with its own defined rights as agreed to by the US when we ratified the Geneva Conventions.

Well, given that our enemy doesn't wear a uniform, DOES target civilians (including women and children, some of whom are used as bomb deployment methods), and tortures/beheads captured troops from our side, I would LOVE to get into a discussion with you as to why the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to these folks either.

As for me trusting the military, you have got to be kidding me. That is the biggest strawman I've seen today. In case you forgot, or haven't learned yet, the military is overseen and controlled ultimately by the civilian government.

Yup, and they said "Capture the enemy combatants on the field of battle and we'll put them in Gitmo so they don't keep trying to kill you, just as we've always humanely done with prisoners of every war."

As to WHO the military arrests, I definately trust their opinion of them MUCH more than this Supreme Court, or you (since you apparently believe they qualify for Constitutional Protection)

As a matter of fact, many brave men and women in the JAG have been vehemently opposed to our policy of indefinite detention with charges. Why do you hate our military, Lance?

Heh. That's really your best shot? Give up now.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

but continue to evade, ignore or fail to understand the facts at hand. When you graduate from high school, you can come back and we can discuss the Constitution at length.

Interesting.

See, not addressing ANYTHING I posted, then hurling an insult at me, trying to insult my intelligence....

Yeah, that's just the sign of not having any actual arguments.

It is only marginally a step above typing all caps.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Paraphrasing..."write me a report on the Constitution" is not an argument. I did over react and insulted you and I apologize for that. That is certainly not an example of me being mature and rational. I will not apologize for disagreeing with you and with your logic.

You still haven't addressed my points.

My point was not 'read the constitution and write a report'

That is just my part of the deal of reading YOUR links and commenting on them. Which I have done, which means you, of course, will hold up your end of the bargain.

Surely you have a sense of duty and honor, yes?

My POINT has been that if you are not a native born citizen or naturalized citizen, the constitution's protections do not apply. Captured enemy combatants/terrorists are neither of those and you still haven't proven how the SC's decision that they are is a good or 'conservative' stance.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

(1) There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that provides illegal enemy combatants with the right to file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. Courts when they are neither citizens nor have any connection to U.S. soil

(2) There is no case law precedence establishing the meaning in (1)

(3) There is no U.S. statute providing the rights set forth in (1)

So, the U.S. Supreme Court just made it up.

You and I clearly are just not nuanced enough!

*grin*
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Wishing it were so doesn't make it so. I can appreciate the arguments of the minority in this case, but the majority has the stronger argument, in my opinion and in the opinion of many other Conservatives and Libertarians.

Explain how it is the opinion of Conservatives and Libertarians to allow the rights of the Constitution to apply to enemy combatants that are not native born Citizens or naturalized citizens.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Under your framework, Nazi POWs were entitled to habeas review. True or False?

No previous SC has ever held that illegal enemy combatants captured abroad are entitled to judicial review from civilian courts. True or False

TRUE

TRUE

Your opinion is irrelevant. The text of the Constitution and the application of the Constitution in past decisions is what matters.

You are a judicial activist. If you were on the SC in 1939, we would have lost WWII.

Either site something specific, or just admit that you, like the U.S. Supreme Court, are making stuff up to get the outcome that you want.

Exactly!

And I have noticed a growing trend to support judicial activism under the guise of being "Conservative"

Kind of reminds me of something from the book 1984, for some reason...

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

considered opinions. You don't have to agree with me or the SCOTUS decision, that is fine. I respect that. I also respect the rule of law and understand that the US Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. If Congress and the President want to eliminate habeas corpus from the Constitution, they should start developing the amendment to the US Constitution that will do just that.

I also respect the rule of law and understand that the US Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government.

You specifically do NOT respect the rule of law, or you'd also hold that the Supreme Court is inventing a way to grant rights to those it has NEVER applied to.

If Congress and the President want to eliminate habeas corpus from the Constitution, they should start developing the amendment to the US Constitution that will do just that.

Boooo.....

It has nothing to do with removing habeas corpus from the Constitution (a more apt example of that would have been the Civil War, since the people from the South applied more than these enemy combatants), it has to do with you wanting the Constitution to apply to people that it has never applied to.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

in the Civil War. However, I think your claim about Confederate traitors having more rights than those people we capture in Afghanistan in Iraq says alot about your true motives.

And tell me, you supporter of judicial activism and the extension of Constitutional Rights to enemy combatants/Terrorists, What is my 'true motive'?

I'd LOVE to know your opinion on that.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Why don't you visit Iran and assert your Constitutional rights to free speech? Make sure to pack for a long stay.

