BREAKING: Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees

[Terri]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, ''The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.''

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some who have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

More (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/june/0612_sc_rights.shtml )

[Terri]

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called ''the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.''

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Scalia said the nation is ''at war with radical Islamists'' and that the court's decision ''will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.''

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

As you can easily see we are still one justice short.

[MISSL]

Well Terri, if that doesn't convince the people in this forum that we need McCain to win the WH I do not know what will. Kennedy has always been a "maverick" on the court, and we need a more reliable 5th conservative justice. Obama will NOT give it to us, but McCain may. I said MAY. But we can work on him just like we worked on Bush.
Wake up guys. I am not happy with McCain either, but this is a clear example why BO does not need to win the WH

[STEELMAN]

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.
Leave it up to the "omnipotent" Supreme Court to foul up a military situation. Whose side are they on anyway? Even our SCOTUS has been infiltrated by communistic principals it appears.

Since we seem to be doing such a poor job of detaining these "poor, unfortunate, badly treated, enemy killers, destroyers of freedom of innocent men,women and children, Godless creatures from hell, the military will be happy to assign one prisoner to each person who has criticized our methods and make them responsible for their prisoner's actions for the rest of his life. No exceptions!

That aught to put a screeching halt to all the cry baby critics in a heart beat.

President Bush has said he wants to close the facility once countries can be found to take the prisoners who are there.

Just give them over to the critics Mr. President; they seem to have all the answers.

Let them deal with it.

[greg]

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, ''The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.''My response?
"The 1st Amendment Is Not a Suicide Pact: Blocking the Speech That Calls for Our Death by Newt Gingrich Posted Dec 04, 2006" (http://www.humanevents.com/winningthefuture.php ?id=18314) and neither is the rest of the U.S. Constitution. This is wartime, as approved by Congress against Saddam's Iraq and Taliban Mullah Omar's Afghanistan.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.and on the way to being declared U.S. citizens as the final end result. Since when does any anti-American combatant non-U.S. citizen have any such American legal rights during war time? Did we give Nazi German war fighters, Imperial Japanese war fighters, North Vietnamese communist war fighters, Fascist Italian war fighters any American citizens' legal Constitutional rights?
In addition to those held without charges, the U.S. has said it plans to try as many as 80 of the detainees in war crimes tribunals, which have not been held since World War II.Hint.
---------------------------------
Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama also support shutting down the prison.We need McCain to be President regardless, but then we conservative grass roots can prepare after November 4, 2008, to eliminate his honeymoon period (ignoring the likely intense subtle and overt liberal MSM mind-poisoning against us) with our self-governance life style citizenship (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showthread.php?p=457 347&posted=1#post457347) .

And that includes keeping these enemy terrorist combatants at Guantanamo, certainly NOT in CONUS (continental US). Janet Parshall (http://www.jpamerica.com), and others who visited there have essentially described the "Gitmo country club" that US felons rarely get.

we need a more reliable 5th conservative justice. Obama will NOT give it to us, but McCain may. I said MAY. But we can work on him just like we worked on Bush. You bet, MISS L. We showed our power about Harriet Myers, regardless of the intense amount of liberal MSM misleading mind poisoning, and regardless of the fact that her boss, President Bush nominated her. Since this need for a true strict constructionist justice is so crucially needed, we conservative grass roots need not only reject anything less from McCain, but pro-actively find and support such a strict constructionist candidate to get approved by a liberal Democrat Judiciary Committee and 111th Congress that we conservatives will stomp the heck out of with our feedback accountability.

That aught to put a screeching halt to all the cry baby critics in a heart beat.SM and all, there is this whining liberalism mentality that Peter Schweizer described (http://article.nationalrevi ew.com/?q=ZmM4YjVhZjg5NDFiZ mI5M2ZlNWNiMWNiZDAwZ jQ2NDM=). Michelle and Barack have this affliction in spades. Recall Schweizer is the author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy

We conservatives have the feedback accountability power to control the President by stomping his liberal Congress: jam our Congress Critters e-mail in boxes, phone lines, faxes (in that order as found by Forum experience). And we have the results record to prove it, as the liberal Democrat "controlled" 110th Congress found out.

Related Serious Watch Dog Warning----

There also is this huge very successful stealth decade long threat against our conservatism (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45766 2&postcount=28), like a quiet wealthy focused very metastatic malignancy that we conservatives need immediately to know about and alert our conservative and Republican local organizations.

[Luckyme]

We have seen the enemy and it is us!

It seems to me our country is slowly committing suicide and yet..... liberals continue to be elected.

Will voters wake up before it's too late?

[greg]

We have seen the enemy and it is us!LM, fully agreed. In a representative democracy, in the end we the people are responsible for our freedoms, common defense, and the other benefits of self-governance citizenship as we contracted with each other by our U.S. Constitution.

Will voters wake up before it's too late?May I modify this to say "will we conservative grass roots wake up before it's too late?" to take on this citizenship life style of self-governance. The liberals are awake now. You can bet your last cent that Messiah Obama's worshippers are awake enough for their zombeistic action on his behalf (particularly if their young people bother to vote this time). Our big question is, do we conservative grass roots care enought about our own conservatism to fight for it in the public arena and stomp our liberal Democrat controlled Congress with feedback accountability? Or do we conservatives want to get outlawed like the liberals in the 110th Congress tried very hard to do?

And as for our Christian conservatives, is obedience to 2 Chronicals 7:14 (the motto of last year's National Day of Prayer and of the Congressional Prayer Caucus (http://www.prayercaucus.org /index.php?page_actio n=home)) important enough to us to carry out to prove our friendship in this regard with our Lord? Or do we Christians want to be persecuted like in any other liberal Western Democracy is -- Canada, Britain, Europe, Australia-NZ as now continually detailed out in the internet press?

