SCOTUS Rules on Gitmo

CNN is reporting that SCOTUS has ruled that the detainees in Gitmo have constitutional rights and can challenge their detention in civilian court. That sound you hear is six years of Republican bullshit being flushed down the drain, followed by the inevitable wailing from the Malkin wing of the GOP:

ACTIVIST JUDGES! ACTIVIST JUDGES!

More as this shakes out.

*** Update ***

SCOTUSblog.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

63 replies
  1. 1
    scav says:

    ! oh please please please please please!!! And CAN’T I just hear the distant thunder of heads exploding.

  2. 2
    Punchy says:

    Absolutely no chance of Bush obeying this order from the SC. We’ll hear one or several of these:

    1) “Article II, bitches!”
    2) “AUMF, bitches!”
    3) Cheney: “I’m not in the executive, so I’m not bound by decisions made by the SC. So suck it, bitches”
    4) “We respectfully decline to adhere to these activist judges’ decisions”

    Bet on it. There’s NO WAY these guys see a civy judge/jury.

  3. 3
    Don says:

    Link Not much context here though. Anyone got a better one?

  4. 4
    MattF says:

    It’s times like this that I miss Mitt Romney. Double Gitmo!

  5. 5
    The Moar You Know says:

    Well, this admin has very few options left:

    1. Turn them all loose. My bet is on this option.
    2. Kill them all today.
    3. Do the right thing and let them have their day in court.

    OK, I’m only yanking y’alls chain with number 3. We all know the Bush administration will never obey any court decision.

  6. 6
    Punchy says:

    Honestly, why do they even bother to ajudicate these matters as a 9 member court? Why not just ask what Stevens thinks?

    Seriously, when has Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts NOT voted as a solid bloc on every and all major cases? Really, the most important man in this country right now (IMO) is Justice Stevens.

    To think 4 judges think the 3-ring circus at Gitmo DESIGNED AND DEDICATED to finding all defendants guilty no matter what is fine is purely sickening.

  7. 7
    john b says:

    and i was beginning to think checks and balances were a thing of the past.

  8. 8
    cleek says:

    OT: Marines toss puppy-tossing Marine.

  9. 9
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Seriously, when has Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts NOT voted as a solid bloc on every and all major cases?

    I hope this puts to bed the nonsense about how smart or independent Roberts is. What a huge fucking disappointment, just another rightwing nut in a more outwardly pleasing wrapper.

  10. 10
    Paul Weimer says:

    {snark} This just confirms that we need to get rid of Stevens. His librul rulings are preventing President Bush’s strong leadership! I pray for the day for a real Conservative Court so that we can send all of these libruls to Gitmo to understand that we need to deny these prisoners Habeas Corpus in order to win the War on Terra! {/snark}

  11. 11
    Zifnab says:

    Seriously, when has Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts NOT voted as a solid bloc on every and all major cases?

    Actually, guys. They don’t always rule together.
    From Obsidian Wing

    That’s what the Court had to decide — How broadly should the statutes be construed? The upshot is that construing the text broadly would make it easier to bring discrimination claims. Construing it more narrowly, by contrast, would make it harder.

    In both cases, the Court found that the statutes covered retaliation — so it was a win for the forces of good. But the alignment was interesting. The race case was 7-2, with Roberts and Alito joining the liberals. The age case was 6-3, because the majority lost Roberts (but Roberts’ dissent is still quite different from the Thomas/Scalia one).

    This from last week.

  12. 12
    El Cid says:

    And, right on cue, from Malkin:

    Supreme Court opens up Gitmo lawsuit floodgates; Scalia: “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”
    By Michelle Malkin • June 12, 2008 10:56 AM

    What’s that sound? The thunder of left-wing lawyers and Gitmo detainees jumping up and down for joy at the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. Brace yourselves. Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warns that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” and concludes “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”…

    …I’m reminded of what one DHS source pointed out to me when the high court ruled in favor of habeas corpus rights four years ago: “Hmm, now that the Gitmo detainees are entitled to habeas challenges and hearings by American courts and American judges, I wonder how long before they and their lawyers claim that they are entitled to asylum hearings as well?”

    Won’t be long now!

  13. 13
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Seriously, when has Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts NOT voted as a solid bloc on every and all major cases?