Eliminating important territorial limitations to the Constitution is a recipe for disaster.

Why people are so eager to handcuff the one country with a history of standing up for liberty is a question I won't understand the answer to until I am dead.

Well, I don't. I guess perhaps that's the crux of our disagreement.

I am all for Congress passing a law to govern the keeping of prisoners in this context. Congress did in fact pass a law, and the President signed it. That is where decisions about the review process should be made.

The SC overturned the law for no valid reason. There is no Constitutional requirement in this context.

Your failure to acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution has territorial limitations and doesn't provide everyone in the world with all of the rights that you think it should is symptomatic of a liberal mindset that will end up with a world filled with Irans.

to everyone in the world. It does, however, apply to those on our soil and those in our effective control. The detainees at Guantanamo are in the effective control of the US government at a location that is effectively part of the United States.

I have never argued that, for example, US Constitutional protections should apply to an Iraqi captured by Iraqi authorities and held in an Iraqi prison.

Yup, you're wrong.

If you would read the Constitution, as I have asked and you have ignored to do, you would CLEARLY see who it applies to.

It does not apply to anyone who wanders across our soil, even soil we're renting from another country, in another country.

This is the same kind of "Living Document" crap that sickens me.... even moreso when judicial activist supporters like yourself call it "Conservative"

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

In a court of law, anyone in the US is afforded the rights of a US citizen in they are physically in the territory of the United States even if they are not a lawful citizen or resident alien. I can understand the argument, but disagree, that Guantanamo is not part of the US. I think it is you who needs to re-read the Constitution and decades of case law.

Now now, I keep a copy of it at my desk.

I do believe, however, that you still need to read it and write a report (your part of our deal to look at your sources)

I also believe that I'm still waiting for you to tell me what my 'real motives' are in this.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Fear. Fear of the "other". It's ok to give habeas rights to traiterous Confederate soldiers but not to those "others" from Afghanistan or Iraq. I mean, who cares if they are innocent, right? Let's trust the government to make those decisions in secret since it's just "those" people.

And before you start whining, I'm not calling you a racist or an anti-muslim bigot or anything similar. I'm merely stating that it is easier for anyone - everyone - to take away the rights of someone who is not like himself.

and the "others" you speak of are not.

all the opposing army has to do is conference call one number in the U.S. onto all military communications and the U.S. can't listen in.

FYI--no prior court has ever made a ruling that simply being under U.S. control means habeas rights. See ALL PRIOR FOREIGN WARS. Habeas rights only attached if brought to U.S. soil, as certain Germans were.

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in thinking that you would not at least consider reasonable counter-arguments to your point of view on this case.

I will extract some quotes from relevant articles that show why the majority ruled as they did and why they saw such basis for their ruling in the US Constitution.

The government had contended that noncitizens detained as enemy combatants outside the country have no constitutional rights and no privilege of habeas corpus. Kennedy considered three factors and found that in this case, there are such rights.

Kennedy considered these factors:

The citizenship and status of the detainee and the adequacy of the process to make the determination.

The nature of the sites where the apprehension and detention took place.

The practical obstacles to determining the petitioner’s entitlement to habeas.

Kennedy noted the detainees are contesting their status as enemy combatants and that procedural protections in hearings to determine their status are limited. And while the detainees were captured overseas, they are being held at Guantanamo, “within the constant jurisdiction of the United States.” And while the costs of granting habeas rights may be high, Kennedy said, the concerns are not controlling.

“It is true that before today the court has never held that noncitizens detained by our government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution,” Kennedy wrote. “But the cases before us lack any precise historical parallel.”

If the Executive elects to incarcerate a prisoner for an extended period of time, he must be prepared to persuade an Article III judge that there are good reasons for such a detention. Congress can address some of the practical problems that may arise from habeas litigation, such as forum shopping. If habeas litigation is abused or becomes excessive and burdensome, Congress can also establish a system of purely discretionary review. So long as a prisoner has the ability to petition an Article III court, and that tribunal possesses the power to review the legality of the detention, as well as the power to discharge the prisoner, the Great Writ will retain its
vitality as a bulwark of liberty.

CATO

How can you call it an apology when you don't apologize?

Also, you haven't fulfilled your half of the agreement so while I am under no obligation to read your information, I will note this:

being captured by the United States and being held in Gitmo makes you neither a native born citizen nor a naturalized citizen....

There is still no protection by the Constitution.

We didn't grant such status to World War 2 captured German Soldiers and we kept some of them ACTUALLY IN the United States.

We had captured German soldiers in CT, OR, NM, ID, IA, AL, VA, OK, CA, WV, NE, etc.

They didn't get constitutional protection because they were enemy combatants... specifically Nazis captured on the field of battle...

The right just isn't there, despite the Leftist SC Judges saying it is.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

The government cannot imprison people on US controlled soil (which Guantanamo is) without cause. I did apologize. I apologized for the ad hominem. I will not apologize for categorizing your argument as childish.

They're only in 'legal limbo' because judicial activist supporters like yourself are trying to CREATE the limbo.

The government CAN imprison people on US controled soil without cause, but cannot imprision CITIZENS without cause. However, they have not imprisoned people without cause. They captured enemy combatants/terrorists on the field of battle, trying to kill our troops. Many of those who have been released we RECAPTURED on the field of battle again, trying to kill our troops.

These people are not CITIZENS.

They COULD have been protected under the geneva convention, except that they don't wear a uniform, they DO target civilians and they torture/kill our troops when they capture them (which is three requirements of someone to be protected by the Geneva Convention treaties)....

In fact, if someone were to make a textbook example of who the US government COULD imprision, it would be these guys.

The only ones who think there is any legal limbo regarding these enemy combatants/terrorists are you and 5 leftist judicial activists on the Supreme Court.

The Constitution is Clear. Precident is Clear. US Law is Clear.

YOU are trying to muddy the waters, and it makes me wonder what your motive is to try and get these enemy combatants released.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

They captured enemy combatants/terrorists on the field of battle, trying to kill our troops. Many of those who have been released we RECAPTURED on the field of battle again, trying to kill our troops.

Really? How do you know? If there is an innocent man in that group, is he just out of luck? You continue using your claim of unencumberd trust of the US Military as a cornerstone of your argument. However, it is the government, not the military, that must prove that it has cause to hold these people on US soil.

However, it is the government, not the military, that must prove that it has cause to hold these people on US soil.

No, it really doesn't because, you see (for the umpteenth time), these people do not have the protection of the Constitution.

This is exactly why I suggested that you read the constitution, as you CLEARLY do not understand who it applies to and, more specifically, who it does NOT apply to.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I have shown you that the Constitution does apply in this case and I have given you several other examples of Conservatives that agree with the decision. I don't know whether you read or will ever read them but you are the only one who loses if you insist on not even considering the other argument.

No, you haven't.

You have given examples of why liberal supreme court justices defended the idea to apply the Constitution to someone it has never applied to.

You, also, haven't upheld your end of the bargain to read the constitution and submit a report as to whe the CONSTITUTION says it applies to.

Of course, I'm sure you'll weasel out of it saying "Oh, I never agreed to it." or some other such drivel.

You also have been proven to be a supporter of judicial activism and an interpretation of the Constitution as a 'living document' with your support of having the constitutional protections apply to people who are not native citizens or naturalized citizens.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

opinion. There are plenty of examples where effective U.S. control of an area does not result in Constitutional rights.

Example: U.S Military base in Saudi Arabia. Does freedom of religious expression exist on that base pursuant to the US Constitution? If so, every U.S. soldier should sue for damages.

You like the opinion because you like the outcome, but the principle of Constitutional rights applying as a result of U.S. "control" over a particular area has no basis in precedent.

My objection to your position is very specific.

But there is no CONSTITUTIONAL requirement that those individuals be able to seek redress in the civil courts of the U.S.

Congress created a review process that did not involve habeas petitions. That is the law, and there is no Constitutional provision that trumps that law.

Again, apply your framework to WWII---we would have needed thousands of courts just to handle the German, Italian, and Japanese POWs.

While the Congress and President did come up with a form of recourse for these detainees, the court ruled that it was not an effective avenue for this purpose. Hence, they had no choice but to point to and apply the explicit protection afforded in the US Constitution - habeas corpus. I, and many other Conservatives, agree that the Constitution applies to the people under the effective control of the US government and on US controlled soil. If the government had created a more effective method of redress, then this would never have gone to the SCOTUS.

Putting aside your assertion that you 'and many other Conservatives' agree with this Judicial Activism by the Supreme Court, you're still left to deal with the idea that the Supreme Court is deciding that people who are not US Citizens, either native born or naturalized, have the rights of protection under the Constitution.

This went to the Supreme Court because mushbrains wanted to get the Enemy Combatants and Terrorists held in Gitmo a chance to get free.

And you support that.

Good work.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Me, George Will, The CATO institute, numerous Republican and Democratic lawmakers, members of the JAG corp and 5 members of the SCOTUS really want the terrorists to win. I can't wait for them to get out and start mudering Americans. This is not about one side's interpretation of the rule of law or support for one of our most basic legal rights, it's about seeing the terrorists win. You got us. Why don't you see if you can get a medal for your discovery.

in which the principle that U.S. control over foreign soil resulted in the vesting of rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Do that, and I will agree that the opinion is not baseless.

