Thursday, June 29, 2006

"Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check.'"

Thank you, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, and the other three SCOTUS justices who still have some vague grasp of what democracy is supposed to be about some of the time. As in this instance.

Supreme Court blocks Bush, Gitmo war trials


"Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

The court's ruling was a resounding loss for the Bush administration. Justices also rejected the administration's claim that the case should be thrown out on grounds that a new law stripped their authority to consider it.

"It's certainly a nail in the coffin for the idea that the president can set up these trials," said Barbara Olshansky, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents about 300 Guantanamo detainees.

12 comments:

  1. It's a happy day for dancing, and just in time for Bastille Day!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

    Oh, shut yer yap, Breyer. Seriously, though, it's a nice stand by the Supremes, but as I was discussing elsewhere, I don't know how much this means. Mostly good as a show of bullshit calling, which is, hey, a good place to start after all.

    5-3 with Roberts recused and Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissenting.

    Heh. Well, neither surprising nor encouraging.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Problem is, Belle, that it was DEMOCRATS like Landrieu and Lieberman and the like who greased the wheels for people like Alito and Roberts to make it onto the Supreme Court.

    So even though there is a difference between Dems and Reps, in reality the difference didn't matter much; either way, the consevatives find a way to get over when the "liberals" cave in and accept their rules.

    And remember..Dubya does have a way of ignoring even Supreme Court rulings that don't go his way...and his Democratic enablers will help him find a way to get over this time, too.

    Nevertheless, it is heartening that even a stopped clock can work twice a day.


    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
  4. Landrieu and Lieberman aren't the whole party, and DINO's in Congress aren't the whole story; there is no way in fucking hell we would have anything remotely resembling this SCOTUS if any Dem to the left of Lieberman--hell, probably even Lieberman himself (welllll) were in the WH.

    at any rate, it's all very well to pin one's hopes on a viable, better alternative; the trouble is it doesn't exist right now, and I don't see even the glimmering of one on the horizon; so. you work with what you've got.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, a small sigh of relief.

    ReplyDelete
  6. DINOs? Double Income, No Onions?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Democrats in Name Only, but I do like "Double Income, No Onions".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, Roberts' recusal was entirely legitimate: he was a member of the secret court that the ruling called into question (I think). When you lump him together with Alito, always remember that James Dobson bitched about his excessive liberalism and that he gave pro bono advice to pro-gay activists in a landmark gay rights case.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's not Roberts' self-recusal here that I was referring to.

    Yeah, we'll see what happens, wrt Roberts. he's a slippery one. and very young.

    ReplyDelete