Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I don't usually post new stuff in the middle of the day, but this is too big to wait. The Supreme Court this morning delivered a major smackdown to the Bush administration, ruling that the detainees at Gitmo had to be allowed to challenge their detention in the regular federal district courts because the military tribunals set up by Congress did not protect habeas corpus rights. See full ruling here.
The ruling was 5-4 with Kennedy joining the four liberals on the court and writing the majority opinion. I'm personally thrilled about that because it indicates perhaps another step in the evolution of Kennedy into a genuine legal libertarian (Lawrence being the first big step). A couple highlights from the ruling:
Petitioners have met their burden of establishing that the DTA review process is, on its face, an inadequate substitute for habeas. Among the constitutional infirmities from which the DTA potentially suffers are the absence of provisions allowing petitioners to challenge the President's authority under the AUMF to detain them indefinitely, to contest the CSRT's findings of fact, to supplement the record on review with exculpatory evidence discovered after the CSRT proceedings, and to request release. The statute cannot be read to contain each of these constitutionally required procedures. MCA §7 thus effects an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.
And:
Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause's protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo.
This is absolutely huge. I'll have more on it tomorrow.
Comments
"I don't usually post new stuff in the middle of the day, but this is too big to wait. "
Totally off topic, but why is that, out of curiosity? Your posting schedule used to be a lot more spread out over the day. I was under the impression that you did sort of more independent-type stuff for a living: has that changed? Do you have a 9-5 now?
I'm actually mostly interested because I'm not particularly happy with my own career (and lack thereof) and I'm interested in how people that DO seem to be doing the sorts of things I'm interested in work it out professionally (outside of just becoming a bleedin paid scientist already, which I may have to resort to in the end).
Posted by: Bad | June 12, 2008 2:03 PM
YAAAAYYYY!!!!!! There IS hope yet for our country.
Posted by: Karen | June 12, 2008 2:16 PM
@Bad: My husband does his internet stuff as part of taking a break from his engineering work. To do that, he spends 10-11 hours at work each day. The intensity of his job is such that he has to take such breaks, and this is common among his colleagues. This works for us, because we don't have kids, and keep similar schedules: I'm a student and my workday is just as long and fractured. I don't recommend it in general.
Posted by: Karen | June 12, 2008 2:21 PM
I don't have a 9-5. I make my living solely on my writing (with some poker winnings on the side) and can set my own schedule. I've just kind of fallen into a comfortable pattern of putting up several posts in the morning (scheduled the night before since I'm a late to bed/late to rise kinda guy). During the day I work on various writing projects - posts for here, articles for the Michigan Messenger, freelance articles for other publications, speeches - but typically the blog posts I write I save for the next day. I always try to be a day ahead on blog posts, having 5-10 posts already in the can after scheduling the next day's posts. That gives me the flexibility to spend a day focusing on something else if I'm facing a deadline.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 12, 2008 2:25 PM
Well, then you have my envy, that sounds like a pretty worthwhile career, if it pays well enough. I'd be interested if you'd written up sort of how your career evolved to where you are today in the past: all I really seem to have in mind is that you used to do financial stuff, and got blogging and speaking, and then got involved with the Messenger project.
Did you ever use the time-lapse posting feature to spread things out more evenly throughout the day? I do, however, like the morning "kitchen-sink" dumps better in general, if only because knowing when a blog usually updates is more of an incentive to check in than not being sure if anything new will have popped up recently.
Posted by: Bad | June 12, 2008 2:34 PM
In and of itself, this is good news. It would make me a lot happier if I thought for a second that anything would change because of it.
Posted by: Seraph | June 12, 2008 2:43 PM
Every so often the US Supreme Court, as it is presently constituted, acutally manages to get something right. This is one of those times. Good for them!
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | June 12, 2008 2:53 PM
I was shopping at the supermarket and overheard a delivery man telling one of the store's empoyees about how the "Liberal" SCotUS had just issued a ruling to turn all the terrorists loose. He then went on to say Nancy Peolosi this and Barack Obama that, yada, yada. I don't engage morons like this.
So, I come home turn on NPR and listen to some dickwad who was a "legal expert" in the Rayguns and B41 WH's. Said expert is, of course, saying essentially the same thing as the lunchboxer at the store. Difference being that he is a member of the bar with many years of experience. Fucking neo-clowns.