Related Serious Watch Dog Warning----

There also is this huge very successful stealth decade long threat against our conservatism (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45766 2&postcount=28), like a quiet wealthy focused very metastatic malignancy that we conservatives need immediately to know about and alert our conservative and Republican local organizations.

[RINOs Gotta Go]

This is, yet, another case of judicial activism on the part of legislative Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, the usual suspects.

SCOTUS has become, and is, the final authority on our way of life and how we protect it. That is why we need to vote to stop the Dems from taking control of the White House and vote in as many conservative Republicans as we can in the Congress to allow strict constructionist federal judges and Justices an up-and-down vote.

[Petertherock]

So, the members of the Supreme Court are Al Qaeda supporters. What we need to do is just shoot all the terrorists we are holding at GitMo. Or better yet, put some of these supreme court justices in GitMo.

The problem I have with this, is as a caller to Rush said...the Supreme Court has ruled previously that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over prisoners of war held overseas. We lease Gitmo from Cuba so Gitmo is overseas. So now the Supreme Court has directly contradicted itself.

[Rich77]

This is just appalling! Lawsuits are already being filed by the terrorists' lawyers and the taxpayers will foot the bill. Time a bill is passed by Congress that says the US tax payer does NOT have to pay the legal fees of ANY person in the country; that is wrong.

Now, this ultimately means that if a soldier kills, wounds, captures any enemy on the battlefield, our soldier can be hauled into court! This is not just pitiful; this decision is treasonous!

Our Congress MUST step up and pass a law to over-turn this ruling and, frankly, another one that keeps the Judiciary, at ALL federal levels, OUT of making social/policy and legislating from the bench.

But, they won't. I wonder if McCain will say anything?

[Terri]

Peter, I've edited your post. Do NOT advocate anything illegal on this forum.

There are only 4 justices on the bench that adhere to the Constitution every time. President Bush appointed two of them.

We need another justice. We do not need Obama to appoint one.

[Tiberius]

Iam so upset, it is time for impeachment of the justices as this is unconstitutional and Habeas Corpus isn't a protected right of someone who isn't an American citizen. They are also setting a dangerous, precedent when it comes to this decision. It further erodes the Constitution and to detain those that want to kill us and use our courts, when we all know it will be nothing more than a show and this is what the enemy wants and our SC has granted them that right. unbelievable, iam rather concerned with the 2nd amendment ruling coming up.

[greg]

Our Congress MUST step up and pass a law to over-turn this ruling and, frankly, another one that keeps the Judiciary, at ALL federal levels, OUT of making social/policy and legislating from the bench. But, they won't.Rich77, of course they won't, because it is we conservative grass roots who need to keep in mind this exact question when we make these kinds of declaratives: just who will encourage Congress to step up and pass such a law (and, yes, I think such laws over turning SCOTUS rulings are possible. The liberals in the Congress tried after the SCOTUS ban on partial birth abortion [infanticide to me] )?

Who? That's us conservative grass roots citizens, that's who, and it will be spearheaded by our holding our Congress Critters to our fire of feedback accountability.

Don't expect anyone else to do this, or to care, and expect the liberals to fight us all the way. Welcome to our conservative self-governance citizenship (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newr eply&noquote=1&p=457345)!! If we care enough to keep it.

And that is true for all issues conservative, whether drilling for oil and related (like refineries, oil shale, oil sands, coal liquefaction, etc, infrastructure), spending, moral/social, second amendment rights, defensive war against communist-IslamoFascist aggression, etec.

There is, by the way, a Constitutional clause that has been very occasionally used by Congress to declare specific areas off limits to the Federal courts:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.Article. III. Section. 2. Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, source of this material is from the ACLJ (http://www.aclj.org) publication Foundations of Freedom. Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) (thankfully replaced by conservative Republican John Thune on the second try) used this clause to exempt certain environmental matters.

But whether Congress uses this clause (and the liberals don't want to stop their liberal legislating judges, by the way) will depend on whether we conservatives act in accordance with our own conservative foundations (i.e., get knowledgeable about this) and then stomp this liberal Democrat controlled Congress as we have successfully done this in the past. I'd rather have McCain appoint a fifth SCOTUS strict constructionist justice though, if he has to do this under our enormously over powering conservative pressure on his Senate, than to use our valuable time and energy to have that liberal Congress to use this clause (under their high reluctance, ref balance of powers).

So here is another conservative defense issue among many that we can stomp our Congress on (courteously and considerately, that is--honey attracts more cooperation than vinegar).

Peter, I've edited your post. Do NOT advocate anything illegal on this forum.Terri, if it is OK for me, by you, to build on your point, we conservatives must advocate the rule of law in support of our constitutional conservatism in both public practice and personal practice. We do not, under any circumstances want to present the kind of inconsistent contradictory hypocrisy that liberals and RINOs present. The clear and present illegal shamnesty is a clear case in point.

Additionally, we've all seen Messiah Obama's emotionally-driven worshippers look like they lose their brains in whipped up frenzy, like on liberal CNN (liberal MSM does have a use). I'd like to think that we conservative grass roots don't lose our heads in emotional loss of control, though we might be emotionally involved in addition to our intellect.


----

A related Serious Watch Dog Warning----

There also is this huge very successful stealth decade long threat against our conservatism (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45766 2&postcount=28), like a quiet wealthy focused very metastatic malignancy that we conservatives need immediately to know about and alert our conservative and Republican local organizations.

[FlaJim]

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, ''The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.''

Odd how the Left always wants to cite precedent when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't. The Court has dealt with this question in the past and came to the opposite opinion of these five nincompoops. That would make it established law.

In addition, the current arrangement at Gitmo was a compromise worked out in bipartisanship manner. They even enacted a law.

So which 'laws' are Kennedy referring to? God help us if these five misguided individuals found some obscure law in the penal code of some place like Pakistan or the Dominican Republic as a 'preeminent precedent'.

