by Frank James
Today's Supreme Court's rare decision to reverse itself and to hear the habeas claim of Guantamo detainees caps what has been a very bad week for President Bush which included the death of the his immigration bill in the Senate, and Senate allies parting company with him on Iraq policy.
This is part of the report on the Supreme Court move by the Los Angeles Time's David Savage:
WASHINGTON -- In a surprise move, the Supreme Court agreed today to take up the case of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and to decide whether they have been wrongly held for years without a fair chance to plead their innocence.The issue is not a new one. Five years ago, when the Bush administration began sending foreigners to the island prison, civil libertarians said they deserved a fair hearing to determine who they were and why they were being held.
The Supreme Court itself said three years ago that the government could indefinitely hold "enemy combatants," but only if they were given a fair hearing before a neutral judge.
Since then, little has changed for the 375 detainees, except that Congress moved a year ago to deny them a right to take their claims to court.
In April, the high court turned down a new appeal from prisoners.
But before adjourning today for its summer recess, the court announced it had changed its mind and agreed to hear the case in the fall.
Court personnel said it appeared to be the first time in 60 years that the justices had denied an appeal petition and then voted to reconsider the decision and hear the matter...
The week wasn't unremittingly bad for Bush. For instance, the same Supreme Court that went against the administration today did rule for the administration's faith-based initiative, saying that taxpayers lacked standing to contest the spending of taxpayer money on the executive-branch program.
But this wasn't the kind of week that builds a president's confidence as he heads into a weekend where he has to play host to Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kennebunkport, Maine home of former President George H.W. Bush.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
You got us in a corner
You go us against the wall
We got nowhere to go
We got nowhere to fall
Take back your assurance
W nothin' is guaranteed
Take back your Shock 'n Awe
All that talk of WMD's
You're lyin' to me you're lyin' to me
Quit lyin' to me
W you can keep me painted in a corner
You can look away, but its not over
Take back your angry slander
Take back your Iraqi plan
Take back the oily crooks in your life
In cowboy land
Take back Donald Rumsfeld
Take back Richard Pearl
Take back Dicky Cheney
Givem all some place to go
Youre lyin' to me, youre lyin' to me
Quit lyin' me
you can keep me painted in a corner
You can walk away but its not over
Take back your Gitmo torture
And the tale from Putin's eye
Yeah take back your losing streak
Check your Neonut side
Take back Wolfowitz
Take back 2004
Take back Crazy Joe
He's been creepin' outside my door
(Apologies to Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers)
Posted by: dt | June 30, 2007 3:47 AM
The time is long overdue for SCOTUS to determine the Constitutional parameters for holding/prosecuting suspected terrorist prisoners.
Side note: It'd be interesting to know what the dynamics of the court were to bring about this reversal.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 30, 2007 7:42 AM
This Supreme Court decision to hear arguments on Guantanamo habeas claims will not be a defeat for Bush.
This court will support the power of the State. It would not matter who controlled the State, this court is an instrument of whoever is in power.
Posted by: c. perry | June 30, 2007 10:34 AM
dt --
you should apologize, not just to tom petty and his heartbreakers but to all of us.
The not-very-clever rewrites of song lyrics got old many months ago.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 30, 2007 12:06 PM
Just because the Supremes are hearing the issue of habaeus corpus doesn't mean they will rule against the President. The driveby media is so predictable any sign of trouble they start panting and ranting. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | June 30, 2007 1:57 PM
dt,
I likem the parodies!
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 30, 2007 5:15 PM
Jerry White
Puuuuhhhhlllleaase get a civics lesson. The idiot king took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Read your own moronic quote:
Just because the Supremes are hearing the issue of habaeus corpus doesn't mean they will rule against the President.
I have to agree on one point. The court WON'T rule against Bush. It's HIS court. Roberts and Alito are nothing but rubber stamps for Cheney and Bush.
Habaeus Corpus (do you even know what that means?) is law.