Posted by: democommie | June 12, 2008 2:54 PM
Bad-
Honestly, it's just sheer dumb luck. I started my blog in November 2003 just to have a place to rant and rave. As the blog has grown it's opened up so many doors to other opportunities. It's changed my life completely and allowed me to make a good living doing what I would do for free. I just basically hit the lottery.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 12, 2008 3:19 PM
I know I have the attention span of a young child (and the liver of a 90 year old), but it seems to me that when I read the dissenting opinion excerpts , I don't see legal reasoning. Simply that the world is a scary place and this makes us feel better. I've got to believe there was more substance than that (I blame the bumper sticker mentality of the MSM).
Posted by: rmp | June 12, 2008 3:25 PM
I agree that I like Ed's posting schedule--this is a blog I know I can read with my morning coffee. I wouldn't even have seen this post until tomorrow morning if I was adhering to my usual reading schedule ...
Posted by: Scott Simmons | June 12, 2008 3:35 PM
I like how giving "terrorists" (some are some aren't) the same rights to access the courts that citizens have means that they will be set free.
Somehow, I don't remember that happening with the Oklahoma City terrorists or the Unibomber.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | June 12, 2008 3:37 PM
"I just basically hit the lottery."
To our benefit.
Posted by: mlf | June 12, 2008 3:46 PM
Ed, you gotta read Scalia's dissent -- the guy is totally unhinged. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but he starts out by going into the standard freakout mode: "They're killing us and we're arguing over legal niceties!!" Imagine -- judges in Washington arguing over the law. What is this world coming to?
Oh, and here's a nice little gem of standard hysteria:
The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays
upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war
harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans
to be killed...
Right -- "opinion" is helping the terrists.
Then he argues that applying the law at Gitmo will only force our military to send detainees somewhere worse, so this decision is really BAD for the detainees:
Counsel advised him "that the great weight of legal authority
indicates that a federal district court could not
properly exercise habeas jurisdiction over an alien detained
at [Guantanamo Bay]." Memorandum from Patrick
F. Philbin and John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorneys
General, Office of Legal Counsel, to William J. Haynes II,
General Counsel, Dept. of Defense (Dec. 28, 2001). Had
the law been otherwise, the military surely would not have
transported prisoners there, but would have kept them in
Afghanistan, transferred them to another of our foreign
military bases, or turned them over to allies for detention.
Those other facilities might well have been worse for the
detainees themselves.
Yeah, quoting something written by John Yoo really bolsters a legal case.
But even when the military has evidence that it can
bring forward, it is often foolhardy to release that evidence
to the attorneys representing our enemies. And one escalation
of procedures that the Court is clear about is affording
the detainees increased access to witnesses (perhaps
troops serving in Afghanistan?) and to classified information.
Well, we could have avoided that problem altogether by classifying them as "prisoners of war," right? I don't recall POWs having the right to subpoena the soldiers who captured them, do you?
And in conclusion:
Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that
goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension
Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separationof-
powers principles to establish a manipulable "functional"
test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus
(and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other
constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes
important precedents, most conspicuously Justice
Jackson's opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager.
It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law
that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens
abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically,
it sets our military commanders the impossible task
of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards
this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports
the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done
today. I dissent.
All in all, this is not the best of news: four justices out of nine refusing to enforce the Constitution is just plain scary.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 12, 2008 3:47 PM
The Opinion is great. Hooray for liberty and justice for all!
But the Dissents are a fun read (though I'm told I sometimes have an odd sense of what's fun). It seems to consist mainly of repeating over and over again that DTA was good enough, that it was really close to habeas anyway. So why bother? To me that just begs the question, if they were so similar then where's the harm?
They managed to squeeze in plenty of fodder for conservative critics to latch on to, this hurts the detainees (seriously!), lawyers running the war, unaccountable judges overriding the will of the people. All the standard stuff we've come to expect from Roberts and Co. Feel free to point and laugh. I did.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 12, 2008 3:57 PM
Or perhaps my sense of fun isn't so odd, judging by rmp and Raging Bee. ;)
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 12, 2008 4:09 PM
Posted by: FishyFred | June 12, 2008 4:16 PM
Couldn't agree more. Scalia and Thomas, in particular, seem to have lost all capacity for rational thought regarding the rights of so-called "enemy combatants."
