![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hamdan came down. The Administration lost. Before you break out the champagne, two things to consider: Congress, the lily-livered weasels, could still go back and make the military tribunals okay, and there has been at least one Senator already talking like this. [Edit: to make clear, not all military tribunals are illegitimate, only the ones currently constituted at Gitmo.] Two, the Administration has shown a decided disinterest in actually following Supreme Court mandates vis-a-vis the War on Terror (tm) that they dislike: they kept Jose Padilla locked up a long time without trying him on actual civilian criminal charges after SCOTUS told them he had a write to petition in federal courts, removing him to a civilian prison facility only when they thought they were going to lose a second time in the courts. These people do not back down.
Quite frankly, I think any SCOTUS decision in regards to the detainees at Gitmo and elsewhere is worth only the paper it is written on. The Administration will do everything in their power -- legislatively and through foot-dragging -- to make sure this is null.
One nice thing: five justices on the Supreme Court believe that the Geneva Conventions apply to all enemy combatants, even those operating from organizations such as Al-Queda which are not actual states. And that the Geneva Conventions outlaw torture and inhumane treatment. One bad thing: four justices do not (the three that dissented here, and Roberts who held for the Administration in the lower courts and was therefore precluded from being involved in this decision. And Stevens is 86.
This is why that no-filibuster agreement that allowed Alito mattered. These Democrats signed the "no-filibuster" pledge:
Byrd of West Virginia
Inouye of Hawaii
Landrieu of Louisiana
Lieberman of Connecticut
Nelson of Nebraska
Pryor of Arkansas
Salazar of Colorado.
Which is why so many progressives are supporting Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race.
Selection of Supreme Court justices is the most important thing a president can do while in office. Every President since 1960, except for Jimmy Carter, has placed at least one Justice on the Supreme Court. GWB has two, and unless Stevens can hold out until he's ninety, is likely to have three. That's really scary.
Quite frankly, I think any SCOTUS decision in regards to the detainees at Gitmo and elsewhere is worth only the paper it is written on. The Administration will do everything in their power -- legislatively and through foot-dragging -- to make sure this is null.
One nice thing: five justices on the Supreme Court believe that the Geneva Conventions apply to all enemy combatants, even those operating from organizations such as Al-Queda which are not actual states. And that the Geneva Conventions outlaw torture and inhumane treatment. One bad thing: four justices do not (the three that dissented here, and Roberts who held for the Administration in the lower courts and was therefore precluded from being involved in this decision. And Stevens is 86.
This is why that no-filibuster agreement that allowed Alito mattered. These Democrats signed the "no-filibuster" pledge:
Byrd of West Virginia
Inouye of Hawaii
Landrieu of Louisiana
Lieberman of Connecticut
Nelson of Nebraska
Pryor of Arkansas
Salazar of Colorado.
Which is why so many progressives are supporting Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race.
Selection of Supreme Court justices is the most important thing a president can do while in office. Every President since 1960, except for Jimmy Carter, has placed at least one Justice on the Supreme Court. GWB has two, and unless Stevens can hold out until he's ninety, is likely to have three. That's really scary.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject