s skippy the bush kangaroo: from the "from your mouth to god's ears" department

skippy the bush kangaroo

Friday, June 30, 2006

from the "from your mouth to god's ears" department

knight ridder states the obivous...well, it would be obvious if we weren't all living in bizarro world...supreme court ruling may ripple through other bush policies:

the supreme court's ruling thursday that the bush administration can't use ad hoc military commissions to try suspected terrorists may have sweeping implications for other aspects of president bush's war on terror.

the court's decision has ignited a fierce debate about its full impact among lawyers, legal scholars, administration officials and members of congress.

some believe that the opinion could challenge the administration's claim the national security agency is the right to eavesdrop without court approval on americans who are suspected of having ties to al-qaida or other terrorist groups.

the high court's embrace of a central provision of the geneva conventions on war could also bolster challenges to u.s. interrogation techniques and the use of secret prisons to detain suspected terrorists. it also could help detainees who are being held without charges, lawyers or trials contest their situations, experts said.

"at this point, almost everything that could be affected by the decision is going to come to a screeching halt," said neal sonnett, the chair of the american bar association's task force on enemy combatants, referring to the treatment of detainees.
we have to say that no one is more suprised than we that the heavily-right-leaning court took a stand in favor of 200 years of constitutional law, as opposed to what most of the elite ruling/pundit class has been doing for the past 7 years. glenn greenwald explains the sort of person that would throw in with the commie pinko liberal america-haters, and why right-thinking persons all over justifiably hate the supremes:

the hamdan majority is composed of some rather unlikely traitors. one of the justice is a devout roman catholic appointed by ronald reagan. another is a justice appointed by george bush 41. and the author of the court's opinion is a bronze star winner from the combat action he saw in world war ii. isn't it amazing how many american combat veterans and war heroes become pro-terrorist traitors and enemies of the united states in their next job? and it's equally amazing how so many one-time conservatives turn into socialist allies of america's enemies. it reminds one of those lovely days of the schiavo controversy when life-long conservative southern baptist state court judge george greer overnight became the symbol of secular-liberal-godhating-judicial-activism because self-proclaimed "conservatives" did not like the results of his rulings.

for all their talk of judicial activism, bush followers reveal themselves as the ultimate judicial activists whenever they discuss judicial decisions. the crux of the decision yesterday turned on relatively obscure and legalistic questions involving the legal effects of congressional enactment of the ucmj, rules of statutory construction as applied to common article 3, and the retroactivity of jurisdiction-stripping statutes. among most bush followers purporting to condemn this decision as an act of judicial tyranny, you won't find any discussion of those legal issues, because they know nothing about them and don't care about them.

all they know is that the court reached a result they don't like, and worse, it is a result that contradicted the president's will, so it is, by definition, the by-product of pro-terrorist judicial activism. within hours -- and certainly without even having the time to read the opinions -- bush followers who never thought about the ucmj or statutory construction issues concerning article 3 were able instantaneously to condemn this decision as the by-product of judicial overreach. as always, "judicial activism" has no meaning other than "the reaching of a result by a court which those who wield the term dislike."
those damn activist supreme court justices!

addendum: talkleft points out, while trying to stifle a laugh, that trent lott thinks the supreme court didn't have the jurisdiction for this ruling (plus, lott didn't even read the decision).
posted by skippy at 8:39 PM |


Add a comment