Posted by: Mrs. Jesus | June 30, 2007 6:59 PM
ROOSTER
Alice In Chains - 1995
The GOP aint' found a way to kill me yet
My eyes burn with stinging sweat
Seems every path leads me to nowhere in Iraq
I got a wife and kids and a household pet
Army green was no safe bet
The bullets scream at me from somewhere
Here they come to snub the rooster
Yeah here come the rooster
You know he aint' gonna die
No, no, no, ya know he aint' gonna die
Walkin tall I'm a machine gun man
The GOP spit on me if I'm not one of them
Oh my Gloria, send the pictures of our boys
Got my pills, ready for some Muslim death
My buddys breathin' his dying breath
Oh god, won't you help me make it though?
Here they come to snub the rooster
Yeah, I'm the rooster
You know, I aint' gonna die
No, no, no, ya know I aint' gonna die for a lie
Posted by: The Smoking Chimp | June 30, 2007 7:44 PM
Mrs. Jesus,
Aside from misspelling "habeas corpus," what did Jerry say wrong? He only noted that the Supreme Court’s vote to hear the case doesn’t mean it is going to rule against the President. This is entirely true. The Court takes cases for many reasons other than their disagreement with a lower court ruling. Even you agreed with him that the Court might not rule against the President just because it voted to hear the case.
So, why respond with condescension in suggesting that Jerry needs a “civics lesson” when he really needs a program to check for spelling errors?
BTW – habeas corpus is a procedure to test the legality of confinement. It is a procedure codified in the laws of every State and the federal government. Thus, it is proper to say it is “a law,” or “found in the law,” but not that it “is law” by itself.
Puuuuhhhhlllleaase!
Posted by: John W. | July 1, 2007 2:33 AM
John W,
What kind of law do you practise?
BTW, thanks for weighing in on legal stuff. It's informative and interesting.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 1, 2007 9:06 AM
John W.
The driveby media is so predictable any sign of trouble they start panting and ranting.
That's this idiot's quote. Stop lamely trying to defend the Bush/Cheney regime's torture policies. They'll sell Gonzales down the river to save their own sorry asses. Karl has you crybabies shaking in your boots. OOOOOOHHHHH. The Boogy Man is EVERYWHERE! The Bushies have destroyed any chance of diplomacy the US had. You got kids John W.? Would you let anybody arrest your kid, never legally charge them with a crime, physically and sexually abuse them, and deny them legal cousel? Don't try to defend Bush's torture policy to me. It's Illegal and he needs to be brought up on charges of human rights violations before the World Court.
Posted by: Mrs. Jesus | July 1, 2007 10:14 AM
Doug,
My practice mostly involved criminal defense work, although I also had occasional contract and probate cases, and a limited number of civil rights cases I worked on with colleagues.
I have not been in active practice for a few years now. I have been on an extended sabbatical to look after family matters.
Posted by: John W. | July 1, 2007 2:31 PM
Mrs. Jesus,
Please take a deep breath and get a grip.
I am not a Bushie, and I don’t try to defend him or any of his cronies. As such, I am neither “lame” nor a “crybaby” as you have suggested.
I do have trouble with the way you substitute name calling for reasoning, and I think you would do well to curb your self-righteousness and condescension. Instead, try impressing us with your reasoning abilities more often.
However much you dislike torture – and far be it from me to suggest that torture is ever lawful or useful – the case the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear has nothing to do with torture. It raises the issue of access to the court system for detainees at Gitmo – which is very interesting in light of how the military tribunal system has recently self-destructed.
Oh, and good luck getting Bush or any other U.S. citizen before the World Court. The United States has refused to submit to the World Court’s jurisdiction. That’s probably a good thing, too, unless you like the idea of U.N. control over U.S. policy.
Posted by: John W. | July 1, 2007 3:10 PM
John W.,
Thanks for raising the discourse.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 1, 2007 4:42 PM