Supreme Court Rules Against Bush on Gitmo

The Supreme Court today handed Bush a major defeat on the question of how to handle the detainees at Gitmo. In the case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld, the Court ruled 5-4 that the President did not have the authority to try those detainees by military tribunals. The ruling was 5-3, with Chief Justice Roberts having to recuse himself because he was part of the DC Circuit Appeals Court panel whose ruling was under consideration. Kennedy joined with Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer in the majority decision, with Alito, Thomas and Scalia in dissent.

It's a very complex ruling that involves multiple statutory and constitutional questions. Among the statutory questions are whether the AUMF provides legal authority for such tribunals, whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows such tribunals for conspiracy charges, what the detainees' legal status is under the Geneva Conventions, and much more. The constitutional questions involve separation of powers, the president's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief, the proper role of the courts in such cases, and much more. This is going to take a while to digest and analyze.


More like this

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Hamdan case was that it was argued not by a prominent legal scholar or law professor, nor by a private defense attorney, but by a military lawyer from the JAG office, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift. Think about the position this put him in as an officer, taking a…
A couple of people over the last few days have emailed me links to articles about whether Justice Scalia should recuse himself from today's Hamdan case (a case involving whether detainess at Gitmo must be given civil trials in American courts) because of his recent remarks indicating how he would…
Very important Supreme Court ruling today, which upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law, passed twice by popular referendum. The ruling was 6-3 and fell along fairly predictable lines. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens and…
It's going to be one of those weeks, so I don't know how much I'm going to get to post. I do, however, want to share the editorial from this week's Nation (emphasis mine): George W. Bush's decision to move Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and thirteen other "high value" Al Qaeda captives from secret CIA…

I am waiting, breathlessly for the lefties and righties come out with their hype. Because this is not a victory for the left or the right - this is a victory for our country and our democracy.

Treban, the political compass has shifted. I am a fiscally conservative civil libertarian. Ten years ago, that made me an independent who typically voted Republican.

But the new GOP is a foul union of the religious right with those who worship presidential power. On today's political compass, if you support checks and balances, if you cheer the kind of ruling that the Supreme Court handed down in Hamdan, if you care about civil liberties, you are by definition on the left, perhaps the extreme left, simply because today's GOP is the chief enemy of all those things. Strange times.

On today's political compass, the left is by definition extreme.

By Ginger Yellow (not verified) on 29 Jun 2006 #permalink