Our safety, way of life, and laws (such as they are) and Constitution will not long survive the naive and dangerous decisions of this court.

There is a provision in our Constitution for Congress to overturn a court decision. Nothing in the Constitution says that the Court has the final say. Sadly, the provision has never been exercised and with the leftists in power on Capitol Hill, would never receive enough support today.

[Amawalk John]

Did any one else, on hearing this SCOTUS decision, get the same flashack that I did, namely of TE Lawrence, leading his army of Arab tribes in hot pursuit the retreating Turks, raising his sword and shouting "No prisoners!"?

This would seem the natural alternative to reading Miranda rights to battlefield captives and having whole platoons of infantry flown back to courthouses in Berkeley to testify in civilian courts.

The Supreme Court would probably rule a "no prisoners" policy unconstitutional, though I'm sure that Bader-Ginsberg, Kennedy, Breyer, and Souter could probably find adequate precedent in Apache, Zulu, Mau Mau, etc. law. I'll betcha some of their clerks could also provide citations from memory.

[greg]

There is a provision in our Constitution for Congress to overturn a court decision. Nothing in the Constitution says that the Court has the final say. Sadly, the provision has never been exercised and with the leftists in power on Capitol Hill, would never receive enough support today.Yes, agreed Jim in your posting #14, I mentioned the details of this in my posting #13 above (Constitution Article. III. Section. 2. Paragraph 2, Sentence 2), and my comments about its use.

----

A related Serious Watch Dog Warning----

There also is this huge very successful stealth decade long threat against our conservatism (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45766 2&postcount=28), like a quiet wealthy focused very metastatic malignancy that we conservatives need immediately to know about and alert our conservative and Republican local organizations.

[candles]

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.
What part of 'foriegn terrorism' don't they get. Foreigners do not have the same rights in our nation, nor do we have all their rights in their country.

[MISSL]

And all of this nonsense is a direct result of the American Public not understanding what they are doing when they vote. "He is so charming" "He has such a nice speaking voice" "He is so handsome" :pfft: Stupid!

They think "checks & balances" means having a democrat in the WH and Republicans in Congress or vice/versa. They have no concept as to how this country is truly run. They have no concept as to the fact that this nation was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.

And in this day and age so few people understand civic responsibility. There is that nasty word again: Responsibility.

If we had had some (civic responsibility) we would not have some of these fools sitting on the SCOTUS because we would have voted for a president that was going to do his job properly. I thank the Lord for Altio and Roberts (Bush 2) and Scalia (Reagan) and Thomas (Bush 1). They may be the only ones to hold us against an further insanity. But we definitely need another conservative justice. And BO ain't gonna give us what we truly need. Maybe McCain will. Maybe. At least with him we have a chance

May God Have mercy on us for this foolish and dangerous decision..

[greg]

What part of 'foriegn terrorism' don't they get. Foreigners do not have the same rights in our nation, nor do we have all their rights in their country.Candles, I think this sort of thing might be symptomatic of a very long (decades, if not centuries) standing American cultural narcissism. Americans, from times like when we wanted to stay away from "foreign entanglements" have tended to be self-centric, particularly pronounced with our "baby boom" generation. How many of us know another language (brokenly spoken or fluent) other than American English?

So we as a culture tend to ignore the off shore world. It's a strong momentum. And our economic successes, and how people from other countries regard it favorably (as in, they want it too), just reinforces our cultural narcissistic tendency.

Therefore I'm not surprised that the liberal members of the SCOTUS would rule this way. Liberalism is an epitome of a self-centered outlook. See Peter Schweizer's article on a manifestation of this (http://article.nationalrevi ew.com/?q=ZmM4YjVhZjg5NDFiZ mI5M2ZlNWNiMWNiZDAwZ jQ2NDM=). Liberalism is also a patronistic outlook. That's "super" delegates. And a guilt ridden complex. That's shamnesty, or in this case, the poor tortured Muslim people slammered by that brute Bush in their Gitmo country club. But it is a complex that the liberals expect for the rest of us to expiate for them.

So I'm not surprised that the liberal 5 of the SCOTUS votes this way and makes those kinds of excuses for it. It fits within their liberal world view.

Here is just another in a lengthening string of reasons way we conservatives need McCain as President - NOT OBAMA or HILLARY, and to stomp his liberal Congress with our fire of feedback accountability.

All of this adds up to Barack and Michelle (see Schweizer article), Hillary and Bill, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, Murtha, etc, ad nauseum, as another symptomatic expression along with their thirst for power over all of us that we conservatives can keep in mind as we counter their strategies and tactics.

And McCain has an amount of this liberal mentality, as we all have seen. (So does Rudy RomBee, in my observation.)

Finally, here is an observation from Actor Omar Sharif (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364352,00.htm l):
"I lived in America for a long time. Only 10% of all Americans have a passport. In other words, 90% never left America," said Sharif. "They don't know anything." [ highlighting mine ]Narcissism.

----

A related Serious Watch Dog Warning----

There also is this huge very successful stealth decade long threat against our conservatism (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45766 2&postcount=28), like a quiet wealthy focused very metastatic malignancy that we conservatives need immediately to know about and alert our conservative and Republican local organizations.

[Billary2004]

McCain supported each of Bush 43's nominees. There should be no legitimate doubt that McCain would continue in that vein and nominate constructionists.

[antiDemt]

we need McCain to win the WH I do not know what will.

We ned him to win it for Republicans, not for his family
Kennedy has always been a "maverick" on the court

Same as McCain in politics

Obama will NOT give it to us, but McCain may. I said MAY

The more conservatives promise him their votes no matter what - the less likely he will do anything they expect him to do. Vote for him in November, but don’t discourage him now from standing for at least something good! The irony is, McCain is speeding to the left, while Obama - to the right (well, he is trying to appeal more conservative people, unlike McC).

BO does not need to win the WH
If McC embraces 100% of Baracks "ideas" - he wins for sure. Do we need that kind of "victory"?