    It should be noted that all four are Roman Catholic. And the other Catholic member of the court, Kennedy, often swings their way.

    WTF is up with the SCOTUS, five out of nine are Catholic, 2 more are Jewish and two are protestant?

    And all but one of them (the smart one, Stevens) is a Harvard or Yale grad?

    We could use a little more advise in your advise and consent role, Senators. Kthx, bye.

  14. 14
    TheFountainHead says:

    WAY OT: John, are you anywhere near Shepherdstown? I’m sending a skid-load of gear down there for some Contemporary Theatre Festival and the address sounded familiar for some reason.

  15. 15
    Scott H says:

    the detainees in Gitmo have constitutional rights

    Ya think!?

    Oh, before I read the news report, let me just guess who dissented.

  16. 16
    JR says:

    Dear Jesus, the comments over at Hot Air are gold.

  17. 17
    4tehlulz says:

    “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”

    Translated: I agree with al Qaeda that American liberty and the rule of law are shams and should be disposed of immediately.

  18. 18
    Dork says:

    Can I haz imparshul jewdishal sistem now?

  19. 19
    Zifnab says:

    “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”

    No no no. I’ve seen this James Bond movie before. You’ve got to say the nation will “rue” the day. And you’ve got to do it bald, while sitting in a high backed chair with a white cat and a monocle.

  20. 20
    Wilfred says:

    Wow. Surprised and happy to hear it. Of course, it does mean the end of life as we know it and the final victory for the islamofascistterroristhordes.

    But still.

  21. 21
    nightjar says:

    I wonder how long before they and their lawyers wingnuts claim that they are entitled to a fresh batch of rubber lined diapers asylum hearings as well?”

    Won’t be long now!

    fixed from a lack of respect.

  22. 22
    Dracula says:

    Anyone else think, after seeing Scalia’s response, that he’s jumped the tank from “impartial-but-leaning-right” to “will do/say/parrot whatever the Cheney regime asks me”?

    Seriously, isn’t his dissent parroting Bush Admin talking points? Since when is a SC justice allowed to appeal to emotion and ideology instead of logic and reasoning?

    What a POS Justice he’s become…

  23. 23
    4tehlulz says:

    “impartial-but-leaning-right”

    PROTIP: Scalia was never impartial.

  24. 24
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    What a POS Justice he’s become…

    I’m pretty sure he started there.

  25. 25
    The Moar You Know says:

    Really, the most important man in this country right now (IMO) is Justice Stevens.

    Which is why this election is going to be the most important one for the next thirty years.

  26. 26
    jenniebee says:

    The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.

    Well, while we’re waiting for that to happen, we’ll still be living and we’ll still be us, with everything that’s always meant still intact. Enough of living on our knees, throwing away every freedom every patriot has ever fought to protect out of our fear of teh terra. If this kills us, at least we stood up for what we believe in first. At least now we die on our feet. And that’s something.

  27. 27
    BH-Buck says:

    The Moar You Know, exactly!

  28. 28
    The Moar You Know says:

    Anyone else think, after seeing Scalia’s response, that he’s jumped the tank from “impartial-but-leaning-right” to “will do/say/parrot whatever the Cheney regime asks me”?

    You can’t possibly be serious. He’s never been impartial. The man’s been an apologist for neo-fascism before he even passed the bar exam.

  29. 29
    BH-Buck says:

    jenniebee, very well said.

    Are we men or are we a bunch of basement-hiding, cheetos-eating bed-wetters?

  30. 30
    Zifnab says:

    PROTIP: Scalia was never impartial.

    Wait, when did this become golf?

  31. 31
    TheFountainHead says:

    Are we men or are we a bunch of basement-hiding, cheetos-eating bed-wetters?

    Don’t you think there ought to be a third option for the women?

  32. 32
    jrg says:

    Crazy, left-wing activist judges. Don’t they know that someone is a terrorist if the president says so? What could possibly go wrong with detaining people indefinitely and denying them a trial? “Innocent until proven guilty” was made up by the left as a partisan response to BDS (so was “separation of church and state”, but that’s another post).

    If you’re interested in the truth (not some left-wing fantasy), go here. Be prepared to see some scary stuff. This is the documentary that the radical left does not want you to see.

