US supreme court reverses its own chief justice, administration

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
crazy goings on! if there's already a thread for this, i apologize

i. the article i read said that the 5-3 ruling against military trials for prisoners held at guantanamo was written by stevens; alito, scalia, and thomas EACH wrote their own dissenting opinion, and kennedy and breyer also wrote one! ??? am i right in thinking this kind of thing is an outlier in the usual way things work? (usually: one opinion and a dissent) - it seems a particularly fractious case for these guys if not even the dissenters can agree on, or trust each other with, why they dissent.

ii. so first the supreme court says: you have to give these guys SOME kind of access to lawyers and SOME kind of trial .. now they say, a military commission type thing is NOT sufficient w/o authorization from congress .. what do it mean? are all these guys going to have to be given proper trials under normal US law now? cuz that would be kind of awesome

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 29 June 2006 13:53 (nineteen years ago)

yes, good news, although still a little scary - one wonders how the vote would've gone if roberts hadn't recused himself (given, as i've heard, that am important part of CJ's role is "shaping consensus" etc)

maybe it will take a little heat off NYT et al as well.

pleased to mitya (mitya), Thursday, 29 June 2006 14:00 (nineteen years ago)

there's no heat on the NYTimes except a few pompous congressional blowhards, nobody else gives a shit

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 29 June 2006 14:02 (nineteen years ago)

I haven't read about this particular decision, but it's not that uncommon for the justices to write lots of different opinions, especially in contentious cases this like this one.

Party Time Country Female (pullapartgirl), Thursday, 29 June 2006 14:11 (nineteen years ago)

but but but they got denounced for treason on the House floor! there's even a non-binding resolution thing being drawn up! how could they POSSIBLY fight all that off?

xpost

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 June 2006 14:13 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, i guess it's bizarre that it's even contentious - and wouldn't the majority opinions at least be consolidated/agreed-upon? i fully admit i don't know squat about the usual form of this stuff, tho

xpost haha

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 29 June 2006 14:14 (nineteen years ago)

Re: multiple dissents and joint opinions - happens all the time, don't wig out. Both with "yea" and "nay" opinions it's a result of different justices reaching their conclusions by different reasonings, and justices are hesitant to hitch their wagon to philosophies they don't agree with; they'd rather just go on record with their own takes.

Doctor Casino (Doctor Casino), Thursday, 29 June 2006 15:31 (nineteen years ago)

Dubya kept saying "serious" and "seriously" during his reaction

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:18 (nineteen years ago)

he's serious about the hard work of being president

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:26 (nineteen years ago)

Seriously serious.

Party Time Country Female (pullapartgirl), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:41 (nineteen years ago)

Being the decider, he's gotta be seriously serious about this serious sort of stuff.

David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:44 (nineteen years ago)

or else there will be killers loose on the street. seriously.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

I got my duct tape!

David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:49 (nineteen years ago)

i like this analysis of it

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 June 2006 18:53 (nineteen years ago)

and good ol' trent lott:

They shouldn’t have ruled the way they did. This is not a bunch of pussycats we’re talking about here... This is Osama bin Laden’s driver.

A DRIVER OH NOES

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 June 2006 22:36 (nineteen years ago)

"But preliminarily my opinion is they probably didn’t even have jurisdiction."

wait wait wait - is there some court higher than the Supreme Court I don't know about? Is there some law of the land that the SC doesn't have jurisdiction over? wtf is he referring to here? fuckin Lott, I hate that asshole.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 June 2006 22:38 (nineteen years ago)

it doesn't matter if it's John Wayne Gacy, he's still entitled to due process

twunts

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 29 June 2006 22:46 (nineteen years ago)

Or at least a song on the next Sufjan album.

Goo-night, Swede Hurt (noodle vague), Thursday, 29 June 2006 22:48 (nineteen years ago)

i found that link from here, which offers the line:

Look for Justice Sunday IV: Vengeance is Mine Sayeth Delay.

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 June 2006 23:06 (nineteen years ago)

The prison commander had earlier said such a ruling would not affect the running of the camp and prisoners' lawyers said it may do little to secure their freedom in the short term.

[...]

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said after the ruling: "Guantanamo serves as an important detention and intelligence (gathering) facility. These are dangerous people."

