Indefinite … detention … without … trial?
Words fail.
The terrorists have won.
Goddamn…
First of all, a Congressional resolution means beans if it conflicts with the Constitution, which this one does. Second of all, the only way to determine whether or not Padilla "associated with al Qaeda and the Taliban regime, […]took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies, and […]entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens’’ is to put him on trial, something which the administration has refused to do.
Any Bushies/TWAT-supporters want to try to defend this new low? Where are the “judicial activist” haters when you need them, I wonder?
I would be astonished if this case didn’t end up in the Supreme Court’s lap.
And hey, wouldn’t you know…John Roberts concurred with a remarkably similar “the President can do whatever he damn well wants” opinion back in July.
And according to the article linked in the OP, the author of this opinion is a contender for O’Connor’s seat. Lovely.
Only one comment: you gave the courts this power. Not me.
You cheered the courts when they implemented “Constitutional” rules that were not to be found in the Constitution. You said that they needed this power to do your version of justice.
Now the courts are using this power in a way you don’t agree with. And you’re upset.
Boo hoo.
Don’t you dare get all outraged now. YOU set the stage for this abuse pf power. You attached the damn wires to the monster’s head, Dr. F. Don’t act surprised that he’s lumbering around killing people now.
Bullshit. Our position is that the Constitution LIMITS the powers of government and the court, through SDP and penumbras, protects rights. This is a blatant GRAB of power not a LIMIT. Your position is that the Legislature can pass any bill it wants and it is presumed Constitutional. Therefore this ruling is perfectly in line with your position. The Court is saying the Legislature said it’s okay, so it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says. This is diametrically opposed to the ideals of Liberty and Justice for All.
Rick, here is a reality check for you. Even If we never had any ruling in favor of people who are not white Christian Males in the entire history of the world, there would still be people who say “I want to lock up people first and have a ruling justifying my actions later.”
I think this decision is correct, especially in light of previous Supreme Court decisions.
Herbert Haupt was an American citizen who returned to Germany before WWII, and was recruited as a saboteur. He was captured in America before he could commit any acts of sabotage, however. His case was part of ex parte Quirin that established the precedent of the handling of enemy combatants.
The Supreme Court found at the time that his citizenship had no bearing on his status as a combatant, since he had fought with the enemy.
This is current law - it hasn’t been overturned. Given this, a lower court would be irresponsible if it did not defer to this precedent set by the Supreme Court.
Come now! He was taken on a battlefield in action against American troops! Cuz, you see, EVERYWHERE is a battlefield in the [echo]War on Terror[/echo]!
Now, if he was a US citizen, then, well, it’d be a different story.
What? Oh.
If the President orders it, it’s not illegal. If Nixon taught us anything it was that, right?
What? Oh.
Well fuck.
I guess we’ll have to go with “We’re the majority party and control all 3 branches, so bend over and take it, bitches. Oh, and if you’re not a terrist you have nothing to fear.”
-Joe, rant #3643 on this subject
It’s remarkable to me that after all this time, you apparently don’t quite grasp my position.
It’s true that when the legislature passes a bill, it is presumed constitutional. That’s not simply my view, or my wish: it is a tenet of statutory construction. Persons seeking to overturn an act of the legislature as unconstitutional have the burden of proof.
In fairness, I have slightly misrepresented your position as well. But only slightly.
You declare that your position is that the courts protect RIGHTS. Well, who can argue with that?
The devil is in the details. You don’t want the court to protect the right of a 12-year-old to marry. You don’t want the court to protect the right of a restaurant owner to seat only whites.
You want, I suspect, a fair balance struck between individual rights and order in society.
Correct?
When the written law doesn’t conform to your idea of Liberty and Justice For All, you have no problem with the judge leaving the written word and using penunbras and SDP to guarantee the “right” result. But here’s the problem: when you grant judges that facility, you empower not only the judges that agree with you, but the judges that don’t.
I’m sure the authors of the opinion above would retort that they are championing Liberty and Justice for all – for all the people that will be saved from Jose Padilla’s terrorist attack. And you handed them the atmosphere that lets them depart from the text like that.
This is my point. When you hand judges the ability to depart from the text to ensure Liberty and Justice For All, you have no way of ensuring that every judge agrees with YOU about exactly what “Liberty and Justice for All” means.
As Friend Homebrew has already noted, bullshit. Roe v Wade takes away NO rights. The Massachusetts gay marriage ruling takes away NO rights.