    Scalia spilled his urine for your freedom. He stormed the beaches at Nantucket, for God’s sake. You ungrateful bitches would not understand that, because you all hate America and want to die in a terrorist attack.

  33. 33
    montysano says:

    So, we live in a country where:

    – We happily toss other humans into the Gulag, and never lose a moment’s sleep as to their guilt or innocence;
    – We watch 50M of our fellow citizens wallow around without health care, and refuse to consider any solution because it might mean sacrifice or inconvenience;
    – We gladly allow millions of Third World workers, essentially slaves, to fill WalMart with crap for our amusement.

    And then…… go to church on Sunday and praise Jeebus? Do I have this straight?

  34. 34
    Chris Johnson says:

    I’m extremely sure the administration is going to try for-

    2: kill them all today so they can’t testify.

    The reason is, the reports I was hearing about how one of the prisoners was reportedly trying to convince all the others to commit suicide… himself acting as the sockpuppet of the administration, I’m betting. Anyone have more on that stuff? I don’t even remember the guy’s name but that was the first thing that came to mind.

    I think it would be great if this could be avoided, and it’s not by any means a sure thing that it’ll happen, but I’m telling you, be aware that the administration may prefer to simply kill everyone without process and claim they committed suicide.

    I’m calling it.

  35. 35
    passerby says:

    Let’s review the anomalous events that have recently been reported in the corporate media:

    1) Laura Bush, from some sunny resort in Afghanistan, comes out with a sympathetic defense for the wife of the opposing party’s nominee. (to which we respond: WTF!?)

    2) Bush weaves some ruefulness (“I guess I sounded like a blowhard but, I’m really not”) into his daily saber rattling while in Europe. (to which we respond: Really. Really!)

    3) Out of the blue, the SCOTUS suddenly turns against the total inhumanity at Gitmo–every opinion prior to this one had been to allow its existence. (our response: about goddam time!)

    What’s going on?

    I don’t think the Bushes and the SCOTUS have suddenly had some kind of epiphany. I think pressure is being brought to bear and they know their rape-pillage-and plunder train is pulling into the station and they need to make nice and right quick.

    Also, this pressure can’t be coming from within the US. Certainly, the Executive and Judiciary are not responding to the will of the people–us people don’t have that kind of clout. Congress, maybe? HaHaHaHaHaHa…(ad infinitum)

    Q: So from where else can this kind of pressure, or potent influence, or coercion if you will, be coming??

    I’m staying tuned.

    I recommend Jiffy Pop–a turban of fun.

    T

  36. 36
    Dug Jay says:

    West Virginia’s senior Senator, Robert Byrd, strikes again. Already, the DOJ has announced that up to 50 prisoners at Gitmo will be relocated to a West Virgina federal prison at Hazelton, WV. God only knows how much this will cost US taxpayers after the millions to be spent on upgrades are completed.

  37. 37
    BH-Buck says:

    montysano, sadly and pathetically, yes. :-(

  38. 38
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    jennibee, true. I’ve never been able to fathom how the same nation that managed to get through the Revolutionary War, the War Between the States, WWI, WWII, and decades of the real threat of nuclear annihilation with its head held high suddenly found itself terrified by a small bunch of bearded bozos with improvised weapons.
    Cowardice was never en vogue until they put a coward in the White House.

  39. 39
    montysano says:

    West Virginia’s senior Senator, Robert Byrd, strikes again. Already, the DOJ has announced that up to 50 prisoners at Gitmo will be relocated to a West Virgina federal prison at Hazelton, WV. God only knows how much this will cost US taxpayers after the millions to be spent on upgrades are completed.

    Some drug was being chased by police the other night, and crashed her car at the gate to the local army base. ZOMG! What if that had been a terraist!!

    Out came the checkbooks, and somewhere today, a security contractor is smiling.

  40. 40
    montysano says:

    West Virginia’s senior Senator, Robert Byrd, strikes again. Already, the DOJ has announced that up to 50 prisoners at Gitmo will be relocated to a West Virgina federal prison at Hazelton, WV. God only knows how much this will cost US taxpayers after the millions to be spent on upgrades are completed.

    Some drug suspect was being chased by police the other night, and crashed her car at the gate to the local army base. ZOMG! What if that had been a terraist!!