[MISSL]

antiDemt: Look, I understand your frustrations. I am not voting for him (McCain)willingly. I am motivated by sheer terror of Obama.
I understand that this man may let us down, but we were able to get our way with Bush 2 when he put up Harriet Miers. We might, and I said might, be able to sway him. But there would be no chance, NONE, NADA, with BO. I am heartsick over this election. I never thought it would or could ever come to this. But the SCOTUS is, and I repeat, IS the most important issue of the day. And McCain did vote for all those conservative justices. Can you just give him credit for that. And the fact that he did tells me he might put up like-minded judges (hopefully). I am not a fool. I am totally aware of the chances that he might let us down. But BO will definitely LET US DOWN.

[antiDemt]

MISSL, you read me wrong. It is not frustration - it is just a sober approach. You are lifting pressure too early - that could make you (morally) responsible for McC's shift to the left that far he wouldn't have even thinked to go otherwise.

We must vote against Obama - no question about it, but the worst thing is to help the "left cause" by encouraging the bad McC's moves. Voting in November doesn't mean giving up now - it is only the 7th inning. McC is made of flesh and bones, not from a titan alloy - so he will yeld the pressure.

Even STELMAN and I are made of soft tissues (my family name is a German version of "steelman"). :)

[MISSL]

Got it. And I do understand. IMHO I think his shift to left is trying to court more democrats. But everytime I get a solicitation from him for money he gets back a sharp reply about not being conservative enough for me and when he starts being more conservative he will get money from me. Funny: I don't get as many solicitations as I used too. I think that is going to bother me!:(

[qrayjack]

This decision is sheer insanity, and rather than we all agonize over who to vote for, we might consider taking on the left head on and putting a stop to all this crap. The only way to end this leftist madness by SCOTUS is to put solid conservatives on the Court. McCain shows no inclination to do so and couldn't if he wanted to, because with the Dems controlling Congress, any conservative appointee will be dead on arrival. When this nonsensical foray into 'moderate' politics ends in the inevitable utter failure ahead, and we get back to the basics of solid conservative values, we will win back control of Congress and the White House. Until then we're barking at the moon.

[antiDemt]

I think his shift to left is trying to court more democrats

That is obvious - because so many Republicans constantly signal him he doesn't need to court them - he can have them for granted.

Funny: I don't get as many solicitations as I used too. I think that is going to bother me

Again, why would he ask you about anything and get dependent from you if you and many others pledge to support him anyway? He'd rather woe "moderate" Dems.

[schillerbjr]

The 5 Justices that ruled in favor of the "TERRORISTS" are "Idiots".



Do we have a good supply of "body bags" for all the deaths of "innocent" Americans when these
"goons" are free to run the streets????????????

Inquiring minds want to know??

[antiDemt]

QJ, I wrote similar things months ago (not that eloquently, probably:)). But I disagree with
Until then we're barking at the moon.

Even if our only hope was to bounce after and as a result of either candidate’s failure, today’s “barking” is extremely important, because if you bark toady, even when you party bosses want you shut up, you will be able to prove you credentials later. Otherwise, some “Republicans for Obama”, or for Sharpton, for Kucinich, for Seven Dwarfs, etc. will lead the Party to the next “new direction”.

[Repeal 16-17]

This decision, sadly, shows that the President and the Congress are irrelevant. All that matters is the Nine High Priests Of Justice. Their word is law and resistance is futile. The President will obey. The Congress will obey. If the People want their country back, the Supreme Court must be destroyed. Until it is destroyed, this country is a dictatorship run by a nine member junta.

:fileit: = Where the Boumediene v. Bush decision belongs.

[antiDemt]

I do not think the Supreme Court must be destroyed, but its superpower must be significantly restricted. It is the only one branch of the Government that is above any control. And it is not elected, by the way.

The right of people to impeach those guys is a must.

[Repeal 16-17]

The current Supreme Court must be destroyed. We can replace it with a new, more restricted, top federal court with the same name or a different name. What is clear is that the entity we know as the "U.S. Supreme Court" must be destroyed if this country is to survive.

[Tiberius]

Repeal,

First of all, the SC doesnt need to be destroyed it is a matter of that we need to impeach the justices though we know that will not happen while this congress in control though i dont see how either party can do anything. I would certainly be concerned with how the next big case is going to be decided when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

This is one of 3 cases in which we should be concerned with, first was the new england case, eminent domain, this case and the 2nd amendment and if that goes another way the congress has an obligation to do what is within there power.

[Repeal 16-17]

I still feel as I do, but I'm more than willing to accept any effective alternative. Does anyone have such an alternative? Impeachment will not work. Does anyone believe that two-thirds of the Senate would vote to remove (assuming the House majority was somehow obtained)?

[greg]

This decision, sadly, shows that the President and the Congress are irrelevant. All that matters is the Nine High Priests Of Justice. Their word is law and resistance is futile. The President will obey. The Congress will obey. If the People want their country back, the Supreme Court must be destroyed. Until it is destroyed, this country is a dictatorship run by a nine member junta.Posting #29, Repeal 16-17, permit me to respectfully and flatly disagree with you as my fellow conservative.

There are checks and balances. Let me elaborate, with our part in this process as individual grass roots conservative American citizens.

Historically, the founding fathers have set it up such that the courts were to have the least powers of the three branches of government. The Congress can pass legislation with the President signing off on that legislation which can over rule any court decision, including SCOTUS.

Here's one attempt (which thankfully has not succeed yet): After the SCOTUS ruled against partical birth abortion (infanticide), the liberal Democrat controlled 110th Congress initiated the Freedom of Choice Act ( original CNS News article (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page =/Culture/archive/200806/CUL20080612a.html), Forum thread (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=501 69) ) designed to over turn the SCOTUS decision.

