Ya know that Habeus Corpus dance the Supremes just did with a 5/4 beat ......... ?

[Stinky The Clown]

That was a dodged bullet that ought to serve as an object lesson in how vital, how critical, how much a virtual matter of life and death is this presidential election.

The Executive Branch wanted more power for itself and less rights for citizens. The Congress - including far too many Democrats - gave it to them. One old man Supreme who is hanging on by his judicial and corporal fingernails put the vote over to 5/4 in our (the citizenry) favor.

Had that vote gone the other way - or have been cast by the next Repubican Supreme appointee - The Great Writ which underpins our entire system of jurisprudence and, indeed, our way of life, would have been gone.

We are, literally, that close.

[Moochy]

1. I Agree, and take a long look at the four dissenters

Scalia is a Reagan appointee, Thomas is a Bush Senior appointee, and Alito and Roberts are both Shrub appointees.

[MiniMe]

4. And, none of those look close to retirement.

[Supersedeas]

5. the difference between O'Connor and Alito could not be more telling

She had her awful moments, but she had her sane moments as well.

With Alito, you know what you get.

[MiniMe]

6. Same with Kennedy

There are some of his decisions I just don't agree with, but there seems to be a line that he isn't willing to cross. That is the line that the other 4 crossed yesterday.

[Moochy]

13. Scalia: Terrorism doesnt kill people, Habeas Corpus does!

from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91426064
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia each wrote a dissent on behalf of the court's more conservative bloc, which includes Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Roberts criticized his fellow justices for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants." Scalia wrote that the majority opinion "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

[Liberal Gramma]

16. Scalia needs to be impeached.

[kestrel91316]

27. Pelosi said impeachment was off the table, and I am betting she

meant for ANYONE.

[Liberal Gramma]

28. Myabe with a new majority in Congress it will come OFF the table

[iamjoy]

30. No, Scalia, You Are Helping The Terrorists

I'm going to steal from a Tory MP:

"Isn’t it clear that terrorists want to destroy our freedom and when we trash our liberties we do their work for them?”

This was David Cameron on a vote in England to extend the time suspected terrorists could be held without charge. This is not just our constitution here, it is the Magna Carta.

[Newkophile]

33. Scalia reveals what a phony he is

The man always portrays himself as a strict Constitutional constructionist, yet he justifies his vote not on Constitutional principles because he cannot, rather on his belief that the majority decision will lead to more American deaths. The principle of habeas corpus is one of the bedrocks of this country. If he and Roberts, Alito and Thomas refuse to recognize that, shame on them.

[CaptJasHook]

35. Since when are American deaths in defense of Freedom a bad thing?

I willingly gave an oath to defend the Constitution, including the fundamental, basic, right of Habeus Corpus. I would just as willingly lay down my life to guarantee that right is reserved for my partner and our children.

Freedom is a fundamental Progressive value.

Scalia and his Conservative colleagues are more concerned with the "right" of the Patriarch to administer punishment to the disobedient children. Facist DICKtator.

[kestrel91316]

26. One can pray for painful, debilitating afflictions..........

[bunkerbuster1]

31. Although Alito doesn't look very healthy

I could see him kicking off during the first Obama term.

And there will be much rejoicing.

[annabanana]

2. Thanks to the stellar coverage of our crack corporate media.. most

Americans think this ruling will only effect foreigners accused of terrorism.

The fact that the patriot act "authorized" the president.. all by himself and for whatever reason he liked... to unilaterally declare ANYONE an "enemy combatant" and immediately their rights vanished like magic .....never really got the airtime that it deserved.

[hootinholler]

11. The only airtime I saw it get was by Olberman. n/t

[Hekate]

25. Bill Moyers covered the USA PATRIOT ACT & Patriot Act 2 early and in depth

Moyers has the profound gravitas that Olbermann is working on and may some day attain. (I love Olbermann even when he's snarky, but compared to Moyers he's a young pup.)

Hekate

[midnight]

3. That's why I don't understand why the election stealing, and

not voter fraud has very little coverage.

[BrklynLib at work]

23. Cause the media is owned by the same folks who are doing the stealing.

[KillCapitalism]

7. Here's what's funny.

Even though Roberts and Alito were Bush appointees, they would be considered far-left when compared to Scalia.

