oh, like this matters. Bush has already proven that he's willing to ignore the other two branches of government in order to do what he wants.

Isn't this how dictatorial regimes start?

Two interesting points I've seen made.

1) This is less a smackdown of Bush than it is of Cheney, who seemed to be the bigger proponent of the unitary executive:

I believe in a strong, robust executive authority. And I think the world we live in demands it…I think you’re right, probably the end of the next administration, you had the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy, then a number of limitations that were imposed in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate. But I do think that to some extent now, we’ve been able to restore the legitimate authority of the presidency.--Dick Cheney, 12/20/05

(HT Think Progress)

2. Glenn Greenwald:

The more I read and think about this opinion, the greater a death blow I think it deals -- at least on the legal front -- to the administration's Yoo theory of unlimited executive power....

More than anything else, the Court's opinion today is the opposite of -- a clear rejection of -- the crux of the Yoo Memorandum. The Court held that Congress most certainly does have a role to play in the exercise of war powers, and that such decisions are most certainly not "for the President alone to make."

The Bush and his Chaney led koffers have proven they are like children they will push to the limit everytime they want something that isn't good for the people. Putting their wants above the good of all.

The Bush and his Chaney led koffers have proven they are like children they will push to the limit everytime they want something that isn't good for the people. Putting their wants above the good of all.
Posted by freeforall on June 29, 2006 at 05:18 PM

What is REALLY scary, is the fact that Democrats, the Media and the American public let them get away with it!!!!!!!!!

It was interesting indeed, but somewhat predictable, and fell most along the usual lines; Justices Scalia and Alito dissented and the rest (sans Justice Roberts who didn't take part) concurrred or upheld to stick it to the adminstrations "trust us." attitude on detainment.

It would be great if more people cared about this issue.I don't know what's worse: 1. People who are apathetic. 2. People who maintain a sort of guilty until provent innocent mentality about this. These are often the same people who think that torture is actually a reliable interrogation method-After all we always know who the terrorists are, or if the public doesn't The Bush administration does, so why should we care about terrorists who don't like the fact that they got caught?

The reality is that torture is at best a way to "stick it to the enemy" in a sort of psychological fashion that only benefits the individual(s) engaging in the torture. and progresses to inhumane and makes the country hypocrtical. How can a country condemn others for human rights violations and yet practice torture. The truth is we don't always know who the terrorists are. The best thing we could do is give a terror suspect a fair trial, then should they be convicted, they have nothing to complain about.

Corinne,

Unfortunetely, the average person doesn't seem to be familiar with the concepts of seperation of powers, specifically that executive power is not unlimited. So this thing kind of keeps going. If enough people think that executive power can or should be unlimited (at least in times of crises), then you can get support for garbage like the military tribinals.

The court rejected tow of Bush's assertions:

(1) The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) applies to GITMO prisioners. The Supreme Court said this assertion does not because the prisioners are not part of the Iraq military.

(2) The Articles of the Geneva Convention don’t apply to GITMO prisioners because the insurgents are not a party to the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court said the Convention rules do apply.

Nothing else was decided because of a 4-4 tie on specifics. The court did not order the Bush administration to change anything.

It makes for great headlines but freedom and justice weren't spared a black eye by this court.

Bush has already said he plans to get around this and use Military tribunals, getting the congress to agree. That is all he has to do ! And you know this rubber-stamp Republican congress will bend over and grab their ankles like they always do!

PamB,

It's not quite that simple. First, reading between the lines there are some in Congress that are discontent with tribunals, or if nothing else have pledged to work for a solution that is satisfactory with the Supreme Court-Even Lindsey Graham who is by no means liberal, has pledged to work to find a solution. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928_2.html
You may not want to hear this, but do you really expect to get what you want 100% of the time?

Posted by angry_idealist on June 29, 2006 at 09:02 PM

Bush will take the word tribunals put lipstick on that pig and do with it what he pleases. He knows congress is impotent, that any effort to stop him would die in committee, and Republicans will do nothing to avoid unity as we near the election. If you’re basing your hopes on Lindsay Graham, one of the house committee to impeach Clinton, you’re in for a sad awakening.

And last but not least, PamB always gets what she wants.

Bruno,

Who said I was basing my hopes on Lindsy Graham? I was pointing out that it isn't as lockstop, "damn the Supreme Court as you think."

It's this incessant complaining about the branches not doing anything that's causing problems, in a way more problems than Republicans. If you don't like it, do something about it or shut up. Sure it's easier to sit and watch Michael Moore or read Mollly Ivins and rail about how those evil Republicans are destroying the country. A lot easier than canvassing, petitioning let alone running for office. Why because aside from the effort involved, you're inherently exposed to a variety of opinions, which many are afraid to hear.

Sooo, with that we go to commercial....