Now, whether the Congress initiates legislation to over turn any given SCOTUS decision that we grass roots conservatives don't like depends on one basic fact in our representative democracy.

That's whether we conservatives are put out, incensed enough, to hurl en masse our fire of conservative feedback accountability on our hireling Rep and Senators. Implicit is that each of us who does this means that there are up to a thousand of us who vote who feel similarly. Experienced Congressional staffers know this. If they cross us too many times, and we conservative grass roots and our organizations continually find, cultivate, and support better all-around conservative candidates just waiting in the wings (see this really great thread on how this works (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=887 6) ), we indirectly clue in our Congress Critterto start fearing for his/her job.

Let's skip your conclusions for a bit, and respond to your next point.

No, absolutely not, we do not at all want to "destroy" the judicial branch of our American government. First, that takes a Constitutional amendment that constitutional/judicial conservatives and hireling reps might never back.

We conservative grass roots need to go all out to hire the most conservative President candidate that we actually have who would most likely sit in the Oval Office come January 20, 2009 (I'm speaking of the current set of Presidential candidates and specifically listing Senators McCain and Obama). Like wise we need to do the same to hire the most all-around conservative Congressional candidates that we also actually have.

Given that we have each individually voted our best consistent with our conservative world views, then beginning January 20, 2009, we each go all out with our conservative life style of setting our fire of feedback accountabiliy onto our 3 Congress Critters (Rep and 2 Senators) and any of the House and Senate leadership relevant to the issue we want to deal with. Beforehand we would have been alerted to the issue by our conservative talk radio, internet Forums (like this one, which usually beats the liberal MSMs of radio, TV, cable, print by one to four days average), internet alert e-mails and other such conservative Watchmen on the Walls.

Between now and Nov 4, 2008, and Jan 20, 2009, we should also talk up the value to the nation, state, and locality of our various conservative persuasions to our neighbors, colleagues, internet networks, and family, in order to maximize the number of voters who would also vote the best conservative slate on Nov 4 that we actually have.

Two concurrent actions based on the above:

(1) We conservative grass roots can each set our fire of feedback accountability onto our Congress Critters for what the liberal 5 members of the SCOTUS did against our country's best interests by coddling foreign enemy combatants that they should never have done. We can demand, in no uncertain terms that our particular Critters (Rep and 2 Senators) initiate and (co-)sponsor legislation to overturn the SCOTUS ruling. This is based on "the will of the people is still the law of the land" regardless of the patronizing elitist liberal hirelings who easily forget their place as OUR hirelings that we can fire for cause.

(2) Sit on a President McCain, starting on Jan 20, 2009, watch him like a hawk to nominate strict constructionist SCOTUS candidates, while at the same time, really land on our Congress Critters hard to get them to (a) vote these candidates out of the Senate Judiciary Committee (particularly if our Senator is a member, but any American citizen can burn up their phone lines, or e-mail if they permit out-of-staters to use it), and then (b) on our own 3 Critters and any/all members of the Congressional leaderships (both parties, all officers), really land on them with our fire of conservative feedback accountability. From their point of view, there's no telling, with how we Americans are nationally mobile nowadays, what family, friends, colleagues that we know in their state and district that we can fire up.

That way, we stand the greatest chance of getting the one more strict constructionist justice that we need (if not more as the aged liberal justices drop off).

Remember what a "strict constructionist" jurist is: one who interprets existing law as the lawmakers and executive signer meant it to be as applied to the case at hand, and absolutely not make up liberal law and jam it down the throats of we the people (like you colorfully described) and our legislators, like the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did to their state legislature on homosexual marriage, and like the California Supreme Court just did to the voting people of the state of California on Prop 22 of year 2000, again, about marriage.

That is how we conservative grass roots can "destroy" this 5 member SCOTUS "junta" as you also colorfully put it.

Hard work? Yes, you bet. But it really is long past time that we conservatives start practicing our self-governance citizenship that we conservatives should have as part of who we are and what conservatism really is. We should have learned all this in our high school civics classes, but didn't due to any number of reasons, one of them being that the liberal controlled tax payer funded "public" high school we got jailed in won't teach us any of this.

AND THAT is how we the people get our country back, as you put it.

-----

Now let me respond to what I think were your conclusions:
Their word is law and resistance is futile. The President will obey. The Congress will obey.Based on the process of checks and balances above and where we conservatives fit into it (if we aggregately want our results badly enough like we are doing on shamnesty), the word of the SCOTUS is bloody well NOT law, and we can resist them like they've never seen. Initially the President will obey, like President Bush said that he would, however reluctantly, and ditto the Congress, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS we the conservative people raise the firing pain level on our respective Congress Critters so high that they will pass a law in a timely manner signed by President Bush to take out the SCOTUS decision. And once taken out, given that this law was sufficiently comprehensively written, IT STAYS OUT.

One more thing, fellow conservatives besides letting you all know that there is a process to dealing with the problem that Repeal 16-17 raises:

There are no short cuts, there are no sound bite sized solutions to our self-governance citizenship. It is hard long work, along with our other life's obligations.

But there is some real joy for us conservative grass roots to putting the liberal wing of the SCOTUS back into its place that we hadn't seen since we conservatives killed off the antiFairness Doctrine, anti-conservative grass roots lobbying, and the multiple shamnesty shafting attempts of last year.

That is, if we want to do much more than whine, complain, grumble, murmur about it akin to the liberal Democrat mentality (http://article.nationalrevi ew.com/?q=ZmM4YjVhZjg5NDFiZ mI5M2ZlNWNiMWNiZDAwZ jQ2NDM=). As conservatives, I think that we are patient, we work hard at self-governance, teach our kids how to do it, and have an immense capacity to learn to do better and take lessons-learned.

So here is another exercise that we conservatives can pursue with our Congress Critters. Ready? It's doable........

Repeal 16-17, and all, I invite any feedback on the above as you all wish!