Posted by: Gretchen | June 12, 2008 4:23 PM
Oh, I dunno....that's a bit better than Korematsu and WWII....
Posted by: gwangung | June 12, 2008 4:27 PM
You mean "enemy combatants" DNE "Untermenchen?"
Why does the Supreme Court hate our country so much.
They must want the terrists to win.
Posted by: SharonB | June 12, 2008 5:04 PM
Just took a few glances at the dissent. Mother of pearl. Ed, I expect you to absolutely UNLOAD on this.
First page of Roberts's dissent:
Wha-WHAT?! Habeas Corpus is an undefined "set of shapeless procedures"?
And I love the end of Scalia's dissent. I didn't read the whole thing, but it seems that he is essentially arguing that the U.S. has no jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay. He accuses the Court of "warp[ing] our Constitution" over the matter of giving aliens habeas corpus rights.
Posted by: FishyFred | June 12, 2008 5:09 PM
"Evolution" in the Pokemon sense, of course. :o)
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 12, 2008 5:17 PM
"Evolution" in the Pokemon sense, of course.
Well, the "Pokémon sense" does just happen to be the original meaning of the word.
Posted by: Pandragon | June 12, 2008 5:36 PM
"I just basically hit the lottery."
Well, like any form of gambling, you had to play it pretty darn hard, and invest a heck of a lot of time and energy so that you'd actually be ready to make the best of a winning hand. :)
Posted by: Bad | June 12, 2008 5:43 PM
How would Kennedy have not been considered a legal libertarian with his opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey?
This is great news, by the way!
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 12, 2008 5:52 PM
Note that the four justices in dissent are all the kind of judges McCain has promised -- my name -- to look for if he gets elected. Three of the five in favor are the kinds of judges Obama has promised to look for should he get elected.
This election is tremendously important from a civil libertarian / protect the Constitution viewpoint. Give the "Unitary Executive" crowd another vote and it could get ugly.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | June 12, 2008 6:11 PM
Which three? I'm guessing Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 12, 2008 6:16 PM
Weren't previous Gitmo cases unanimous against the Bush adminstration when he tried to try the people without any legal protections?
And the main split here in the 5-4 case is that 4 justices think that the congressional law protects the habeas rights of the Gitmo prisoners, and the 5 don't.
Toss in partisan arguments over the war on terror and sour graps of the neo-cons, and you have a recipe for the inflammatory dissents that Hannity and O'Reilly will masturbate to.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | June 12, 2008 6:24 PM
Pft. Typical Scalia. "...judicially brainstormed seperation of powers..." apparently someone hasn't read the Federalist Papers in a decade or four.
This guy never had any place in a law faculty, let alone on the Supreme Court. Both he and Thomas are shills, and have always been shills; men who believe not a whit in the values of our founders, the substance of our Constitution, or for that matter, the rule of law.
Posted by: Julian | June 12, 2008 7:39 PM
Reed A. Cartwright:
Toss in partisan arguments over the war on terror and sour graps of the neo-cons, and you have a recipe for the inflammatory dissents that Hannity and O'Reilly will masturbate to.
I'd like to remind you that a more literal reading of that image of a future Sean 'n' Bill spankfest has made me glad that I haven't eaten dinner yet. >:)
Now, of course the reasons why Shrub and his advisers are sweating bullets on this is twofold: for one, it's another blow to their gibberish concerning the unified executive theory; for another, there is the distinct possibility that Donny Rumsfeld's blithe assertion that all inmates at Gitmo fully deserve to be there might not even be worth the paper that speech was printed on.
Granted, there are tons of people at Gitmo who deserve to be locked up: they just deserve to be locked up after an actual criminal trial in an actual Federal court.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | June 12, 2008 7:39 PM
The dumbest thing these fools ever did was trying to try pow's as legal non-persons. Hell, many of the people at Guantanamo weren't even picked up in battle; they were pinched out of their villages on the vague assertions of actual enemy combatants and local allies. Imagine if we had tried to arrest every German soldier and every French, Danish, Belgian, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Swiss, Italian, Greek, and Libyan citizen with a name or description similar to that of someone accused of collaborating during World War Two. This policy was sheer idiocy! There wasn't even any review of each individual non-battlefield detention in the field to ensure that the facts were straight; they had a bag thrown over their head, and got shipped off to a holding facility to await airlift to Cuba!
