Replies

Again you write about Congress and the Executive but not the people and I don't even see the relevance of Souter's or any SC justice's obscurity. Are you trying to say that the people can't or don't control the judiciary because they don't know it exists or because they don't know who the judges are? Or is your point that the judiciary doesn't need to be controlled because it doesn't have any real influence? Neither point, nor any other I can connect with your post, addresses effective popular control of the judiciary - in fact both argue against it.

You don't strike me as a moron and yet are unable to follow along. You're not even supporting your own off topic argument. Why has the administration gone to such great lengths to avoid judicial scrutiny in the WOT if they could simply ignore any inconvenient court decisions? In fact, how has it helped them? Haven't the courts taken up these cases anyway? Haven't detainees gotten their claims before the court? Aren't military tribunals also before the court? I will bet that these purported secret prisons will be the subject of court scrutiny before too long. Further, isn't it the case that the administration has complied with the court's rulings against them? Don't you agree they will comply with future ones?

I guess it is possible that you're being just too subtle for me. In clear and simple language, tell me what specific, *effective* constitutional means the people have to control the courts.

The people themselves don't have any *legal* means to deal with a renegade Supreme Court. That's what elected representation is for.

Having said that, it should also be noted that probably no more than 0.001% of the voting-age adults in this country are ever directly affected by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling anyway -- which probably explains the real lack of any concern about a renegade court that is supposedly usurping the power of the legislative and executive branches.

Why has the administration gone to such great lengths to avoid judicial scrutiny in the WOT if they could simply ignore any inconvenient court decisions?

There would be a potential political price to be paid, and the administration has simply avoided the problem altogether by doing this overseas instead of in the U.S.

In fact, how has it helped them? Haven't the courts taken up these cases anyway? Haven't detainees gotten their claims before the court? Aren't military tribunals also before the court?

Detainees at Guantanamo Bay have had some recourse in the U.S. courts, but that's a U.S. military base whose existence is known to a lot of people and where the inmates have been given legal representation. Nobody in Abu Ghraib or one of those mysterious CIA detention centers in eastern Europe has had any access to U.S. courts.

I will bet that these purported secret prisons will be the subject of court scrutiny before too long.

And I will bet that they won't. U.S. courts have no jurisdiction there, especially if the detainees aren't U.S. citizens. That's why they were put there in the first place. Even someone like "International Law" Breyer would have a hard time keeping a straight face while claiming that the U.S. Supreme Court has any jurisdiction in an Eastern European country where suspected terrorists from the Middle East are held and interrogated by foreign intelligence officials (you can be sure that there won't be any sign of U.S. officials at these places if the story gets any legs).