Skip to main content

The President plans to act as if he won the Hamdan case.  He will ignore the Supreme Court's broad rejection of his assertions of unlimited power.  Will he succeed in this gambit?

Constitutional law is one thing. Politics is another.

This morning's Washington Post, in A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed, includes this analysis:

[T]he Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.

"Struck at the core"?  

"Ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines"?

Sounds right, but here is how Tony Snow, the President's spokesman, viewed the decision, in the same WaPo article:

Snow later disagreed that the ruling undercut Bush's authority. "I don't think it weakens the president's hand, and it certainly doesn't change the way in which we move as aggressively as possible to try to cut off terrorists before they can strike again," he said.

What's going on here?

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in a 2003 Boston College commencement address, told this story of President Andrew Jackson and the Supreme Court:

In 1832 the Cherokee Indian tribe lived on land guaranteed them by treaty. They found gold on that land. Georgia tried to seize the land. The Cherokees sued. And eventually the Supreme Court, in Worcester v. Georgia, held in favor of the Cherokees.

Georgia then refused to obey the Court. President Andrew Jackson reportedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."  And Jackson sent troops to evict the Cherokees, who traveled the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma, thousands dying along the way.

Despite this sad chapter in our history, and despite President Jackson's arrogant refusal to respect the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer argued that we had matured 170 years later, that we now respect the Rule of Law, and "that losers as well as winners will abide by the result, and so will the public."  In his concurring opinion in Hamdan, Justice Breyer again expressed his faith in losers respecting the Rule of Law.  

The statement by Tony Snow suggests that, as far as the President is concerned, this faith is misplaced.  It also suggests a more subtle calculation at work:  rather than recognize the broad implications of the blow that Hamdan has dealt to President Bush's notion of unlimited Presidential power, the President will just ignore it.

He will act as if his power is not impaired by this decision, as if the authority for his domestic spying has not been eviscerated, as if his claims to unlimited Presidential Power have not been dealt a fatal blow by the Supreme Court.  Why should the President of the United States respect a 5-vote majority on the Supreme Court, when he looks forward to the opportunity to replace the author of the Hamdan decision, Mr. Justice John Paul Stevens, in coming years.

Mr. Justice Stevens has made his decision; now let him enforce it.  That is surely what President Bush is now thinking.  But instead of saying that openly, he will act as if nothing has happened, as if the court decision does not undercut his views of unilateral Presidential power.

If the people and the Congress allow the President to get away with this gambit, it will be the greatest tragedy for our democracy.  The Supreme Court's rejection of his claims to unlimited Presidential power should be trumpeted loudly and broadly by all progressives, and the President's arrogance toward the Court and the Rule of Law should be called out by every progressive candidate this season.

Originally posted to oregondem on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:44 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  'Impeachment' is a dirty word (177+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidb1224, xerico, Alumbrados, paradox, Carl Nyberg, Ducktape, miriam, Inky, pacifica, tundraman, laurak, Subterranean, cedubose, yerioy, TaraIst, cosbo, Pandora, melvynny, ScientistMom in NY, sacrelicious, tomathawl, Hummingbird, billlaurelMD, cotterperson, Free Radical, figdish, Cambridgemac, TarheelDem, pseudomass, Luam, RFK Lives, Bob Friend, Matilda, linc, Cecrops Tangaroa, silence, Geotpf, madhaus, daaawi, dpc, km4, opinionated, joynow, wayward, Dazy, rktect, elveta, nyceve, MD patriot, srkp23, highacidity, mxwing, Glic, vmibran, Aquarius40, michelle, DoDi, DavidHW, VaAntirepublican, Fe, Swordsmith, ethans mom, lilnubber, exiled texan, Jesterfox, splashy, dmsilev, Cedwyn, Eddie C, baad, mayan, mrradon, TexDem, Dallasdoc, fightorleave, DeadB0y, Lady Nutmegger, TiaRachel, white blitz, besieged by bush, attydave, hoof32, Sychotic1, papercut, lcrp, Dood Abides, Democratic Hawk, jrm78, barbwires, nasarius, airshipjones, StupidAsshole, boran2, califdweller, murrayewv, iliketodrum, donailin, Gowrie Gal, libnewsie, Anglico, Fabian, Elise, Five of Diamonds, ignorant bystander, KnotIookin, clammyc, crimsonscare, Valtin, ChemBob, snacksandpop, david78209, anonymousredvest18, reflectionsv37, boofdah, Blissing, jfadden, Annalize5, marathon, majcmb1, kidfury, Pam from Calif, Kayakbiker, annefrank, Jawis, sunbro, Yamara, el zilcho, teachenglish, strangely enough, neroden, wiscmass, serrano, sodalis, Ghost of Frank Zappa, JanL, Dr Benway, Drocket, Asinus Asinum Fricat, Paper Cup, begone, curiousted, mspicata, keefer55, trashablanca, Nightprowlkitty, BobzCat, Keone Michaels, DrSpalding, testvet6778, LittleRiceBird, HoundDog, victoria2dc, smokeymonkey, Marcus Tullius, greenearth, vome minnesota, nilocjin, condoleaser, FireCrow, bunk, ER Doc, Andy30tx, Turbonerd, ilyana, doingbusinessas, means are the ends, ohiojack, libertyisliberal, ArkDem14, Land of Lincoln Dem, kml, AmericanRiverCanyon, BeninSC, dpinzow, Cat Whisperer, DAO, left coast lad

    but this is exactly the reason why it must be undertaken as soon as the votes exist to pull it off. The Bush administration is a clear and present threat to the Constitution.

