So Which Is It? Supreme Court Destroys Democracy, or Upholds It?

[GiovanniC]

MSGOP says "the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a partial victory to the Bush administration, ruling that Congress gave the president the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial".

Other people are saying that the Supreme Court handed Bush his ass.

Which is it?

[LittleApple81]

1. The first one. This court would never hand Bush his ass. Presidency, yes

his ass, no.

[Spazito]

2. I read that ruling on the Hamdi case as a loss to bush...

because it actually gives the detainees the right to challenge their treatment, being detained without charges, etc, in court. The part that says the President has the right to hold them without charges seems to be some kind of cover while the USSC, in reality, punted the cases down to the courts that will decide the detainees cases. Very, very weird, am waiting to see how this is interpreted by the legal minds on Findlaw, etc.

[KittyWampus]

4. The JAG's Rep'ing Gitmo Detainees WANTED This

it is a loss for Bush.

[Dookus]

3. It appears a little bit of both

It seems citizens can't be held without access to counsel and the courts. That's a blow to Bush.

The court seemed to say, though, that the President CAN designate a citizen as an enemy combatant. It's not clear, though, what that designation means if they have access to the courts.

As for the non-citizens, it's a pure blow to Bush. The Gitmo detainees will now go to court. Hahmdi will go to court. Padilla's case is going back to a lower court.

I'm trying to piece it all together, but despite early headlines, it looks like Bush lost pretty big.

[Tellurian]

8. Where is there a link to read the court's decision? nt

[hang a left]

17. Here ya go

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03slipopinion.html

[H2O Man]

5. Today's decisions

can not be seen as supporting the administration's policies. What the collective decisions do is demonstrate that the Supreme Court still has some respect for the U.S. Constitution, and are firmly reminding the administration that although many presidents have taken "emergency" war-time steps beyond what is outlined in the Constitution, the rule of law eventually prevails.

[Individualist]

6. The media are spinning like tops

They're emphasizing the Hamdi decision as a so-called Bush loss in order to divert attention from the fact that Americans can now be held without charges or trial. :nuke:

It's absolute Rovian propoganda being spread once again by the whore media.

[Rose Siding]

7. They rewrote the Constitution on one ruling

By saying that Congress can give Bush the right to detain US citizens indefinitely and w/o charges, they destroyed due process protections. The only way that can happen Constitutionally, is with an amendment and all the support required to pass it.

The Court allowed Congress power it doesn't have, to give Bush power he doesn't have.

[Tellurian]

10. Any links to their decision? nt

[Rose Siding]

11. This is the one I meant-

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court delivered a partial victory to the Bush administration in its war on terrorism Monday, ruling narrowly that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but that the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.

more... http://www.modbee.com/24hour/nation/story/1461472p-8863287c.html

but there's some confusion about this description of the ruling. The news *may* not be as bad as this looks.

*on edit: This Reuters write up makes it look better! (at least not nearly as bad as I surmised from the AP snip)

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that an American captured overseas in President Bush's war on terrorism cannot be held indefinitely in a U.S. military jail without a chance to contest the detention.

Four of the nine justices concluded that constitutional due process rights demand that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant must be given "a meaningful opportunity" to contest case for his detention before a neutral party.

Two more justices agreed that the detention of American citizen Yaser Hamdi was unauthorized and that the terror suspect should have a real chance to offer evidence he is not an enemy combatant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11657-2004Jun28.html

[Tellurian]

20. Thanks, PL...and Spaz...plowing through Padilla..nt

[Spazito]

12. There is a link in this thread to the decisions...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x651416#651623

For some reason I couldn't get the link, by itself, to post.

[hang a left]

18. Here ya go

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03slipopinion.html

[Tellurian]

19. Thanks a bunch...

Just scanning briefly..

War gives these judgments power..

NO WAR-NO POWER.. maybe..

[Tellurian]

21. Liberal...did you notice this caveat in the decision?

I used the pdf conversion to html for reading purposes-

There seems to be more language included in the html version..


For Rumsfeld vs Padilla

under:

4 Page 5 6

Cite as: 542 U. S. _ _ _ _ ( 2004) 1
Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

************************************

How much you want to bet the wording is changed before it goes to print! Reading it straight on, the language is ambiguous at best and could be subtly changed back to reflect a negative.

I don't trust these people one wit!

[hang a left]

26. Haven't read it yet.

I have been surfing around the threads. Will print it and read it later.

But...I don't trust them either.

