Posted on 06/16/2008 11:03:49 PM PDT by The_Republican
The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Well.
Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?
Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.
The decision, however, was 5-4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.
The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
he's got lots of company.
“Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?”
When you see the white flash you’ll know.
Yeah, but Will (unlike most of us conservatives) can’t stand — and chooses to attack — McCain when he takes a conservative position. Tells you more about Georgie-Porgie than it does about McCain.
It really is Reagan, Bush I and Ford’s fault!!!! Thank them for the brilliant picks that they chose. (Don’t give me the crap that they were tricked...please!!!) Really can’t believe that Republicans are the cause of the Supreme Court!!!! That is stunning. Quite frankingly since huge majority were picked by Republican Presidents can’t complain too much. I am thankful that the liberals don’t use that fact against us.
Will’s argument is unpersuasive. Will’s initial argument is that because he deems three decisions to be worse than the Gitmo decision McCain is wrong to say it is, “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
Will acknowledges the fundamental change in the law that brings us into uncertainty but supposes, “the defining will be by Congress, which will be graded by courts.” But as this decision has shown, the defining done by congress since first Gitmo (Hamdan) decision has been capriciously tossed aside by the majority. What reason does congress have to trust the courts based on this ruling?
The reasons why the Gitmo majority made one of the worst decisions in the court’s history are to be found in the dissenting opinions. The Supreme Court reneged on it’s previous Hamdan ruling that suggested congress didn’t get the wording right with respect to using military courts for enemy combatants. Congress addressed the court’s concern by amending the law, but the majority still found ignored the intent of congress. Justice Scalia in his dissent referred to this as “bait and switch”. When the court’s actions begin to resemble used car salesmen, then yes, I think there are certainly grounds for considering this one of the worst decisions.
The liberals on the supreme court seem bent on allowing our constitution to protect anyone in the world regardless of citizenship or enemy combatant status while at the same time selectively drawing from foreign law to reshape our own constitution by decree.
It’s true, Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter were all terrible appointments for any Republican president to make. In all 3 cases we had a R. president unwilling to face down the ‘Rats in Congress and fight for a conservative nominee. None of those 3 appointments is excusable. Of course, Ford and Bush Sr. tended toward the RINO anyway, but they should have displayed some basic respect for their indispensable political allies (why did both Ford and Bush, Sr. lose their re-election campaigns???) with a more competent SCOTUS nomination. Reagan found himself pushed toward Kennedy by the fiascos with Bork and Ginsburg. Reagan’s really big mistake was failing to fight hard for Bork — I had great admiration of course for President Ronald Reagan, but in that case he was wrong — after Ted Kennedy’s depraved smear campaign began against Robert Bork, we needed President Reagan to go on the attack and shatter the growing ‘Rat-RINO conspiracy against Bork. I don’t know whether or not Bork could have been confirmed, but Reagan never should have acquiesced with that vicious ‘Rat onslaught that changed the tenor of judicial appointments forever.
McCain has been taking a beating from we Conservatives on his opposition to drilling in Anwar. So, I think this is his way of showing us that he is back on the reservation. However, we are smarter than he thinks we are. Afterall, he has clearly demonstrated over the years his contempt for we conservatives. And, his strategy, it seems to me, is to put together a coalition of moderates and independents that will enable his winning the White House without the conservative vote. It's just as well as I have just about decided to stay home anyway...
Unfortunately, McCain is not very smart.
Kennedy appears the most weak kneed member of the Court. On rare occasion when he rules sensibly he follows that with a pathetic position that seems designed to appease his fellows on the LEFT.
Geo. Will is one of the “house conservatives” who is tolerated by the MSM because he is something of a “maverick” and is “nuanced.” Hard-core conservatives need not apply. Will knows he must throw the libs a bone now and then to maintain his position as “token conservative” on talking-head shows and lib papers.
Prissy
Snippy
Effete
Can anyone capture George Will better and/or briefer?
Unfortunately, a right to own slaves was implicit in the Constitution, which gave allowed counting 3/5 of the number of slaves in determining Congressional representation. The best of the Founding Fathers wanted to eliminate slavery as soon as possible (or at least stop its growth), but were blocked by extremists in the deep South.
Uh, Mr. Will: The Supreme Court is a campaign issue, and perhaps the most important one for not letting B. Hussein Obama anywhere near the White House.
All 4 judges who voted against this decision were appointed by Republican Presidents. Many appointees are stealth liberals, who have not revealed their bad tendencies. Conversely, anyone who clearly reveals conservative, originalist tendencies will be Borked by the libs. That’s why Reagan, faced with a Demonrat Senate, appointed Kennedy after the Bork debacle.
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.