50/50 that civil liberty/habeas corpus will be restored by Supreme Court

[papau]

When this Supreme Court declared on 6/29/06 that Gitmo torture and jailing for life without charges - our then current practice - was illegal, they only saud that the rules of "law" required that there had to be a Congressional Law authorizing such practices. Indeed, not having such a law made such jailing forever practices and torture rules "unconstitutional" because in this case "no emergency prevents consultation with Congress" so "judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation's ability to deal with danger". Some read the decision as suggesting the provisions that a new law might have. However, the 6/29/06 5-3 decision did not say that without these provisions, any new law would be ruled unconstitutional.

The current Court majority has no love of the Bill of Rights beyond making sure those rights cover private property claims of Corporations. This new law's loss of habeas corpus — the demand for legal justification of one's imprisonment - is just our "Enabling Act". Indeed Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz - or Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volkgiven in German) was a simple grant of legislative powers to the government - meaning Hitler - now meaning the President - Bush. The US version adds to the 1933 concept a provision that tells the Courts they do not have a right to review actions of the President under this law - and indeed can not review this law - period.

Bush as a less murderous/evil Hitler, obtaining dictatorial powers using largely legal means while the media says nothing against the GOP's new laws, or cheers their passage on (the cheers coming from Fox/Washington Times/RW Radio Talk as usual), has become a valid comparison - albeit a comparison shouted down by our media. Those who said that 9/11 exposed a "failure" of the Bush administration are finally seeing just how successful Bush's pre and post 911 actions have been.

Justice Thomas in the 6/29/06 Gitmo ruling said the majority "openly flouts our well-established duty to respect the Executive's judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs." Justice Souter, one of the yes votes to stop the Gitmo assault on the Bill of Rights, said during the oral arguments "Whether or not the writ of habeas corpus was suspended, you are leaving us with the position of the United States that the Congress may validly suspend it inadvertently?" Well, Justice Souter will be happy to see that the suspension/termination of habeas corpus is no longer "inadvertent". The new law even applies to US Citizens as long as they are accused of being "enemy combatants". I guess that is because "military operations and foreign affairs" may have domestic critics that undermine the "war" effort, so we need to give the President this power to go around those pesky civil liberties, and jail those critics forever.

With today's makeup of the USSC, I give this destruction of the Constitution at least a 50/50 chance of being approved by this Supreme Court.

[zonkers]

1. Wonder what our forefathers looking down think of those odds.

[papau]

2. Our forefathers would be discussing the need for a new Constitution

and how to get that new constitution - quickly.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. I reiterate: the Supremes will leave the law alone if they determine this

issue is a political question and they have no business second-guessing the executive branch. Do a google on "political question" and see for yourselves.

[papau]

4. I agree that the neo-con Judges will stretch ""political question" so as

to justify upholding the new law.

The only question is just how many neo-con Judges do we have beyond the fascist lovers Scalia/Thomas.

[shance]

5. With this Supreme Court, Habeus Corpus will be swiftly eliminated.

I believe we need to keep it from getting there.

[katsy]

6. I have a question.

Let's say we win a majority in the Congress and Senate.

Can the law be repealed by Congress without it ever having a chance to be reviewed by the sc?

If it is repealed, what happens next?

[papau]

8. yes --the law can be repealed - but a GOP filibuster means we need 60

Senators.

It can be replealed at any time - before - or after - Supreme Court review.

And if replealed via a new law passed after the USSC had OK'd the death of habeas corpus , that would mean we had House control and 60+ votes in the Senate, so impeachment of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to OK this unconstitutional piece of crap would be next on the agenda.

But with LCD Screen electronic voting machines fixed so as to elect the GOP in some locations (analysis of the exit poll shows that not every electronic voting machine was fixed, nor is there a pattern - just random GOP fraud - we will have a hard time getting 60+ Senators.

[katsy]

9. thanks for explaining that papau.

We would need 52 Senators (so cheney doesn't in the loop) on our side to repeal IF the sc doesn't get to it first, correct?

[papau]

10. The Sup Ct review does not chg the need for 60- it is just the Senate rule

However, the GOP (Bush/Frist) have stated that they can change that rule by a majority vote if the President Pro-tem of the Senate (Vice Pres Cheney is the pres pro-tem of the Senate) so rules - making in effect the needed number only 51 to stop a GOP filibuster of a Dem law that restores civil rights, if we get the Presidency.

[Demeter]

7. It's Justice For All, Not Justice for Some

If all people are not granted equal rights, then nobody has any rights at all; it's all at the whim of the guy with the biggest fist. The Court will have to override this travesty, or else they might as well all go home and put their affairs in order, for they will be next.