This ruling basically takes away the very core of our rights as US citizens. All it takes is the government to declare any random person to be aiding the terrorists and they can be whisked away to an undisclosed location indefinitely.
The idea that people who have the nerve to call themselves Americans can be such cowards that they’d gladly throw away the very things that make them Americans because we got a bloody nose four years ago makes me ill. The fact that those same cowards have the balls to accuse those of us who don’t want to throw our rights out so we can have a tiny bit more security of hating America makes me want to do things I can’t do without legitimately ending up in jail.
We’ve been screaming about this since almost this very date four years ago. How much louder can we scream before people wake the fuck up and defend the very roots of what it means to be American?!
It’s remarkable to me that after all this time, you apparently don’t quite grasp my position.
It’s true that when the legislature passes a bill, it is presumed constitutional. That’s not simply my view, or my wish: it is a tenet of statutory construction. Persons seeking to overturn an act of the legislature as unconstitutional have the burden of proof.
In fairness, I have slightly misrepresented your position as well. But only slightly.
You declare that your position is that the courts protect RIGHTS. Well, who can argue with that?
The devil is in the details. You don’t want the court to protect the right of a 12-year-old to marry. You don’t want the court to protect the right of a restaurant owner to seat only whites.
You want, I suspect, a fair balance struck between individual rights and order in society.
Correct?
When the written law doesn’t conform to your idea of Liberty and Justice For All, you have no problem with the judge leaving the written word and using penunbras and SDP to guarantee the “right” result. But here’s the problem: when you grant judges that facility, you empower not only the judges that agree with you, but the judges that don’t.
I’m sure the authors of the opinion above would retort that they are championing Liberty and Justice for all – for all the people that will be saved from Jose Padilla’s terrorist attack. And you handed them the atmosphere that lets them depart from the text like that.
This is my point. When you hand judges the ability to depart from the text to ensure Liberty and Justice For All, you have no way of ensuring that every judge agrees with YOU about exactly what “Liberty and Justice for All” means.
Bricker, I agree with you in general about judicial activism, but I fail to see that this was a case of suck.
Seems to me that the appeals court was bound by precedent here, especially ex parte Quirin.
Do you have some other reason to damn it as an activist decision?
Frankly, I’m losing my faith in America. Recent failures of the Supreme Court have contributed to this.
It just doesn’t seem to mean much anymore.
You do realize that ex parte Quirin, which parallels this case closely and provides precedent for it, was decided in 1942, don’t you?
Apart from the fact that at the time of Quirin the US was in a declared state of war, and the petitioners in that case were agents of an enemy state, at least the petitioners in that case had been tried by military trubunal, so that they had at least had their guilt adjudicated on by some kind of tribunal. I just don’t believe that Quirin, even if it were good law now (which I rather doubt), compels the decision just handed in the Padilla case.
You claim it doesn’t.
Roe v. Wade takes away the right of a state to exercise its plenary police powers. The Constitution gives the federal government certain powers - regulating abortion isn’t one of them.
I would also say, of course, that Roe v. Wade takes away the right to life that an unborn child has.
You don’t agree with that. You don’t ascribe a great deal of important to a state’s plenary police powers, at least as it compares to an individual’s rights, and you don’t agree that an unborn fetus has any rights at all.
But I don’t need to convince you, or a majority of the voters. That would be a tyranny of the majority!! All I have to do is convince a few judges.
Right?
Which system is better? My having to persuade a majority of voters, or my having to convince a few lifetime-tenured judges?
What?
I’m having a hard time finding where this case has any bearing on Padilla’s. It involves Herbert Haupt being tried (not held without trial) under the Articles of War act. And SCOTUS found that he could be, as opposed to civilian court, despite being a citizen.
Not the same thing as denying a trial.
The problem is the Bill of Rights, which gives rights under the Constitution. It was not enacted by a few judges, but by the Congress and by 3/4 of the States. It’s the Bill of Rights (specifically amendment 6) which gives the right to a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”. “Activist” judges have taken this right away from Padilla.
Nopel. Per your cite:
Hamdan ain’t no US citizen. And that’s a big, big difference. The case discussed in the OP concerns US citizens, on US soil.
First, if we concluded that an unborn child has rights, then we still have to conclude that those rights trump those of the mother. Sure, so it sounds nice when/if you claim that she is killing her child, but if I claim you want a sixteen year-old to carry to term the baby she was given by her stepfather, then it doesn’t sound so pretty.
Also, I would have to say theat the constitution only gives rights to PEOPLE, not to companies, or fetuses.