    Out came the checkbooks, and somewhere today, a security contractor is smiling.

  41. 41
    BH-Buck says:

    Dug Jay, millions here or billions overseas. What’s the difference?

    (Oh, right – BILLIONS!)

  42. 42
    basement-hiding cheeto-eating bed-wetter says:

    Are you calling me a girl? That’s low.

  43. 43
    passerby says:

    God only knows how much this will cost US taxpayers after the millions to be spent on upgrades are completed.

    Nah, don’t fret about the money DugJay. One day soon, the absolutely worthless (currently backed by hotair)Federal Reserve Note we call the USDollar will rise from its ashes in front of a new, globally sanctioned, Gold Standard.

    Exciting times.

    T

  44. 44
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    The local Hen House just announced they’re almost out of Cheetos, Mountain Dew, and diapers. Also, plastic keyboard spittle-protectors are selling strong, but strangely, few of these panicky chubsters are purchasing any sunscreen or sunglasses. Instead, basement curtains.

    What could be going on?

  45. 45
    passerby says:

    Some drug was being chased by police the other night, and crashed her car at the gate to the local army base. ZOMG! What if that had been a terraist!!

    Out came the checkbooks, and somewhere today, a security contractor is smiling.

    Winner!

    T

  46. 46
    BH-Buck says:

    Just read a user comment on a Robert Byrd video at YouTube:

    I am from Beckley WV and I think Byrd is a fucking joke. He has never given us West Virginians anything but fucking handouts and welfare. Bring a factory or something here so people can get themselves out of poverty. […]

    Can teh stoopidity get and greater than this?

  47. 47
    SamFromUtah says:

    I’m extremely sure the administration is going to try for-

    2: kill them all today so they can’t testify.

    They don’t have to kill them to avoid their testifying – they can just torture them into insanity, like with Padilla. That’s option 4.

  48. 48
    D. Mason says:

    Hey monty I think we’re neighbors.

  49. 49
    John Cole says:

    West Virginia’s senior Senator, Robert Byrd, strikes again. Already, the DOJ has announced that up to 50 prisoners at Gitmo will be relocated to a West Virgina federal prison at Hazelton, WV. God only knows how much this will cost US taxpayers after the millions to be spent on upgrades are completed.

    Because housing them indefinitely in a facility that had to be BUILT in Gitmo was FREE!

  50. 50
    El Cid says:

    IM IN YR CONSTUTN PROTECTN YR RITES

  51. 51
    montysano says:

    Hey monty I think we’re neighbors.

    So… does “montysano” now make sense to you? Feel free to drop me a line at dbennett at tlsinc dot com.

  52. 52
    Martin says:

    Because housing them indefinitely in a facility that had to be BUILT in Gitmo was FREE!

    Not to mention the convenience of all the lawyers and support staff that we always keep in Cuba and the transportation costs there.

    And why do we need to upgrade these facilities? My understanding is that when Gitmo opened it was plywood, chain link, razor wire, and the usual guys with M16s.

  53. 53
    D. Mason says:

    So… does “montysano” now make sense to you?

    Sure it does but, it was the reference to the incident at RSA that caught my attention.

  54. 54
    Tsulagi says:

    ACTIVIST JUDGES! ACTIVIST JUDGES!

    And right on cue, from the serious adults at RedState

    On two separate occasions now, the United States Congress has duly enacted painstakingly specific laws to lawfully and Constitutionally strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases involving non-citizens currently detained outside of sovereign territory held by the United States. As Dan McLaughlin has noted, today the Supreme Court purports to ignore this clear limitation on its own authority to even hear the case before it (which by law has been confined to the CADC) and issue an opinion declaring the act which removed their jurisdiction unconstitutional. Savor the irony for a moment, if you will.

    Savor the irony indeed. That from the minds of the patriots.

    Shorter non-Nazi-appeasing patriot: If we can get one of our own, a self-serving gutless retarded spoiled brat elected as president and fill Congress with enough that will bend over on cue, then all is good in the republic. Any tedious constitutional issues/questions can simply be addressed and resolved by The Decider in an executive finding. If he sees fit and takes the time to do so.

    Pure unadulterated dildoed assholes.