Good to see someone else call Shrub by the name he deserves. Long Live Ann Richards!
Posted by: Julian | June 12, 2008 7:50 PM
So, I come home turn on NPR and listen to some dickwad who was a "legal expert" in the Rayguns and B41 WH's. Said expert is, of course, saying essentially the same thing as the lunchboxer at the store. Difference being that he is a member of the bar with many years of experience. Fucking neo-clowns.
I think I heard that same guy on NPR this morning! I only listened for part of a minute, but the thing that fascinated me about his rant was a particular complaint (quotes from memory) that now "anyone who claims they're not an enemy combatant" has a right to this "time-consuming process" and this creates some kind of unacceptable logistical nightmare. His shock at the idea that "enemy combatant" status might be ever called into question just kind of struck me as interesting, given that as far as I am aware the particular legal designation of "enemy combatant" in use here is something only given formal definition for the first time by the MCA that this case was filed to challenge in the first place; and the Red Cross was complaining as early as 2002 that "unlawful combatant" is not a concept that exists in international law. Am I missing something here?
Random question: So this decision grants "unlawful enemy combatants" a right to challenge their detentions in the normal U.S. courts-- does the decision in any way limit the government's ability to designate someone captured in armed conflict a prisoner of war and handle them separately from the standard court system?
Posted by: Coin | June 12, 2008 7:52 PM
Well, this is a conservative opinion - if you understand conservative in its traditional definition of keeping to the traditions and norms of the past. Habeas corpus is a cornerstone of our entire legal system. Start mucking around with it by allowing Congress or President to decide when to honor it and our entire criminal system begins to totter. The radicals are Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. What was their oath of office again?
Posted by: BC | June 12, 2008 7:57 PM
Julian:
Hell, many of the people at Guantanamo weren't even picked up in battle; they were pinched out of their villages on the vague assertions of actual enemy combatants and local allies.
Yep. Hence my annoyance with Rummy's assertion (and one, unsuprisingly, that he's never retracted) that the only people stuck in Gitmo were the absolute scum of the earth without exception. That statement reeks of the usual political strategy of lying and blustering in order to better cover your ass after the actual facts get out.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | June 12, 2008 8:29 PM
Random question: So this decision grants "unlawful enemy combatants" a right to challenge their detentions in the normal U.S. courts-- does the decision in any way limit the government's ability to designate someone captured in armed conflict a prisoner of war and handle them separately from the standard court system?
Not as far as I know. Don't expect the Bushies to take that tack, though - knowing them, all they'll do is probably go on another ideological circling of the wagons and stick to their canard on "enemy combatant" status until Shrub mercifully leaves office come January.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | June 12, 2008 8:32 PM
This entire sordid affair is just one more example of the Bush Administration wanting to have it both ways on everything: They are for Homeland Security, but not for funding it if it doesn't provide patronage jobs or manufacturing profits; they are all for supporting the troops, but not for funding the VA hospitals where the broken bodies and minds are shipped. In this case, the issue was interrogation: Under Geneva Convention 3 (which governs POWs), you can't interrogate POWs.
So they invented a new category, enemy combatants. It has no definition, so it was perfect. And they've gotten away with that fiction for six years because... well, because Americans are a lot more interested in American Idol and watching humiliating footage of Britney Spears on Hard Copy.
There are only three possibilities for the Gitmo inmates: Either they are POWs (GC3), civilians (GC4) or criminals (also GC4). If they are any of those things, then there is process that is due to that status. Hence the intellectual dishonesty of the Administration and (especially) Scalia. His dissent is essentially emotional name-calling. Heck of a job, Scaly.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 12, 2008 8:49 PM
Coin:
You are correct. I listened to him for about a minute, what a lying sack of crap.
Kehrsam:
I think I like "Scaly" even better than "Tony Ducks".
Posted by: democommie | June 12, 2008 9:52 PM
But . . . but . . . the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeus corpus rights, only prohibits their suspension, or something like that.
Posted by: Daniel Kim | June 12, 2008 10:01 PM
I listened to a conservative American commentator claim today that the President can "suspend habeus corpus indefinitely during a time of war", and that the American constitution gives the executive branch that power. Is that in any way true?
Posted by: Jon Siminovitch | June 13, 2008 2:08 AM
Phew ! So the US are still a democracy !