Congress would only have to spend $6 per citizen per year to publicly fund each and every election for the House, the Senate and the White House. When you consider that "pork barrel" projects cost every one of us more than $200 last year alone, it’s no contest.

Think of it. With public funding, wealthy special interests and their hired lobbyists would no longer have a commanding influence over our politics and government. Instead of begging for campaign donations, candidates would spend their time communicating with voters. Once elected, our leaders would be free to focus on our nation's challenges rather than having to worry about financing their next campaign. And there's no doubt that more of our most able leaders would run for federal office when the ability to finance a campaign isn't such a daunting obstacle.

I'm happy that the Supreme Court made this decision.It was, it was, oh how can I say this.......Oh,who could provide better statement on this?

Oh, I know,

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Supreme Court’s Decision Regarding Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay
June 29, 2006

"The Supreme Court’s decision concerning military commissions at Guantanamo Bay is a major rebuke to an Administration that has too often disregarded the rule of law. It is a testament to our system of government that the Supreme Court has stood up against this overreaching by the executive branch."

:P

Posted by angry_idealist on June 29, 2006 at 10:37 PM

I've been doing something about it every election starting in 1972. I don't see clearly where you come up with your assumptions on what others are doing about issues but I believe you should take pause and reflect on what is the basic rule of assume.

I can state an opinion without it being a complaint. Maybe you haven't noticed but republicans control congress and the white house. The supreme court is a corporate court with a 5-4 majority in the mold of bork and doing something about it short of revolution has been regulated to the equivalent of replanting your garden with seeds.

Posted by angry_idealist on June 29, 2006 at 07:32 PM

I saw something on the Travel Channel about the Spanish Inquisition. Torture had nothing to do with getting evidence. It was all about exerting power over helpless individuals...just like rape. And society allowing those with sadistic tendencies to act them out in some sick offering to the devil to stop the Black Plague.

This administration operates solely on a rape mentality. It's all about control...and consolidating wealth. The White House uses fear of terrorists much in the same way as the Catholic Church used fear of witches.

I think there is also a degree of sadistic satisfaction as well. Remember how Scooter and Cheney's wife wrote books with degrading sexual themes? Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter likewise appeal to the basest instincts of cruelty in others.

I really don't understand why the evangelicals want to ally themselves with these people. They debase the Christian faith with their lust for wealth and power. You'd think they'd see the same traits in some of their own leaders like Robertson, Dobson, and Falwell.

Combining religion and politics make for some really sick courtships. I guess it's just a marriage of convenience among those who feel impotent otherwise. You get the feeling child abuse might have played a part in this somewhere.

In a stunning blow to the President’s claim of nearly unlimited war-time powers, the Supreme Court held in favor of petitioner, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemini who is alleged to have been an intimate of Osama Bin Laden.

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg joined, succinctly stated the import of today’s holding:

The dissenters say that today's decision would “sorely hamper the President's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.” They suggest that it undermines our Nation’s ability to “preven[t] future attacks” of the grievous sort that we have already suffered. That claim leads me to state briefly what I believe the majority sets forth both explicitly and implicitly at greater length. The Court's conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a “blank check.” Cf. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion). Indeed, Congress has denied the President the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.

Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation's ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation's ability to determine--through democratic means--how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our Court today simply does the same.Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the court, which stated,

We conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] and the Geneva Conventions.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) §1005(e)(1) provides that “no court ... shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider ... an application for ... habeas corpus filed by ... an alien detained ... at Guantanamo Bay.” The Court found that the DTA’s jurisdiction stripping provisions do not apply retroactively to Hamdan’s case, in which the crime charged allegedly occurred the AUFA (Authorization to Use Force in Afghanistan) and the charges were brought before the enactment of the DTA.

Justice Scalia noted that if the court had not denied retroactive application of this jurisdiction stripping statute, it would have had to deal with the provision of the Constitution which states that the Writ of “habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

The bad news for lovers of freedom is that the power of the Great Writ to survive Congress' efforts to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction is still in doubt. Chief Justice Roberts took no part in the Hamdan decision because he was part of a lower court that upheld the President’s military commissions.

In order to deny retroactive effect to the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the DTA, the majority looked at the legislative history of the statute, including the statements of various Senators made during the debate. The dissenters criticized the manner in which this was done, arguing that the statements were quoted selectively.

What does it foretell of the debate to come about the domestic surveillance by the NSA? Clearly, the Congress did not believe that it had authorized the administration to ignore the FISA law when it passed the AUFA. If the Court pays the same deference to congressional intent that it claims to have given here, the domestic spying program is sure to get slapped down.

What I find especially troubling is this parenthetical remark in Scalia’s discussion of the majority’s perusal of legislative history:

(Of course in its discussion of legislative history the Court wholly ignores the President's signing statement, which explicitly set forth his understanding that the DTA ousted jurisdiction over pending cases.)

