Posted on 06/29/2006 8:34:57 AM PDT by libstripper
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Full opinon in pdf
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf
More Scalia:
"Though it does not squarely address the issue, the Court hints ominously that “the Government’s preferred reading” would “rais[e] grave questions about Congress’ authority to impinge upon this Court’s appellate jurisdiction,particularly in habeas cases.”" (Citation omitted)
"It is not clear how there could be any such lurking questions, in light of the aptly named “Exceptions Clause” of Article III, §2, which, in making our appellate jurisdiction subject to “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make,” explicitly permits exactly what Congress has done here."
That's my main beef as a lawyer. This decision throws out hundreds of years of jurisprudence to reach the decision the libs want.
Sad decision. I thought it would come down on the side of the Miltary Tribunals. What a blow!
Excellent point.
More Scalia
"To put this in context:The charge against the respondent in Councilman was the off-base possession and sale of marijuana while he was stationed in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, see id., at 739–740. The charge against the petitioner here is joining and actively abetting the murderous conspiracy that slaughtered thousands of innocent American civilians without warning on September 11, 2001. While Councilman held that the prosecution of the former charge involved “military necessities” counseling against our interference, the Court does not even ponder the same question for the latter charge."
It was essentially a 5 to 4 decision with Kennedy the swing vote. I hope Stevens enjoys an early retirement.
"Here, apparently for the first time in history, see Motion to Dismiss 6, a District Court enjoined ongoing military commission proceedings, which had been deemed “necessary” by the President “[t]o protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks.” Military Order of Nov. 13, 3 CFR §918(e). Such an order brings the Judicial Branch into direct conflict with the Executive in an area where the Executive’s competence is maximal and ours is virtually nonexistent. We should exercise our equitable discretion to avoid such conflict. Instead, the Court rushes headlong to meet it."
Did you all know that Roberts had to recuse himself? He had heard the case before at the DC Circuit and could not rule on it again. I think that is an imporant point to make to all the Perpetual Bitchers on our side. This is one of the LAST decisions that will be handed down by the OLD court. This is NOT a "betray" of the "True Conservatives" by the Bush Judges as some of our psuedo Conservative Freepers will be screaming.
Justice Thomas Dissent;
"The Court’s evident belief that it is qualified to pass on the “[m]ilitary necessity,” ante, at 48, of the Commander in Chief’s decision to employ a particular form of force against our enemies is so antithetical to our constitutional structure that it simply cannot go unanswered. I respectfully dissent."
And they not only had to have their way- they had to have it NOW!
They wouldn't even wait until a case came up that had followed the DTA. When they could have made the very same arrogant ruling on the tribunals without denying the clear meaning of the word "any".
I always read Scalia to know what the Constitutuion actually says.
More Thomas hitting the libs upside the head.
"But this suggestion betrays the plurality’s unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare and its willful blindness to our precedents. The starting point of the present conflict (or indeed any conflict) is not determined by congressional enactment, but rather by the initiation of hostilities. See Prize Cases, supra, at 668 (recognizing that war may be initiated by “invasion of a foreign nation,” and that such initiation, and the President’s response, usually precedes congressional action)."
Here he calls them stupid;
"And the plurality’s unsupportable contrary determination merely confirms that “‘the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility’” for making military or foreignaffairs judgments. Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 585 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (quoting Chicago & Southern Air Lines, 333 U. S., at 111)."
The prez already said congress will have to step to the plate, nice in an election year
How many Justices heard this? Where is Roberts?
Here he calls them Dangerous:
"After seeing the plurality overturn longstanding precedents in order to seize jurisdiction over this case, ante, at 2–4 (SCALIA, J., dissenting), and after seeing them disregard the clear prudential counsel that they abstain in these circumstances from using equitable powers, ante, at 19–24, it is no surprise to see them go on to overrule one after another of the President’s judgments pertaining to the conduct of an ongoing war. Those Justices who today disregard the commander-in-chief’s wartime decisions, only 10 days ago deferred to the judgment of the Corps ofEngineers with regard to a matter much more within the competence of lawyers, upholding that agency’s wildly implausible conclusion that a storm drain is a tributary of the waters of the United States. See Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. ___(2006). It goes without saying thatthere is much more at stake here than storm drains. The plurality’s willingness to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."
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.