Supreme Court rules 5-3 for Hamdan

[x-y-no]

This decision has big implications not only for how military tribunals are constituted, but also because the majority opinion clearly states that Article 36 of the UCMJ and Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions clearly apply to the current conflict. This directly contradicts the legal theory the administration has advanced in a number of other issues besides the specific one in the Hamdi case.


(there - I think I managed to say that without injecting any political content)

[bvigal]

The entire civilized world just became a little bit less safe today.

[x-y-no]

The entire civilized world just became a little bit less safe today.

I don't agree at all.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Just as a history review, aside from any politics... the US Supreme Court has passed down some beauts in the past... the most obvious that comes to mind was the Dred-Scott decision.... that abomination aside, this will rank right up there with the Eminent Domain issue as legislation by judicial fiat. Somehow or other I thought treaties and the international dealings were the province of the Congress, and there is nothing in the US Constitution granting this power to the SCOTUS, but hey... what do I know.

A2K

[x-y-no]

Just as a history review, aside from any politics... the US Supreme Court has passed down some beauts in the past... the most obvious that comes to mind was the Dred-Scott decision.... that abomination aside, this will rank right up there with the Eminent Domain issue as legislation by judicial fiat. Somehow or other I thought treaties and the international dealings were the province of the Congress, and there is nothing in the US Constitution granting this power to the SCOTUS, but hey... what do I know.

A2K

Actually, this was the opposite of "legislation by judicial fiat." What the court did today was to affirm the rule of law - declaring that even the President is not above the law.

From Justice Breyer's concurrance:

Congress has denied the President the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. . . . Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation’s ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation’s ability to determine—through democratic means—how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our Court today simply does the same.

This was a good day for our Constitutional Republic.

EDIT: Just an addendum. Had the court endorsed the administration's legal argument, then I would say that would have been an affirmation of "legislation by executive fiat" - something I hope we all oppose as well.