----

A related Serious Watch Dog Warning----

There also is this huge very successful liberal stealth decade long threat against our conservatism (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45766 2&postcount=28), like a quiet wealthy focused very metastatic malignancy that we conservatives need immediately to know about and alert our conservative and Republican local organizations.

[greg]

First of all, the SC doesnt need to be destroyed it is a matter of that we need to impeach the justices though we know that will not happen while this congress in control though i dont see how either party can do anything.Tiberius, posting #32, by what grounds do you propose to impeach any of the 5 liberal Supreme Court Justices? We need to know this, before we can set this kind of fire of feedback accountability to our Congress Critters. I hope you aren't expecting the staff of our liberal Critters to find out on what basis in law that SCOTUS impeachment could occur. And the staffers of our conservative Critters can be up to their eyeballs in work to keep their boss alive in this liberal shark infested Congress. Perhaps if some of us have constitutional lawyer friends.....

Open to suggestions here, anyone.

I still feel as I do, but I'm more than willing to accept any effective alternative. Does anyone have such an alternative?Repeal 16-17, posting #33, I share your feelings. It is just bloody frustrating and infuriating to see rulings that can easily cost the lives and well being of not only our soldiers on the front lines, but also their families and our families back here at home. This is not only court rulings but also Congressional legislation, particularly from the Neville Chamberlain liberal Democrats because of who they are.

Please read through my Posting #34 for what I think is the actual process that we conservative grass roots and organizations need to do to deal with this SCOTUS 5 justice liberal majority in the several ways that I describe.

I know what I wrote in that posting ( and what I write ) are almost treatises or dissertations in this Forum, but to give you all a thorough description of the subject at hand, I can't do the subject any justice so to speak by a written version of a "sound bite."

And of course, I surely welcome feedback on any.

----

This is one of 3 cases in which we should be concerned with, first was the new england case, eminent domain, this case and the 2nd amendment and if that goes another way the congress has an obligation to do what is within there power.Oh yeah, let me cover this point from Tiberius. We conservatives need to deal with this eminent domain thing about the same way as in posting #34, and also on the state level as well. A number of states have passed laws which restrict this Kelo decision from the SCOTUS. I've been clueing in my state Rep on doing this with his like honorable colleagues for my Commonwealth of Virginia (i.e., feedback accountability to my conservative state rep).

If SCOTUS blows it on our Second Amendment rights, we can still deal with this on the state level like many of our states did with Kelo. And after we get McCain to nominate a SCOTUS strict constructionist and stomp the liberal Senate and Senate Judiciary Committee to let the up-or-down vote, we can hope for another DC-like case to wind its way up in the hope that the SCOTUS will take it and get that ruling reversed. Ditto Kelo. (Which means that the more strict constructionists on the SCOTUS the better.)

Note well as many of us have also noted in these postings, with my reference to those conservatives among us who are depressed about our Presidential choices: I said "McCain." If it is Obama, all bets are off, and we'll all be working 2-3 jobs to pay for Obama's communism while we all try to keep from being jailed (for hate crimes, for ENDA violations, for conservative grass roots lobbying without registering just because we e-mailed our Congress Critter, ad infinitum ad nauseum) for practicing our conservatism.

But, like I said to all of us in posting #34, it will take our individual and aggregate conservative grass roots work. Let me ask everybody again: are we ready to work hard for our conservatism in America, concomitant with our other obligations??

----

A related Serious Watch Dog Warning----

There also is this huge very successful stealth liberal decade long threat against our conservatism (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45766 2&postcount=28), like a quiet wealthy focused very metastatic malignancy that we conservatives need immediately to know about and alert our conservative and Republican local organizations.

[antiDemt]

Repeal, you are saying basically the same as I, just wrap it in more roughly. You know, wrong packaging might spoil the sell.

And keep in mind, I said "people", not just Congress, have to have the say in letting some Deities go. As an option: special bulletins during the November elections. For example, vote away the "maverick Kennedy", or Suitor or Ginsberg ...

[antiDemt]

we get McCain to nominate a SCOTUS strict constructionist and stomp the liberal Senate and Senate Judiciary Committee to let the up-or-down vote

And how do you estimate the probability that he will listen, given he is deaf even now, before getting elected? I believe he values his buddies from the "across the isle” much higher than his constituency. The ability of couple judges to overpower both legislative and executive power is much dangerous nowadays than in the 18-th century. Just imagine, for example, terrorists kidnap judges' family members and blackmailing them ...

I remember when 4 wizards from the MA SC "interpreted" the 18 century puritans, the State constitution founders, as considering the "gay marriage". And both State Senate and Governor were ordered to create a new law, facilitating the marriage, contrary to the existed law and the state population opinion. I don't se how the court is "weaker".

[qrayjack]

Allow me to reiterate that this SCOTUS decision is just a symptom. The disease is liberalism. That's has to be combatted and beaten.

[dnlrice5dgp]

We, The United States, are going do the tubes, and we are picking up speed everyday. This court decision is just another example of the courts running this country from the bench. If I'm not mistaken, are not some of these judges, I use the term loosely, left overs from Clinton? Thanks Bill, you stuck it to us again.

[Think About It]

Accused terrorist have rights, but the IRS and other Federal officials say that conservative Christian pastors can't talk about liberal issues their memberships find offensive from their pulpits. Once again the judiciary favors criminals over the innocent.

[RW]

You bring up an interesting idea about the IRS...these terrorists were paid humongous amounts of money to BE terrorists. If they are given the same rights as citizens, does that mean they have the same tax liabilities that citizens do? If they do and they haven't filed tax returns they need to wind up in jail and/or heavily fined!

Nah, another pipe dream...

[STEELMAN]

To resolve this SCOTUS issue we can do the following: Let all cases that would be sent to the SC be resolved in the lower courts to the point that no case will fall into their hands...they will then become null and void....bored, resentful, and just up and resign!

Who needs a SC that sits in favor of our enemies? Not us! So quit feeding them what they can't digest.

[Think About It]

Reply to Radiowoman: If you have citizens rights, you should have citizens responsibilities so taxes are not out of the question. Unless you afford the terrorists the rights of a member of Congress who can't be held accountable for certain crimes they commit while Congress is in session. But then some of Congress's actions could be considered acts of terrorism against the average legal American citizen.

[TruckinJarhead]

There should be no legitimate doubt that McCain would continue in that vein and nominate constructionists.
There's no guarantee there, Billary.

[TruckinJarhead]

[QUOTE]When this nonsensical foray into 'moderate' politics ends in the inevitable utter failure ahead, and we get back to the basics of solid conservative values, we will win back control of Congress and the White House.[QUOTE]
qj, you're dead on, but do we really have that much time? Don't forget the tons of "the muslim brotherhood" lurking out there (on our soil) that want to do us in.

[TruckinJarhead]

The disease is liberalism. That's has to be combatted and beaten.
Once again qj, you've hit the nail on the proverbial head, but the sticky wicket is the HUGE multitude of people who have been feeding from the liberal trough for all these many years. Lying Baines Johnson saw to that when "The Great Society" was created during his tenure.

[TruckinJarhead]

You bring up an interesting idea about the IRS...these terrorists were paid humongous amounts of money to BE terrorists
RW, where did you get the info that these clowns were paid a "humongous" amount of money?

[antiDemt]

And let's never forget about the historical regularity: even presumably conservative judges, due to the very nature of the judicial environment (pro-bureaucratic and pro-left) could easily drift to the left.
Does anybody know many opposing anecdotes?

[72yearsyoung]

Be back shortly -- phone interruption

[Petertherock]

Sit on a President McCain, starting on Jan 20, 2009, watch him like a hawk to nominate strict constructionist SCOTUS candidates, while at the same time, really land on our Congress Critters hard to get them to (a) vote these candidates out of the Senate Judiciary Committee (particularly if our Senator is a member, but any American citizen can burn up their phone lines, or e-mail if they permit out-of-staters to use it), and then (b) on our own 3 Critters and any/all members of the Congressional leaderships (both parties, all officers), really land on them with our fire of conservative feedback accountability

This is good in theory but the problem is a President McCain is a Democrat. He will work with the Democrats in nominating liberal judges. Even if McCain by some miracle did nominate a conservative judge with the Democrats with a 60 vote majority in the Senate and 100+ majority in the House there is no way they would be confirmed.

The best thing we can hope for is an Obama win, the libs to destroy this country for the next 4 years and then once people find out how bad they are they will be ready to impeach the Democrats. But this only works if we start getting some real conservative leadership in our party. If we get more McCain's, Snowe's, Collins', and all the other RINO's we will get more of the same.

The only other altenative is an armed revolution which if these gas and oil prices don't come down could happen before 2012.

[MISSL]

Petertherock: Just read that McCain blasted this decision in no uncertain terms. Obama thought it was a marvelous decision. Not McCain. He is very angry with this. Does that make you think a little differently.

[72yearsyoung]

Disgusting, sickening, frightening, heartbreaking, totally un-American. By their actions, five members have demonstrated their apparent willingness and desire to give aide and comfort to our enemies. And, at the same time show great indiffernce, disrespect and a disturbing unwillingness to protect America and their fellow Americans. How greviuos is that ??
Does it amount to approaching an act of treason ???? Or exceeding their authority on the bench of the SCOTUS?? Or legislating law from the bench of the SCOTUS ?? Or keeping their Oath of Office ?? Or being fit to serve thereon ?? Or should remain thereon, or in any law or legal capacity now and in the future ???? In my mind's eye, many, many serious questions are in evidence ... put into evidence by our SCOTUS themselves !!!! Like boldly acting, even asking, to be relieved and removed from their duties/responsibilies. Sorta like shouting ----- retire me, retire me please; and do it soon! IMO, Congress should act immediately, and swiftly overturn this opinion of the SCOTUS. And well before the election -- to show their good faith to the American people. And we should watch and vote accordingly.

What utter disrespect, dishonor and unloyality to: the over 43,000,000 true and brave Americans who have served in our military, the over 1.5 million who have given their all and a similar number wounded; the almost 3,000 souls lost on 9-1-1, who were simply going about their daily lives when an evil, murderous, radical group chose to attack The United States of America and all Americans --- simply because they wish to kill us all --- that members of SCOTUS is an act of War against the U.S.A. and every American, and all it's allies, and every American and the U.S.A. is duty bound, and by the Oath of Office mind you --- including the SCOTUS, to defend, protect and pursue all such individuals to the fullest, and by every means necessary, to defeat, destroy and eliminate by whatever means available, including holding all involved fully and completely accountable for their actions to prevent them from attempting such actions and acts of terrorism again, against the U.S.A. and it's citizens ever again, and to send a message to one and all, ---- be forewarned, NO EXCUSES, NO EXCEPTIONS; the 4,601 brave Americans killed in Afganistan and Iraq; the 32,135 of America's finest wounded; and the
four killed in Iraq this month, through June 03, 2008.

That friends amounts to dozens, hundreds actually, of reasons to vote for and elect JM as the next POTUS. And give the obama crowd a swift-boating, kick in the backside ---- beyond all ever witnessed.

And remember, BO is not our friend nor America's friend: TO-WIT in his very own words:
OBAMA --- From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.' [do not forget the SCOTUS opinion of this week; and whose side they have lined up with;
that's a big red flag, hello.]
From a man who states words are important ! Who does not get the message, the intent or see the picture.... big or small, whatever size. It could only be the deft, dumb, blind or brainwashed ---- filled with obamanation cool-aid, being served so freely by the demorat party.

If that does not make your blood boil, then you are not among the living.

[antiDemt]

Just read that McCain blasted this decision in no uncertain terms

Didn't he claim on multiple occasions his market allegiance as well? And then what, want me to remind?
What about his last "sharing wealth" by oil companies stance, for starter?

[Petertherock]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com /home/daily/site_061208/content/01125106.guest.html

RUSH: The Supreme Court ruled this morning that foreign terrorism suspects held at Club Gitmo have rights under the Constitution that challenge their detention in US civilian courts. It was a 5-4 ruling, Anthony Kennedy, the fifth vote, wrote the opinion, handed the Bush administration its third setback at the Supreme Court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at Club Gitmo. "It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to Al Qaida and the Taliban." As I said, a military lawyer for Bin Laden's ex-driver has sought dismissal of his case after the Supreme Court ruling this morning. Now, this is an abomination. This is just outrageous. Never before in the history of US warfare have we had to go out and Mirandize prisoners of war. That's what we're going to effectively have to do. We're going to have to read prisoners of war their rights just as we would a thief at the local convenience store. I'll tell you what this means. This means, don't capture 'em.

[George123]

This is a very sad day for America.

The Supreme Court just tied the hands of our Military.

And Liberalism just slapped us in the face.

[Cynical Pete]

Senelity has run amok in the Supreme Court. There has to be an age limit of say 100 years old and a mental and physical exam to see if the members are coherent (counting up to 10 and able to stand without support)). This, right there, would eliminate four of them.

[kiva]

I surely agree with this, Rich.

U. S. Cititzens have to pay for their own defense...no other country (or member) pays it for US!

I am so tired of knee jerk reactions by lock-step liberals who are so "touchy feely" they think boo-hooing over criminals is more important than protecting OUR borders, OUR rights and OUR interests.

This Supreme Court is about the most disgusting body that has even been seated in the history of that (well, once it was) "august" body!

They are in Guantanamo because they broke OUR laws...now WE are supposed to pay for THEIR defense?

Whatever was rotten in Denmark has now infiltrated this country and we're going down the tubes like greased lightening!

TREASON IS THE RIGHT WORD!!!!!!!

Kiva

[Teacher Indep]

There is one way to avoid having to provide American constitutional protection for captured enemy combatants: TAKE NO PRISONERS. Muslim theology dictates that it is permissible to lie to the enemy (infidel, i.e., anyone not a Muslim) in order to deceive. Any information we get from prisoners is probably worthless or designed to lead Am. military intelligence astray.

[George123]

And now come all of the liberal articles:

"The Americans tortured me and I am completely innocent."

Good grief.

From now on, we should turn them over to a country like Uzbekistan for interrogation and imprisonment.

Then the enemy combatants will appreciate Gitmo.

[kiva]

You know...I wouldn't mind NEARLY as much if other countries abided by the international POW Rules and Regulations set in place by all, "supposedly for all countries," but if they will NOT (and they have proven they will NOT!) abide by them, I don't see why we should.

Playing fair is fine...for those who know what Fair Play truly is!!!!

The UN does nothing to any lawbreakers, except for us...the US...disgusting!

Yet, we are supposed to give (yeah, give, right!) our hard-earned tax dollars to defend those who only want us dead!!!!!!!!!

Just so sickening!

Kiva

[Charie]

The SCOTUS has gone against their own former ruling that prisoners of war held by the US on foreign soil cannot be held for trial in our court system.

Now they're saying that they can.

This was the reason our government leases Guantanamo from Cuba. These POWs are being held on foreign soil.

It could follow that any prisoners of war held any place in the world outside the U.S. could claim that they belong in our court system.

I shudder to think of what that would do to our court system.

Liberalism may be a mental disease, it's also one that causes blindness and an inability to distinguish cause and effect.

[TruckinJarhead]

Then the enemy combatants will appreciate Gitmo.
These ragtag ingrates have NEVER had it so good,

[THelsel]

The real point is that this ill conceived ruling seriously endangers our National Security AND our troops in the field.

I keep going back to the Haditha Marines who were judged guilty by John Murtha, WITHOUT any due process of law at all. Yes, he's not a judge nor a participant in a court of law but he IS a Congressman and his "slander" of those Marines WILL persist as truth to many. Their reputations will be forever tarnished. NOW, thanks to this USSC ruling we find that while the reputations and guilt or innocence of our military members may be pronounced from a pulpit of governmental authority WITH NO CONSIDERATION for their civil rights, those rights must be provided to enemy combatants, legal or illegal, captured on the battlefield.

So, the question that I have is WHAT DO WE do about this?

[qrayjack]

WHAT DO WE do about this?
Defeat liberalism.

[schillerbjr]

Vote the "entire" Democrat Party "OUT" on 11/4/08!



That is "Defeating Liberalism"!!

[crestonave]

The SC is 100% on the money, and has handed down a correct decision. Our Constitution protects the natural rights of everyone, citizen or non-citizen. These rights include the right to a fair, speedy trial before a jury of one's peers. These detainees are not "enemy combatants" because the President has not asked for, nor has Congress seen fit to issue a Declaration of War.

[Teacher Indep]

An "ah ha!" moment: Do NOT be surprised if the Gitmo prisoners' lawyers ask for damages.Muslims like to get apologies from us infidels; it enhances their sense of superiority and massages their egos. That could also be part of the proceedings. Can you imagine the US gov't. having to apologize for capturing and incarcerating enemy combatants ? This is part of the difficulty we run into when we keep sending troops into foreign countries w/o first declaring war. The theoretical expert advisors in D.C. need to read Geo. Washington's farewell address. Nothing should surprise us after this SC ruling.

[qrayjack]

These detainees are not "enemy combatants" because the President has not asked for, nor has Congress seen fit to issue a Declaration of War. Actually the problem is in perception, which if you possessed any you wouldn't come here from MoveOn jabbering such utter nonsense.

[72yearsyoung]

Well said QJ. Thank you.