It should be observed that when Congress passes a law, the President can sign it or veto it. He knows what is the congressional intent, and he chooses whether to agree or disagree. If he disagrees, then Congress has an opportunity to over-ride the veto. But Bush does not veto bills: he just ignores them. Does Congress have any recourse?

Well, there is always the impeachment thing.

Visit the Schapira blog, What we know so far ...

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

I do not expect this EXTREMIST Right Bush Administration will let a little thing like a judgment of the Supreme Court stop them from carrying on with torture as they see fit because the Supreme Court has no military and could not stop President Andrew Jackson when he ordered his Military to march the Cherokee people at gun point out of their homeland in Georgia and South Carolina. The Native Americans remaining in South Carolina and Georgia had to hide during the Andrew Jackson Indian Removal Campaign in order to remain on the native soil of their homeland. My relatives who made it through the "Trail of Tears" passed the word through generations as to the cruelty of President Andrew Jackson's armed military herding them as non citizens from their homeland. Don't believe it was voluntary, it was not. Many, many, many Cherokee people died on the forced "Trail of Tears" that pushed the Cherokee Nation and other civilized nations to Oklahoma.

President Andrew Jackson has set a precedent of disobedience to the Supreme Court through lies. I am certain that this EXTREMIST government that we have now will do no less. Here are some links to the extermination and cruel removal of the civilized Cherokee citizens from their home ground:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=638

http://www.statesgov/r/pa/ho/time/dwe/16338.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal

http://www.historicaldocuments.com/IndianRemovalAct.htm

The Supreme Court said the Native Americans did not have to be removed, but as many as the military could find at the time were removed anyway.

Without democracy enforced by the people through their chosen, not selected, representatives, any cruelty can be done to the people and will be recorded however the powerful choose.

You may not want to hear this, but do you really expect to get what you want 100% of the time?

Posted by angry_idealist on June 29, 2006 at 09:02 PM

I'd settle for 20%! Maybe you have missed it, but like Bruno says, this is a Republican led Congress, Senate, Executive, SCOTUS! Most of the Governors are Republican.

And I would make a bet that there is not a blogger on here, who has not done as much or more than you have, in working with candidates, LTEs, petition drives, phone banking, door to doors. I call or fax Senators and Reps every day almost.

We are all doing everything we can, to change it, and No, we won't shut up about it! I want to let the rest of the uninformed, apathetic American public know exactly what is going on with this Republican led government.

With the rebuke SCOTUS has also superceded Congress' Detainee Treatment Act that passed in 2005. the Hamdan decision also states al Qaeda is not an international enemy. so, SCOTUS has set precedent to make themeselves the ultimate authority on determining who the alleged enemies are.

regardless, SCOTUS determined POTUS does have authorization to detain.

Justice Stevens: "It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the government's power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities. But in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction." (Specifically, Geneva Convention's Common Article 3).

But, now, this is interesting because if al Qaeda isn't an "international enemy" because it's not a country and parts of the Geneva Convention apply directly to countries - does POTUS still have to follow those sections?

I happend to agree with the ruling, but, as usual, am completely against the Dem Party line. Question for all of you now (as you gloat), is what are YOU (your party) going to do with terror suspects? What is YOUR plan to prosecute them? You might want to act now and show that you are FOR something instead of just AGAINST something. Ball's in your court. Don't swing and miss.

I happen to agree with the ruling, but, as usual, am completely against the Dem Party line. Question for all of you now (as you gloat), is what are YOU (your party) going to do with terror suspects? What is YOUR plan to prosecute them? You might want to act now and show that you are FOR something instead of just AGAINST something. Ball's in your court. Don't swing and miss.

Here is the link I failed to enter correctly on my post dated 6/30/06 at 10:36 AM:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/dwe/16338.htm

I am glad that the Supreme Court held that what the Bush Administration is doing is wrong, but I have little faith in their ability to police their decisions if the President chooses to go against what they say.

Posted by EricSmith on June 30, 2006 at 10:47 AM

The point I try to make is one that puts their shoe on my foot.

Of course terrorists need to be removed from their ability to operate and carry out attacks on civilians. But at the same time we are a nation of laws. Just because of convenience sake, it doesn’t mean anything goes like the methodologies employed by Bush.

If we say follow America, were are firm, yet just, then we must lead by example.

If John Lennon, God rest his soul, was alive perhaps he could offer Americans some much needed perspective on these troubling days. IMAGINE

I am actually not a supporter of the Democratic party, and I am appalled at the lies this website spreads, and the hundreds and hundreds of people who blog because they believe it! What nonsense! Let me tell you something that IS ACTUALLY TRUE, Christy...
1. You must need glasses. The Supreme Court didn't say Bush's treatment of detainees at the military camp are illegal. They just said the military courts are illegal.