[tom_paine]

9. We DON'T HAVE a "Supreme Court"

We have a Judicial Arm of the Coup, much like many other Third World Nations whom we have joined (we sure don't belong to the Free World, anymore).

In that context, their decisions which lend finality to the Fall of the Old American Republic, make perfect sense.

Add the effective end of "The Right to Remain Silent" and the Busheviks are almost ready to implement the Next Phase, probably in 2005 or 2006 of the Subjugation of Amerika and the Destruction of Liberty in favor of "Managed Democracy" (doesn't the New Totalitarianism have a purty name?)

[pdmike]

13. Depends On What Happens Now

I think it depends largely on what happens when the detainees DO challenge their captivity.

If The Supremes are just sitting there, waiting to rubber stamp some lower court's validation of the detentions, then not much is going to be accomplished, is it?

As an aside on this point, I am given to understand that many of the detainees were merely people who were turned in by their "friends" and neighbors in order to collect the reward money offered by the U.S.

As such, it would seem to me we cannot get the detention hearings moving fast enough.

pdmike

[Guaranteed]

14. What the hell does that mean?

"Challenge" their captivity? Who's NOT going to challenge their captivity?

What are the magic words? "I want my lawyer!"?

Then the guards say, "OH!! OH! He wants his LAWYER!! WELL then, we'd better get him his lawyer! HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!!"

On edit: "I think Mr. LOUDMOUTH here needs a couple more bamboo shoots under his fingernails!"

[yodermon]

15. mixed bag.

But mostly good, IMO.

http://kutv.com/topstories/topstories_story_180103554.html

Court: Bush Can Hold 'Combatants'
# Two U.S. Citizens Have Been Labeled "Enemy Combatants"

Jun 28, 2004 9:16 am US/Mountain
WASHINGTON (CBS) The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the Bush administration can detain U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" but must offer them — and terrorism suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay — access to courts.

The decisions were long awaited as crucial to defining the boundaries of presidential power in time of war. Their content was largely a defeat for the administration.

The nine justices ruled narrowly that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen, without charges or trial as an "enemy combatant," but said the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.

The court also ruled that people seized as potential terrorists may file suit in American courts to challenge their captivity. The ruling affects detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The vote in both cases was 6-3.

The justices said they would not rule in a third case concerning the war on terrorism — that of "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla. Like Hamdi, he is a U.S. citizen who has been held in a military prison without charges or, until recently, access to a lawyer.

But...

The court on Monday also:

Ruled that evidence derived from a confession after police failed to give Miranda rights does not have to be suppressed at trial.

[Guaranteed]

16. See my post #14.

This is NOT a mixed bag. This is the death of America.

[goodhue]

22. Neither

Its in between. Also, its two cases each with multiple opinions.

One case, is Hamdi and partially goes against administration as a plurality conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-6696

HAMDI et al. v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al.

Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.

Justice O'Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. Pp. 14-15.

Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concluded that Hamdi's detention is unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant. Pp. 2-3, 15.

O'Connor, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.


The 2nd case is Padilla

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1027

RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE v. PADILLA et al.

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O'Connor, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.

This case is more favorable to Bush in that a majority essetially ducks hard issues by kicking case out on jurisdictional grounds. According to the majority, the District of South Carolina, not the Southern District of New York, was where Padilla should have brought his habeas petition.

[Guaranteed]

23. Interesting phrasing: "have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence...

...that he is not an enemy combatant."

I thought it was the other way around.

[goodhue]

24. Indeed

Souter puts it thusly:

"It should go without saying that in joining with the plurality to produce a judgment, I do not adopt the plurality's resolution of constitutional issues that I would not reach. It is not that I could disagree with the plurality's determinations (given the plurality's view of the Force Resolution) that someone in Hamdi's position is entitled at a minimum to notice of the Government's claimed factual basis for holding him, and to a fair chance to rebut it before a neutral decision maker, see ante, at 26; nor, of course, could I disagree with the plurality's affirmation of Hamdi's right to counsel, see ante, at 32-33. On the other hand, I do not mean to imply agreement that the Government could claim an evidentiary presumption casting the burden of rebuttal on Hamdi, see ante, at 27, or that an opportunity to litigate before a military tribunal might obviate or truncate enquiry by a court on habeas, see ante, at 31-32."

[Guaranteed]

25. Hmmm...and to think that this is the man

who was attacked while he was jogging a couple of months ago.

What a coincidence.