[Hydra]

9. True, but Alito supports unitary executive

And Roberts is hardly against the idea.

That idea washes away ANY idea of "rule of law," so it's hard to see that as anything other than "Yes, Bush."

[Hydra]

8. Bush will just go to Congress and demand the law be written to allow what he is doing

Other than the SSI thing and the telecom immunity, I can't think of anything Bush has not gotten when he's demanded it.

SCOTUS voted itself irrelevant by installing Bush in 2000.

[Tesha]

10. No one can "demand a law" that is unconstitutional.

The most he can do is attempt to bring an unconstitutional
law into force, only to have it swatted away for the *FOURTH*
time.

Tesha

[Hydra]

12. Hahaha

The only thing the courts have declared as not cool are these trials. The spying and the incarceration continue under the aegis of "National Security."

The great thing is that Bushco(If McSame gets in due to election fraud, he'll continue with this) can keep holding these people while they keep pushing their program until it becomes 5/4 in support of, or SCOTUS refuses to hear the case.

[hootinholler]

14. Presidents do it all the time...

Doesn't mean that congress follows them. There are no restrictions in the constitution about what a president may or may not demand.

He cannot make law by decree, if that's what you were thinking.

-Hoot

[Hydra]

18. I'm not speaking of decree

Although Bush's signing statement isn't far from, when you think about it.

No, I'm pointing out that SCOTUS says "No," and so Bush goes to Congress and says "Make it legal." They then stumble over each other in a rush to do so.

[hootinholler]

20. That's actually what the process should be.

Not unconstitutional at all.

Oh, those signing statements, if they contravene a duly passed law, are unconstitutional and must be ignored. The court has already found that they amount to a line item veto.

-Hoot

[Hydra]

21. When the behavior is unconstitutional?

And when have the signing statements been ignored?

Some of the signing statements actually put things in that weren't mentioned- like the postal law that got the "we can open your mail" clause added to it with Bush's pen.

The buck is supposed to stop at the constitution- our social contract. Everyone seems to be ignoring that it even exists, these days.

[MiniMe]

15. With the current court, there are 5 who believe in the constitution

That is why defeating McCain is critical. We can't let them appoint another judge.

[bunkerbuster1]

32. Eh, Kennedy can be a cruel bastard.

It depends on how he's feeling in a given month, as to whether justice is served.

There's no nice way to put this--One of the stooges needs to die (or, I suppose, one of them could be impeached and removed from office, but that's an extremely long shot), and a rational person installed to replace him, before we can even start to breath easier.

[ms liberty]

17. Yes. We must not forget this. K&R n/t

[Vattel]

19. Not exactly

I totally agree that electing Obama is critical for the health of the Supreme Court. But the writ of habeas corpus didn't hang on this decision. That wirt has never been extended to aliens outside of U.S. terirtory and the decision here was to extend it to aliens held in Guantanimo because the US has, for all practical purposes, sovereignty over the base there.

As for Scalia, if you read his opinion in Hamdi you will realize that he is more to the left than anyone except Souter on the protection citizens are afforded by habeas corpus in time of war.

[BrklynLib at work]

22. Absolutely true. We are all hanging on by our fingernails...to all the rights we have taken for

granted, and will lose if a repuke gets to put one more judge on the SCOTUS.
If the worst happens and one of the good guys falls before Jan 20, the Dems in Congress better do the right thing, and make sure that person is not confirmed!!

[indepat]

24. Anyone voting Republican in November either will not give a shit about the Great Writ

underpinning our entire system of jurisprudence or will be one dumb, ignorant, unthinking, unfathomable stupid bastard imo. :D

[axollot]

29. I know and it's scary, very scary. n/t

[ekwhite]

34. We are one Supreme Court appointment away

One Supreme Court appointment away from legitimizing torture, illegal detention, extraordinary rendition, and other abuses that our founding fathers fought and died against. One Supreme Court appointment away from using the Constitution as toilet paper. THAT is why this election is so important. Four years of McCain will destroy what is left of American democracy.

[kentuck]

36. Thanks for putting it in perspective, Husb2Sparkly.

I agree with you. We are that close. It is frightening to think that it could have happened but it would have. And America would have gone down without a whimper...