2. Second...Democrats are so immature. They keep saying that President Bush has placed himself above the law, exceeded executive authority, behaved like a dictator, etc. Bush didn't; Clinton did. He even lied to Congress. NOW, DOESN'T THAT SOUND LIKE A DICTATOR? I believe so.

3. Let me give all Democrats and their supporters a message: ACT LIKE AMERICANS, NOT FOREIGNERS! Just because Al Gore and John Kerry were both Democrats and they lost both elections, you Dems are acting so immature and childish about it. It's not Bush's fault the American people liked the Republican candidates over the Democratic candidates!

Stop spreading lies!
Thank you.

Here's some more truth:

Excuse me, but I just read a blog where someone said the Republicans were evil and were destroying the country.

Listen up, Democrats! It's time for a history and SENSE lesson!

A long time ago, about 230 years ago, we were founded by Christian founders, who weren't Democrats. They actually established a republic, not a democracy. A republic with democratic principles, yes, but a direct democracy, no. That's why our party (the Republicans) have a name that truly reflects our Founders' intentions: REPUBLIC, not DEMOCRACY.

I would not be calling the Republicans evil. Nor would I lie about them destroying the country. During Bill Clinton's presidency, the morality rate of America fell dramatically. More and more babies were killed, and more and more crime erupted all over America. A party that supports the murder of unborn babies (the Democratic party) is truly evil. And the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton embarrassed the United States of America in front of the entire world. He destroyed us.

When writing the Declaration of Independence, our most treasured document, Thomas Jefferson, later the 3rd President of the United States of America, wrote a beginning paragraph, called a preamble. It is worded like this:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, including LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, how can unborn babies grasp their unalienable Right to life, when the Democrats keep killing them? It's so sad.

England was powerful for a long time because England was GOOD. And America won't be powerful much longer if America doesn't remain GOOD.

MrRepublican,

I was being sarcastic with the "evil republican" remark-I am tired of seing the Democrats do nothing and then bitch about how the Republicans won. This isn't all that different from many people I know who refuse to vote, then turn around and rail about the state of affairs. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.

Posted by MrRepublican on June 30, 2006 at 10:06 PM

We have clearly stated what the court ruled and it was not the big set back for Bush many had hoped for. The ruling said Bush was in violation of our law and the Geneva Convention, nothing more of nothing less.

Now! This republican party you praise so highly is not the party you mention from a founding fathers perspective.

Your party doesn't give a damn about the poor or elderly, about education, about the environment, about affordable healthcare, about civil rights, about middle-class working Americans, or much else other than shareholder earnings.

So, go back to march-step blog, kiss the communist chinese asses, the Saudi asses, and tell yourself you mean something bigger than yourself so you can sleep at night.

Republicans spin Supreme Court ruling into strength while Dems sleep?

We cannot dare let the Republicans spin the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo into a strength. According to a Reuters article, Don Stewart of Sen. John Cornyn's office said "How do you go back to Chicago, Illinois, or Las Vegas, Nevada, and say 'You know what? The president is just being too mean to these people, that's a very difficult argument to make." It implies that its good that the President is doing good by being extra tough on terrorists. We cannot allow this to proceed without asserting that Guantanamo is part of a larger problem of spawing hatred for America. Hatred for America is the root of terrorism which is why we as Democrats oppose the war in Iraq, the practice of torture and the economic imperialism of American oil companies who buy politicians that further their agendas in forign countries. Its the reason why we are right and they are wrong, dead wrong and this must be the central tone of our argument. Furthermore, any action taken in the name of protecting America that does not address this larger problem is a useless one. This needs to be our message going forward into these elections. We need to portray how weak the Republican position is becuase it does not deal with the cause of terrorism. It only combats its effect. This is a weakness because as long as the world hates us, we will never be safe.

WE ARE BETTER THAN THE TERRORISTS!

What kind of language is that? I call it "obscenity", and not even the most senior Democratic leaders in our government will tolerate that...I certainly won't!

President Bush has never, never, NEVER placed himself above the law, nor will he. The fact is...
1. George W. Bush is our President. We are told to respect our leaders, even if we don't agree with their policies OR their party.
2. The American people rightly, constitutionally, fairly, and legally elected Bush President. No President is perfect. What is most important is that he tries his best.

Once again, I respectfully ask you to not use profanity or obscenity on this website. Someone is always watching you, whether you know it or not. And when you use language like that, it makes a terrible impression on yourself and your party. That is why I am supporting the Republican Party. You will find NO such language on their website.

By the way, President Bush IS working on the issues you listed so well. But they take time, as you very well know. It took several presidents to bring about the downfall of the Soviet Union, a total of seven. Our government is not magic or robotic. It is a government of people, sinful, un-perfect people, like you and me.

With this blog I withdraw any support I have for the Democratic party and vest it in the Republican Party.

Oh, by the way,