If not, you will be forced to agree that the Court acted not out of a defense of the Constitution, but out of their own inclinations of how things should be run (they should run for Congress and leave their jobs at the court).

Your analysis makes it impossible for the US to effectively hold POWs for the course of a war.

Whether some "conservatives" join you in this desire for national suicide, does not make it correct, right, or conservative.

If you want to call my side judicial activist, then that's fine. I will see what I can do to find some case law that supports my side of the argument. However, I am not alone in my opinion and this is a battle that I am sure will continue to be waged for some time. I do not, however, think this ruling makes us less safe because this ruling does not free a single detaineee. It simply gives them the right to know, and for the public to know, why they are being held.

and they don't cite another case in support of the proposition of US control equals Constitutional rights. They very much make the assumption, and say that it doesn't contradict past precedent (including one WWII case which they distinguish as being under allied control, not US control).

I agree that the government should not have absolute power over these prisoners. However, the people best situated to make the appropriate compromise is the President + Congress, not 5 justices on the USSC.

The place to achieve your desired result in the political process, not the SC. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Judicial restraint is a lynchpin of freedom. There is not enough of it.

To be continued... :-)

Your argument is most short sighted. Its one thing to not accurately predict the future, it is another thing to just flat out ignore the past.

From the U.S. Constitution?

Or from the mind of Kennedy?

Anybody can make up a multi-factor test---and that is exactly what the USSC did.

When courts just invent new rights contrary to established precedent, it is the worst form of lawlessness.

The U.S. COnstitution does not bestow the right of illegal enemy combatants with no connection to the U.S. who are captured and imprisoned outside the confines of U.S. soil the right to have U.S. court entertain a writ of habeas corpus.

Congress could pass a law (if signed by the President) that would grant such prisoners that right.

However, there is NO basis in the Constitution for such a requirement. Remember, the SC is not about deciding what is fair, what is right, or what is smart. The SC's decision was to determine what was CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED.

The correct answer is -there is no right built into the U.S. Constitution or under U.S. law.

The Supreme Court made it up.

It is an ABOMINATION.

Only if you accept the premise that the Supreme Court can just make stuff up.

Using your logic (and the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court), every captured German in WWII (keep in mind that there were tens of thousands of POWs by the end) was entitled to his day in court.

The SC ruling makes it impossible to fight a war of any scale.

The SC has declared to the world that the U.S. will no longer be able to fight large scale wars, because the enemy can bury us in habeas petitions.

The concept of habeas corpus for people having to connection to the country has NOT been established since Magna Carta.

When the English army captured some of Napoleon's soldiers, they were NOT given habeas rights even though those troups were uniformed combatants.

You are using broad concepts outside their meaning.

Uh, you can't just impeach someone because you don't like what they did.

You need to have a reason to impeach them.

Those who support impeachment of the 5 who were in favor of applying the constitution to those to which it does not apply suggest that they don't have the authority to say that enemy combatants/terrorists have any 'rights' under the constitution.... that is a rational argument that only lacks the support of the Democrat-Controlled Congress.

However, to impeach the 4 who said that they shouldn't grant the rights to these enemy combatants/terrorists.... upon what grounds would you suggest they be impeached?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

the charge is 'placing themselves higher than the Constitution'. I'd like the Democrats to give that a try, and justify THAT ONE to the public.

If we don't like the ruling. What you propose is legal, and yes, I fully advocate going about it that way. However, IMPEACHMENT is also legal and Constitutional, and the ruling was such an outrageous breach of the Constitution that impeachment is a fully justified (and legal) response.

All of the hysterics around this ruling and especially the calls for impeachment are incredibly unConservative.

Feel free to elaborate on that. 'Respect for law & order', which equates almost precisely to 'defending the Constitution' a major tenet of Conservatism. When one of the 3 co-equal branches has grabbed all the power as if they were the ONLY branch of government, then Conservatism demands that we TAKE THAT POWER BACK.

Standing around, wringing our hands and whining about those rotten Justices is what I'd call 'unConservative'. Taking the power back, that is Classic Conservatism.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I'm not sure I think impeachment proceedings would be a good idea right now, but they are Constitutional and the ruling was a direct violation of the very Law they must uphold. Nothing unconservative about that.

It isn't a matter of ruling to our liking or not - it is a matter of following the Constitution. Solid originalist rulings may not always please us, but they at least reasoned them correctly. This was neither correct or even a legitimate attempt at such.