14 replies to this topic

[sin city]

That's all for right now. No idea what the opinion actually states. Could be as simple as, "You ought not to do that," to "Close Gitmo, return the prisoners, and Alberto "VO5" Gonzales needs to re-read the Constitution."

you mean he may have already read it???

[TJENZ]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in creating military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies. The case, one of the most significant involving presidential war powers cases since World War II, was brought by Guantanamo prisoner Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who was a driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush established special war crimes tribunals for trying prisoners held at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Of about 450 prisoners at Guantanamo, only Hamdan and nine others face charges before a tribunal. Human rights groups have criticized the tribunals, formally called military commissions, for being fundamentally unfair. Hamdan’s lawyers had challenged Bush’s power to create the tribunals and said he is covered by the Geneva Convention, and therefore rules governing U.S. courts-martial should be applied. Key ruling The ruling was eagerly awaited by Bush administration officials, who want to bring charges against more prisoners, and by groups like Human Rights Watch, which has called on Bush to close Guantanamo. The ruling only addressed the military tribunals, not broader issues such as whether the base should be closed. At a news conference in Vienna last week, Bush said he was awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling before deciding the proper forum to try Guantanamo prisoners. In its other rulings on Bush’s policies in the war on terrorism, the Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions two years ago that placed limits on the president’s powers and allowed Guantanamo prisoners to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts. The ruling involved eight of the nine court members. Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush, had removed himself because he previously was on a U.S. appeals court panel that ruled for the Bush administration in the Hamdan case.

[TJENZ]

Nice to finally see some restrictions put on W

[sin city]

Nice to finally see some restrictions put on W

shouldn't we wait to see if he actually complies with them? He may have some Super Secret Executive Power which he bequeathed upon himself for just such an occasion...

[Ben]

Full opinion is up on major news sites and available via the SCOTUS Web site. Looks like they're denying the administration the right to have military trials on site down at Gitmo. I breezed the AP story and it looks like we've got four Justices writing opinions here, plus Roberts' previous decision.

[crease]

Full opinion is up on major news sites and available via the SCOTUS Web site. Looks like they're denying the administration the right to have military trials on site down at Gitmo. I breezed the AP story and it looks like we've got four Justices writing opinions here, plus Roberts' previous decision.

I believe I read that Stevens, Breyer, and Kennedy wrote opinions for the majority and Thomas one in dissent. And, yes, it addresses only the narrower question of military trials.

Had Roberts not recused himself, it would have been the usual 5-4 majority, but this time w/Kennedy swinging towards the liberal side.

[Freddie Freelance]

The ruling involved eight of the nine court members. Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush, had removed himself because he previously was on a U.S. appeals court panel that ruled for the Bush administration in the Hamdan case.

The fact that Roberts recused himself from the decision is a good sign for the future of his court.

Was anyone surprised by the three dissenting Justices? The Three Stooges there should change their names to "Running," "Dog," and "Lacky."

[crease]

The ruling involved eight of the nine court members. Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush, had removed himself because he previously was on a U.S. appeals court panel that ruled for the Bush administration in the Hamdan case.

The fact that Roberts recused himself from the decision is a good sign for the future of his court.

Was anyone surprised by the three dissenting Justices? The Three Stooges there should change their names to "Running," "Dog," and "Lacky."

I don't follow -- why is it a good sign?

[birdistheword]

It means he has a conscience. Not like fucking Scalia who fishes with Cheney, sucks his cock, and presides over a case involving the VP and tells everyone to fuck off when they raise questions about objectivity.

[Jackson Hole]

Props to Arlen Specter for starting an investigation into Bush's overstepping his role as President and possibly violating the Constitution.

[norton]

Was anyone surprised by the three dissenting Justices? The Three Stooges there should change their names to "Running," "Dog," and "Lacky."

[Ben]

I think in this case that Roberts had no choice but to recuse himself. He'd actually decided the lower court case that was being heard, didn't he? I doubt he could have heard it if he wanted to. I'm no legal expert, but that seems like one of the strongest reasons to recuse oneself. A tangential connection through recreational activites with a related third party, while perhaps telling of a more significant bias or connection, wouldn't, I would think, carry the same weight.

[crease]

It means he has a conscience. Not like fucking Scalia who fishes with Cheney, sucks his cock, and presides over a case involving the VP and tells everyone to fuck off when they raise questions about objectivity.

This seemed much more clear-cut -- you can't, in effect, objectively adjudicate your own work. With Scalia, it was at least arguable.

So, it doesn't seem like Roberts recusing himself--which is the least one should expect of him under the circumstances--signifies much, if anything.

edit: Ben is saying the same thing, it appears.