Posted on 06/28/2004 6:21:38 PM PDT by jwalsh07
This means that if a terrorist wants to appeal to our courts and has no money to pay for an attorney he is entitled to one. The American taxpayer now will have to pay for the defense of a jihadist. This is insane, the FF's are rolling over in their graves, and I am sending another check to the RNC. While we just gave the jihadist access to american juris prudence, they are hacking off heads, and plotting our doom.
out of control - and no way to stop it. even if Congress intervenes, what's to stop the court from casting aside new laws?
I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary wanted to be Chief Justice.
Another 10-15 years and Chelsea will be in politics. The Clintons remind me of stepping in gum. You can never get it all off.
I hear ya...
That's really all we need to know; That and how Ruth Bader-Ginsnose votes.
Hard to believe the Bubba-nominated socialist-globalist Ginsburg was approved 99-zip in the Senate. What was the GOP smoking that day??
This is one case where I would argue with Scalia. The Constitution governs the actions of the U.S. government and has jurisdiction wherever the US government tries to establish its jurisdition. Due process undergirds every principal of the constitution. If people can be denied due process for any excuse then none of us are guaranteed rights.
Yeah, that irks me bigtime. The lawsuits will be filed by the bushel.
Thanks to RINOs O'Connor and Kennedy -- and of course the biggest bamboozle of a SC appointee from a GOP Prez ever -- David Souter. What was George Bush thinkin'??
The SC situation could be construed as analogous microcosm of expecting RINOs to help facilitate the conservative cause.
They WILL NOT.
Why, they were 'putting aside partisan politics for the good of the country!'
The not so Supreme Court of today upholds the highest law of the land as those globalist pukes imagine it ought to be, not as the Constitution IS. I'm sick of it. I'm buying a big boat.
There is no legal precedent for same, none, nada, zippo. Alien combatants held outside of American soveriegnty are now imbued with the same rights as you. Presumptively, they must be Mirandized before being detained and ambushes will become a thing of the past because after all, killing somebody absent self defense is uconstitutional.
Except for unborn babies of course.
Why nothing of course.
“Executive imprisonment has been considered oppres-sive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The judges of England de-veloped the writ of habeas corpus largely to preserve these immunities from executive restraint.” Shaugh-nessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 218–219 (1953) (dissenting opinion).
Petitioners in these cases differ from the Eisentrager detainees in important respects: They are not nationals of countries at war with the United States, and they deny that they have engaged in or plotted acts of aggression against the United States; they have never been afforded access to any tribunal, much less charged with and con-victed of wrongdoing; and for more than two years they have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control.
I think that this argument is unimpeachable and really don't know where Scalia is coming from. While I usually agree with him, sometimes I find is authoritarianism scary. He is a very smart man and I am surprised that he cannot see the clear distinction in a case where no hearing of any sort was afforded at all.
See the above. I suppose that you could argue that the right of judicial review also appears nowhere in the Constitution. Frankly I am glad for it.
There's none so blind
as he who will not see.
He's a statist to the bone.
What do we have here at the end of this thread?
howls from Clover Bottom..lol
I guess they denied they were engaging in acts of aggression against the United States right after they stop shooting at our soldiers.
what you are arguing for is the Clinton model for anti-terror activities - treat them like crimes, handled by the judicial system. its the liberals dream come true - no war is possible, because there can really be no enemy - since battlefield opponents now have access to the US judicial system.
and what gets me is all you "strict constructionists" think that somehow your beliefs are going to SAVB the constitution. in fact, the opposite is true. because when nukes are detonated in a few US cities - the constitution is going to be suspended by the executive branch.
Better to have some sensible rulings now, to protect the Republic from foreign enemies - then to toss the whole thing in the trash can later when our permissiveness allows them to hit us.
Now, perhaps a reasonable argument can be made whether or not public safety required suspension of the privelege of the writ of habeas corpus in this case - for a time which has probably now long passed, but that is very different from finding no right to said writ in the first place.
As you say Scalia's deference to the authority of the [petty bureaucrats] of the state is sometimes quite frightening.
You are puttting words in both my mouth and the mouths of the majority of the court. All that the court held, as I emphasized in bold, is that this case is distinguished by the fact that these detainees were held without any tribunal or hearing, civilian OR MILITARY. I am a retired military officer. As I said, I have no problem with a military tribunal properly constituted, reviewable by the Military Court of Appeals. I have a big problem with NO HEARING or other process whatsoever.
In other words, Scalia has a hard time arguing his strained position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.