Whitman, speaking at the Pentagon, said: "Many of them have vowed to go back to the battlefield if they were released. And it serves as a place where we're able to learn about terrorist networks, their operations, their activities. It enables us to thwart future attacks."

ASSHOLE, we don't release folks who have actually been convicted. way to completely bullshit the issue.

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 June 2006 23:16 (nineteen years ago)

X-post, tracer.

Big Loud Ape Mountain (Big Loud Mountain Ape), Friday, 30 June 2006 00:07 (nineteen years ago)

yay, we still have something sort of vaguely resembling a constitutional government!

Maria (Maria), Friday, 30 June 2006 00:16 (nineteen years ago)

fun with Justice Thomas

...The Court thus properly rejected Justice Thomas’s extraordinary idea that the “structural advantages attendant to the Executive Branch” in war-time—aspects of executive power that make that branch the “most dangerous” to individual liberty today—merit a hands-off approach by the courts. (Ironically, Justice Thomas refers to Justice Stevens’ “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare”; but Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomas’s official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service....

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 30 June 2006 05:31 (nineteen years ago)

Expect a move to amend the UCMJ, and a different result if the amendment goes through and a new case works its way up to the Supreme Court. Stevens is the only Justice worth a bucket of warm spit on criminal procedure, and the international law component of the case will be more important if the UCMJ doesn't explicitly bring in the Geneva Convention.

Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 30 June 2006 05:53 (nineteen years ago)

The Bush comment abt "killers on the street" was bizarre and also telling...watch for Cheney to pick up on this in the following days.

m coleman (lovebug starski), Friday, 30 June 2006 10:57 (nineteen years ago)

I love the way Democratic war experience is not valid, yet being conserative gives some natural insight.

pleased to mitya (mitya), Friday, 30 June 2006 12:24 (nineteen years ago)

And somewhat off topic, did anyone read that Breyer's book from a year or two ago? It sounded reasonably interesting, although not worth me shelling out on a hardcover.

pleased to mitya (mitya), Friday, 30 June 2006 13:46 (nineteen years ago)

Related: although it may be nothing new in terms of facts presented, this episode of This American Life puts a human face on the prisoners in Guantanamo. It's heartbreaking.

Deric W. Haircare (Deric W. Haircare), Friday, 30 June 2006 14:30 (nineteen years ago)

"killers on the street"

that's been the thing. the only way they can possibly get around due process is to paint these guys are the end-all/be-all of horror "america's never faced so great a threat not even global thermal nuclear war or a war where half the citizens are actively trying to shoot the other half or a war taking on the greatest military force ever" and drum enough so much fear that it short-circuits people away from wondering about the 80-odd% of the guys in there who just got grabbed off the street by pakistani/afghani/northern alliance bounty hunters 4 years ago.

so they have to cover up any possibility of their mistake being revealed by completely shearing away from any reality of what's actually going on, i.e. repeatedly stamping their feets like a 5 year old demanding that any trial whatsoever is akin to turning these evildoers loose into our gated communities and enabling them to actively date, corrupt, and/or sodomize the upstanding virginial white daughters of god-fearing americans.

it's the same thing about the NSA dealie; deliberately misrepresenting the fact that folks were pissed off about them completely blowing out any law or judicial oversight to wiretap the Kerry campaign, senate democrats, NYT/WaPo reporters, etc.

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 30 June 2006 15:42 (nineteen years ago)

it's another example of them clinging to the fundamentalist way of thinking, as Jimmy Carter pointed out.

Akin to the folks who stake their life and their sanity on the fact that each & every single word in every book of the Bible ever printed/written in the last 3000 years has to be God's Literal Truth, or It's All Over, Man.

Any nuance, any complication, any possible interpretation or differece in opinion, and they percieve their entire authoritarian structure as 2 microseconds from obliteration. And so that must never happen, therefore anyone who dares disagree with Dear Unitary Executive is a evil traitor who must be immediately put to death etc etc etc.

You get the idea.

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 30 June 2006 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

I liked this bit from L. Greenhouse's article in the NYT today: "It made for a striking tableau on the final day of the first term of the Roberts court: the young chief justice, observing his work of just a year earlier taken apart point by point by the tenacious 86-year-old Justice Stevens, winner of a Bronze Star for his service as a Navy officer in World War II."

youn (youn), Saturday, 1 July 2006 01:07 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.