Posted by: Christophe Thill | June 13, 2008 5:34 AM
Jon S,
From our constitution...
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Posted by: Jim51 | June 13, 2008 7:44 AM
Two questions:
1) Does this case also extend to the alleged 25,000 + enemy combatant prisoners the government keeps in (not so) secret prison ships on the high seas?
2) Will anything actually change because of this ruling? If not, can individuals in the Bush administration be criminally or financially liable?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | June 13, 2008 7:46 AM
Jon Siminovitch asked:
At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln suspended Habeas over large parts of the Border states, an act which was later ratified by Congress. Other than that, we have never faced rebellion or invasion (the British action during the War of 1812 was a raid, not an invasion).
So the answer is no, the Constitution does not approve of "suspending habeas indefinitely during time of war," and if it did. note that it is a legislative power, not one granted to the executive. Oh, and there's been no declaration of war.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 13, 2008 8:15 AM
Okay, so somehow I dropped Jon's question and lost "Article 9" in labeling the Clause. Need coffee.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 13, 2008 8:38 AM
So, essentially, the Bushies are bitching that they're going to have to present their evidence against these detainees in court, when they know that unsubstantiated hearsay alone will get laughed out of any reasonable court. But then, that's what Bush/Cheney et al and their lapdogs on the Supreme Court are ultimately after: the power to do as they please without any legal justification other than "because I said so."
Conservatives who are griping about this ruling seem to forget that the writ of habeas corpus is one of the things that makes Americans the Good Guys. The legal atrocity known as the "unitary presidency" is just a prettified phrase for old-style Soviet leadership, giving lip service to the rule of law while actually it's rule by whim--usually oppressive, dictatorial whim.
Yes, I know just how much harder it is to prosecute the so-called "war on terror" being constrained by such things as the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions--but that's the burden that comes with being civilized good guys. Abandoning those laws and rules of conduct means becoming the barbarians we're supposed to be fighting--i.e., becoming bad guys in our own right. It's tough living up to American ideals; clearly Bush, Cheney, Roberts, et al aren't up to the job.
Posted by: gary l. day | June 13, 2008 9:31 AM
The question I have is how are non-judges like nearly every person in this country supposed to look at this decision without thinking of the politics? Both sides broke into their accustomed camps. The judges have to know what the implications and outcomes would be.
I guess what I am trying to say, is all political talk about Supreme Court justices really about wanted outcomes? Or more talk about 'strict constructionist' and 'living constitution' philosophies just fancy words to arrive 9 times out of 10 at wanted conclusions?
Posted by: Ben Roethlisberger | June 13, 2008 9:55 AM
Got it in one.
Posted by: gwangung | June 13, 2008 10:20 AM
Ben R. stated
Except Kennedy who remains a wildcard.
Reading Scalia's dissent, which Roberts joined, gave me a sick feeling in my stomach on how close we've come to an America very different than the aspirations of our founding fathers. Those of us that watch the courts know of Scalia's fiercely promoted ideology, but Roberts joining Scalia's diatribe? What a disappointment! His true colors now emerge.
I have an extremely difficult time accepting the reality that current and past Presidents are so igornant on our founding ideals and the importance of judicial powers to defend those ideals. Reagan and both Bush's have used SCOTUS merely to pander to social conservatives - the hell with the ramifications to the country and its future.
Defense of our rights and the Constitution should be a minimal qualification expected out of both party's candidates - we should not have to consider this as an issue when deciding whom to vote for - yet here McCain already disqualifies himself. Instead we find McCain attacking our rights and the law to meet a litmus test to qualify for the votes of 22 - 28%% of the population which represents slightly more than half of one entire party (GOP).
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 13, 2008 10:42 AM
So, Ed, given that McCain wants more Alitos and Scalias, and Obama wants more Souters and Ginzburgs and Breyers, and Barr hasn't a snowflake's chance in hell of preventing the election of either McCain or Obama to be our next president:
Have you decided whom you're voting for yet?
Posted by: noncarborundum | June 13, 2008 12:28 PM
The Scalia dissent quoted by Raging Bee argues that the evidence relevant to determining whether or not a person is an enemy should be withheld from their attorney on the grounds that the attorney is "representing our enemies". That is an example of circular reasoning- assuming the conclusion as a premise- so pure that even the tinfoil-hat paranoid conspiracist set will have to stand mute in wonder.
