Jun

30

Supreme Court’s Major Misruling - Ignore Precedent

June 30, 2006 |

Rush pulled out some good material on the recent Supreme Court decision. In essence it appears that ignores “super” precedents of past Court Rulings, tramble on Executive powers to wage war and doesn’t know the difference between uniformed soldiers and terrorists.

The editors at National Review Online have also done a deep analysis of this decision. Let me start with Armor first. He says, “Reading the actual decisions, and there were six of them, reveals a different and more dangerous result,” meaning what took place in the court. “To begin with, there was a unanimous Court decision, In Re Quirin in 1942, which upheld the military trials, convictions and in two cases executions, of eight German saboteurs who sneaked into the US from German submarines with plans and preparation to bomb various facilities… The majority Opinion by Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, avoids that prior decision.”

Should the war on terror be considered to have started on the 17th when we declare war or when the enemy attacks.

Meaning: that according to the majority, Kennedy and Souter, Stephens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, the 9/11 attacks are not part of the war on terror because the war on terror didn’t start, for these justices, until September 17th of 2001. That would mean that Somalia, the Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings, and the Cole attack, you remember, are also not part of the war on terror. So it really is stunning when you learn what actually happened. They just threw out an act of — well, they failed to make it retroactive to apply to the war on terror in its totality so, in essence, they threw it out, they just said it doesn’t apply here, an act of Congress.

The High Court may bring new meaning after the liberal judges get done in the smoke filled room. Thankfully there are some conservatives on the court. However, it is painfully apparent that 1-2 more originalists are needed desperately.

The dissents of Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas are especially powerful. The majority of the court here, folks, has thumbed its nose at both the Constitution and the Congress by refusing to obey the 2005 law withdrawing its jurisdiction, meaning the court’s jurisdiction. Congress wrote a law saying that federal courts have no say in these prisoners at Guantanamo and the courts just threw that out, said, “Oh, yes, we do.” The court is in effect saying, according to Mr. Armor, “We own the law, and neither the Congress nor the Constitution should control the actions of the court.” That is a pretty good summation of what this decision ultimately meant yesterday.

Will we now free Gitmo prisoners and put the President for violations and various war crimes. I already see the drool dripping off the rabid liberal press.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • TwitThis

Comments

1 Comment so far

  1. Independent Conservative on July 1, 2006 11:07 pm

    Mark Levin on the Al Qaeda 5! (Audio)

    The US Supreme Court decision to suspend the President’s approved war tribunals for terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay is a terrible setback for American security. But it is a great event for our enemies in Al Qaeda. Mark Levin was able to bes…

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind