June 12, 2008

Here is real hope

Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts

“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

8 comments:

Marco said...

Here's another reason why it's gravely important that McCain be defeated.

"Three of the five Justices in the majority -- John Paul Stevens (age 88), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 75) and David Souter (age 68) -- are widely expected by court observers to retire or otherwise leave the Court in the first term of the next President. By contrast, the four judges who dissented -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito -- are expected to stay right where they are for many years to come.

John McCain has identified Roberts and Alito as ideal justices of the type he would nominate, while Barack Obama has identified Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ginsberg (all in the majority today). It's not hyperbole to say that, from Supreme Court appointments alone, our core constitutional protections could easily depend upon the outcome of the 2008 election."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/12/boumediene/

carissa said...

Then again, there is this

McCain played a central role in the Gang of 14 -- the seven Democratic and seven Republican senators who joined hands to find common ground on court appointments. For his efforts at compromise, McCain took a pummeling from the right wing. Note that Obama, the self-styled foe of division, declined to join the bipartisan group.

And if a President McCain did put forth a controversial candidate, the Democratic majority in the Senate -- sure to grow after the upcoming election -- would put a quick end to the idea. That's why McCain would probably choose a cipher, as had some of his Republican predecessors. Ronald Reagan gave us Sandra Day O'Connor, and George H.W. Bush picked David Souter.


Of course, as I've mentioned before, the Congressional Dems haven't exactly been protectors of Liberty, now have they?

Marco said...

The congressional Dems don't have a filibuster-proof majority... yet.

While a cipher I guess is better than a known right-wing judge, I'd rather have a known progressive judge than a cipher.

carissa said...

And if they did have a filibuster proof majority, would they use it any more than they used their filibuster power when they were in the minority? Gotta wonder.

I'll do my best to give them that majority. Their job is to use it. FSM help us all.

Marco said...

"And if they did have a filibuster proof majority, would they use it any more than they used their filibuster power when they were in the minority? Gotta wonder."

Blame the media on this one. For some reason, when the Republicans filibuster, the media doesn't cover it. When Democrats filibuster, suddenly they are holding up legitimate business.

carissa said...

Two words:

Roberts

Alito

'Nuff said. I ain't hanging this one on the media.

carissa said...

Oh, and regarding "holding up legitimate business" - The Dems run and cower anytime they think someone thinks they are not "playing nice." Rather than make their case to the American public, they roll over.

Not helpful.

Marco said...

It's a difficult issue. Roberts especially was extremely well-respected as a judge on both sides of the aisle and in the legal world, despite his political proclivities. And some think it's not the responsibility to shoot down qualified nominations made by the President, unless there's a horde of evidence that shows bias (like with Bork). The fear, of course, is that if we start blocking nominations purely for ideological reasons, it's going to bite us in the ass when we have a Democratic president. I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just saying it's a difficult issue.

There's a simple solution to this difficult issue. Get a Democrat nominated to the Presidency with a Democratic Congress. That will straightforwardly change the country for the better in the long-term in more ways than I can count. Obama has great relationships with several respected jurists who I would *love* to see on the Supreme Court.

We can hash out the failings of the legislature in the past, and there are many. But giving McCain a pass on this issue is, to me, a very scary thing to do.