It tends to bear out Bob Altemeyer's contention that authoritarian-follower personalities have a lot of trouble with logical reasoning.
What the Bushites have been trying to do is to reduce criminal justice to a standard of mere administrative convenience, which is an oddly familiar concept.
"Thank you, comrade Scalia. In light of your long service to the Party, your sentence will be pronounced administratively. Comrade Gletkin will take over your office."
Posted by: Ktesibios | June 13, 2008 12:32 PM
What struck me about the voting this time was that the Justices who voted in opposition to the Kelo vs. City of New London decision voted against the decision here. It's depressing.
Posted by: steven | June 13, 2008 3:23 PM
[Dave Berry voice]
Kennedy and the Four Liberals would make a great name for a rock band.
[/DBV]
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | June 13, 2008 4:38 PM
So just so I'm clear about absolutely, ridiculously wrong this guy was;
Habeas can be suspended, but only in the case of:
a.) Rebellion
b.) Invasion
With the caveat that the legislative branch must authorize it, and even so, it is not to be suspended indefinitely. Does the constitution spell the issue out any further, ie are rebellion and invasion defined, or is it assumed that everyone understands what those terms mean? Must habeas be restored within a certain time frame, or is it assumed the legislature will specify it?
I ask because the forthcoming wingnut argument I expect is that America was "invaded" on 9/11, and is now permanently under threat of further invasion. I expect they will further claim that the executive is therefore justified in suspending habeas for as long as they can conjure up the spectre of invasion. Reference to the President's infamous 'signing statements' may be forthcoming, when it is pointed out that the legislature never approved the suspension in the first place. Hasn't he been appending cute little notes to various pieces of legislation, giving himself the right to do as he pleases?
Posted by: Jon Siminovitch | June 13, 2008 4:40 PM
Ed sed, "It's changed my life completely and allowed me to make a good living doing what I would do for free."
I hate you!
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | June 13, 2008 4:42 PM
Jon: The Constitution generally assumes that words carry their ordinary meanings. The assumption is that habeas may be suspended for such time as it is reasonable to do so, and no further.
No, America has not been "invaded," nor is that likely to happen anytime soon. Nor is insurrection likely so long as Dancing With the Stars is running.
Steven: I know I'm on the minority on this blog, but Kelo was correctly decided. Just as there is no limitation on the power of taxation, there is also no limit on the power of eminent domain: Both are to be restrained by the political power. The correct response to Kelo is for legislatures to restrain the powers of eminent domain, as many states have done.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 13, 2008 11:53 PM
noncarborundum:
"So, Ed, given that McCain wants more Alitos and Scalias, and Obama wants more Souters and Ginzburgs and Breyers, and Barr hasn't a snowflake's chance in hell of preventing the election of either McCain or Obama to be our next president:
Have you decided whom you're voting for yet?"
Would not Sen McCain agree with this ruling? Is he in favor of endlessly detaining and interogating these prisoners? I tend to think he will he set straight many of Elmer Fud's legal mistakes and mistreatments of the war.
Posted by: Rich | June 14, 2008 3:07 AM
After all, it's the American Way we're fighting for here! We've got to fight to protect our rights by making sure nobody else has any! [/irony mode]
It's remarkable that McCain tries to differentiate himself from Dubya, but agrees with him on all the worst things. McCain has pandered so much to the neocons that I have lost all respect for him. When he was an outspoken critic of torture, he had my respect. Now I don't know if he's become senile, or had a principle-ectomy.
Posted by: BaldApe | June 14, 2008 8:49 AM
No. See BaldApe's link above.
Possibly. What's clear is that he objects to affording them habeas rights.
The facts strongly suggest you're mistaken.
Posted by: noncarborundum | June 14, 2008 3:05 PM
Thanks for the link BaldApe.
noncarb, it does appear that Sen McCain is changing course, although I still see a significant difference to W's position and that was my point. To assume all republicans will act like W going forward when he is the first to do some of these things is a big jump.
I don't expect Obama to be the same as Carter or Clinton on everything but many right wing talking heads would have us believe that. I really think it is important for us to determine what each candidate will do, in spite of how hard that is to do when campaigning politicians are mostly full of it. McCain is getting harder to read since he realized the nomination.
Posted by: Rich | June 16, 2008 12:55 AM