  55. 55
    Pooh says:

    LOL at “Constitutionally strip the Supreme Court of Jurisdiction.” EPIC fail of Con Law 101.

  56. 56
    Jeff says:

    That sound you hear is six years of Republican bullshit being flushed down the drain, followed by the inevitable wailing from the Malkin wing of the GOP:

    ACTIVIST JUDGES! ACTIVIST JUDGES!

    In fact, you didn’t even have to wait for the Malkin wing. This was built right into the opinion’s main dissent! Unelected, poltically unaccountable Justice Roberts writes:

    So who has won? … [C]ertainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.

  57. 57
    zzyzx says:

    LOL at “Constitutionally strip the Supreme Court of Jurisdiction.” EPIC fail of Con Law 101.

    I don’t know, Article III, section 2 does seem to provide some evidence for that:

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The last phrase there implies that Congress could make exceptions, at least to me.

  58. 58

    Some hits-and-runs …

    Punchy: Your point might have some force if you correctly named the swing justice. That would be Justice Kennedy (who pointedly authored today’s opinion), not Justice Stevens. Stevens is a quite reliable pro-civil-liberties justice. Kennedy, a Bush I appointee, not so much. But it’s Kennedy who has assmued the swinger mantle after O’Connor retired.

    4tehlulz and others: While I wholeheartedly agree that Scalia has never been what one would call “impartial,” it is the case that earlier in his career, he could lay some claim to being a “principled conservative” justice, not merely a partisan hack. In the 1989 case Mistretta v. United States, for instance, he played against conservative type (which, at the time meant chiefly “lock ’em all up for a very long time”) by issuing a dissent holding that the harsh federal sentencing “guidelines” (considered at the time to be entirely mandatory and binding on judges) violate the separation of powers. Although it pains me to say it, his Mistretta dissent is a powerful and correct exposition of separation-of-powers doctrine. My point, though, is that Scalia has gone from issuing usually interesting opinions that I usually disagree with to dashing off hackwork that would not look out of place on the WSJ’s op-ed page.

    zzyz: The question whether the Exceptions Clause that you point to means that Congress can shut off all avenues of judicial review whenever it feels like it (and doesn’t like how the courts are deciding cases) is actually quite complicated. Moreover, in cases — like Boumdiene — that implicate habeas corpus rights (i.e., cases involving the Excutive clapping someone in irons), you have to contend with the very strong injunction in the Suspension Clause. Given that bar against suspending the “privilege of habeas corpus,” it is simply not sensible to interpret the Exceptions Clause to mean that Congress can eliminate habeas review of Executive detention.

  59. 59
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    Dennis – SGMM Says:

    jennibee, true. I’ve never been able to fathom how the same nation that managed to get through the Revolutionary War, the War Between the States, WWI, WWII, and decades of the real threat of nuclear annihilation with its head held high suddenly found itself terrified by a small bunch of bearded bozos with improvised weapons.
    Cowardice was never en vogue until they put a coward in the White House.

    Dennis,

    While some of the wingnuts are truly wetting their beds, I’m convinced that at least some portion of them understand that teh terra poses no real threat to the US. For them it is about justifying their internal power grabs and settling scores with their domestic opposition, nothing more and nothing less.

    And it isn’t just the elites leading the ignorant and gullible sheeple around by the nose either – I think the idea of sticking it to teh Left by any and all means necessary appeals to a fairly large fraction of the population (say 20%). If they have to pretend to be afraid of scary Mooslims to do it, well a true American patriot is willing to make any sacrifice for the good of the country.

    Basically, the Civil War never really ended, we just use more subtle weapons to fight each other now.

    OMG the Reichstag is on fire!

  60. 60
    Clutch414 says:

    How sad is it that we are celebrating a close 5-4 Supreme Court decision TO UPHOLD THE BASIC PROTECTIONS OF LAW GRANTED IN THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION?

    Ugh.

  61. 61
    Delia says:

    I blame Obama. His terrorist knuckle-rap with his wife has clearly caused the collapse of the SCOTUS.

  62. 62
    zzyzx says:

    Sebastian – that actually worries me that there’s a constitutional loophole.

  63. 63
    west coast says:

    The guys at RedState must have failed their high-school Civics exams, especially the part about Marbury v. Madison.

Comments are closed.