    (Truth to tell, I wonder whether the reason people are so hesitant to initiate the impeachment process is the fear that Bush will be impeached and convicted yet respond not by leaving office but by declaring Congress dissolved.)

    "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

    by Geenius at Wrok on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:48:24 AM PDT

  •  Enforcement Would Have to Come From (40+ / 0-)

    Congress.

    Which under our system is permitted but not required.

    And even that is very ephemeral. There is only one human being on earth keeping Bush's actions unconstitutional: the next Justice to retire or die.

    With the very next appointment, the American Experiment ends with the conclusion that the historic norm of aristocratic rule was right all along.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:49:57 AM PDT

  •  with the conclusion that bush broke the ... (11+ / 0-)

    geneva convention willingly, handed down from the highest legal authority of the country, is this enough to submit bush to the hague for war crimes?

    I mean, now that it's in writing - isn't that enough to move this to an international war crimes court?

    How do cases get submitted to the Hague? this is where we should focus, i think.

    BS GOP: Bait & Switch repubs are for Greed Over People.

    by nymosyn on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:52:56 AM PDT

  •  Really, What Do You Expect Snow to Say? (25+ / 0-)

    "We had our ass handed to us?"  Cmon, he's a paid propagandist.

    •  also (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lipstick Liberal, Swordsmith

      in Tony Snow's short tenure as Press Secretary, he's demonstrated a consistent habit of responding to everything with his own opinion and the way he assumes the President would want it answered. He has misspoken on several occasions, injecting what he thinks is the truth without checking in as to what Rove et al want him to say.

      He's put his foot in his mouth so many times, he has treadmarks in his trachea.

      He's going to say what he thinks of it immediately when asked. Over the weekend, Rove and the lawyers will smooth out the details of how the WH is going to react on this. Look for a more nuanced and vague answer on Monday from Mr. Snow Job.

      I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

      by land of the free on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:29:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  do you really think WH was caught with their (0+ / 0-)

        pants down and not given a heads up and  tome to prepare to respond to this decision?

        Rove and Co. not only had their spin down, they had the republican legislative commitmetns in the Senate. They even somehow managed to resurrect discredited CIC war powers John Yoo and get him into the fray, - Yooo spoke on an NPR piece, but said nothing about law, buut all about republican election plans to make this a November 06 campaign issue testing the democrats on terrorism.

        Given the talking points, legislation, and ability to get disredited legal theorists all on the same page are indicators that the Cort's decision was telegraphed and the Busies well prepared.

        •  Think ahead (0+ / 0-)

          They've had months to prepare for this decision.  Not because of any leak, but because they were prepared for either decision.

          Haven't you ever watched West Wing?  Always have 2 speeches ready.

          We're all just monkeys burning in hell. SmokeyMonkey.org

          by smokeymonkey on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:19:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't watch TV - don't have one (0+ / 0-)

            Sorry, I've never seen West Wing - but I have read "Closed Chambers" (Edward Lazarus - former Supreme Court clerk) about Supreme Court politics.

            I also know that the Chief justice sat this one out, after having voted in Bush favor at the time of his job interview with Bush administration.

            I also know that Bush recent appointee Alito dissented.

            One plus one plus one equals three - don't need a weather man to know which way the woind blows on this one.

            In other words, a Supreme Court decision of this legal and political moment likely was known to the WH well on advance - I can't give these folks any credit for strategic thinking on matters of substance - they can plan only on political campaigns. In that planning context, this decision becomes just another talking point in the lead Nov. 06 messages: war on terror, democratic weakness, and pointy headed activist judges undermining CIC Bush.  

    •  No, but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noweasels, land of the free

      it would have been really refreshing to hear him say that.

    •  Gonzales (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Molee, Cat Whisperer

      I'd like to hear from Gonzales.

      Also there should be a committee hearing which requires someone to speak for the administration and answer the question of how they are going to respond to this Supreme Court decision.

      I don't want answers from Tony Snow.  I want them from the President or his lawyer.

    •  Horrible diary (0+ / 0-)

      Strongly recommend unrecommending.

      Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

      by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:52:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

        I'd like your take on this issue.  And why you think this is an issue that does not deserve our attention.

        •  Becaue it is false (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DSmith

          Bush is NOT defying the SCOTUS. Buh will comply with Hamdan.

          This diary is telling a lie when it says Bush is defying the SCOTUS and NOT complying with Hamdan.

          A terrible diary, especially coming form a law professor who should know better.

          Booo diarist! Shame on you.

          Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

          by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:04:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not be the bad guy here (0+ / 0-)

            I haven't recommended this diary or anything.  But didn't you say it was too early to determine the results of this decision?  And hasn't Bush already broken laws (and basically admitted it)?  And has he not at least indirectly announced his belief in the Executive Unitary priviledge which might lead him to believe he can do whatever he want (In a time of war, which is an argueable point)?

            I see a shotgun pattern all around this point. It would imply that Bush will at the very least try to weasel his way out of complying with the SCOTUS ruling.  And if not outright ignoring it until he can get his Repubs (and Joementum) to grant him the dirent authority.

            Am I way out here?

            •  Too early? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theadmiral

              I don't think so.

              Neither Bush nor Yooo nor anyone has said they can ignore the SCOTUS.

              Thst is the point here.

              Andrew Jackson's words were express defiance of the SCOTUS. Nothing Bush has said or done or argued gives credence to this diary which is made up out of whole cloth.

              Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

              by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:22:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ok, I'll bite. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oregondem

                You say "That is the point here."  The point being that Bush has not said they can ignore SCOTUS -- then how do you interpret Bush's equivocal response (i.e. the "quote" ruling remark)?

                Don't like getting between 2 lawyers (eek!  and I work for 'em, so I know of what I speak), but I really want to understand this.

                •  The diary should be about (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jorndorff

                  the executive trying to make an end run around the Supreme Court. The Administration is pushing the Congress to pass legislation stripping federal courts of important powers which allow them to interpret the Constitution.

                •  Yes, Bush's team says he should ignore (0+ / 0-)

                  the decision.  For example, Anne Coulter made a declaration that President Bush should ignore yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling . . . on Hannity & Colmes last night.

                  •  And by 'ignore,' I explained 'he will act as if (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    4Freedom

                    nothing has happened, as if the court decision does not undercut his views of unilateral Presidential power."

                    That is exactly what his spokesman, Tony Snow, said today.  He asserted that "the Supreme Court has disagreed with the approach we've taken. You may -- I don't know how you'd say "overreached." "

                    And this exchange with a member of the press:

                    Q Well, I'm not trying to make this a political argument, but you guys -- the White House has put forward the argument that in extraordinary times, the White House needs to take extraordinary measures and act as executive power on its own. And the Supreme Court -- a majority ruling of the Supreme Court has said, no, you can't, not in this instance.

                    MR. SNOW: Well, the majority of the Supreme Court -- a lot of this is procedural, Jake, and that's why it gets complicated and it gets pretty quickly beyond my brief.

                    In other words, act like you didn't really lose, and maybe you can snatch victory out of the jaws of a constitutional lashing.

            •  BTW (2+ / 0-)

              I am the bad guy here. Always.

              Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

              by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:24:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Admitting it is the first step (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                airshipjones

                toward recovery.

                Pumped and ready for "the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace."

                by sagra on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 12:25:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Fine, I'll play good cop (0+ / 0-)

                We just need to get Bush into the police interrogation room now.  :)

              •  Absolutely not. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Armando, New Deal democrat

                Though I get involved at my neophyte peril, I have to come down on the "Why are we discussing this?" side of the argument.

                So, wait, Tony Snow, the man PAID TO MAKE THE PRESIDENT LOOK GOOD, said "No, the Court didn't say he 'overreached,' they just said he can't do this . . .." A spin-meister trying to put the best possible face on a stinging rebuke of the President (and I think that's what the decision was, though I'm open to arguments about why it's not) is a far cry from President Jackson giving the verbal middle finger to the Chief Justice (somehow, in my heart of hearts, I think that salty old duelist gave Chief Justice Marshall the ACTUAL finger, too, but I can't prove it). It's nonsense. Let's not go losing our heads.

                If the President acts in direct defiance of a Supreme Court decision, we'll do all this fun soul-searching. Till then, let's not be silly.

                '"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection ... is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.'

                by DSmith on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:46:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Retirement suited you. I hope you try it again. (0+ / 0-)
      •  I see why some folks don't like you... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alexander G Rubio

        you're kind of a jerk, even in snark..and i'm not sure this was snark...

        •  It was not snark (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          New Deal democrat

          And if people do not like me for telling the truth, I'll face the consequences of that.

          People like to recommend diaries that say what they want to hear.

          I abhor that.

          But if you want to believe this diary and recommend it because it says what you want to hear, that is your perogative.

          If you want to hate me because I burst your bubble, that is also your perogative.

          Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

          by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:20:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  still recommended (2+ / 0-)

            I thought you made an excellent point - but I'm still recommending this diary.

            The administration has NOT explicitly stated that they will ignore the decision, true. But I believe the diarist has the right of it. If Dubya feels free to ignore one co-equal branch of government, why should he feel constrained by the other? And what advantage would there be in announcing that they are not changing their policy, a la Jackson? If anything, I would expect them to follow their pattern of saying one thing, and doing whatever the hell they want to anyway.

            Nice to see you back (sorta) btw.

            -4.88, -4.15 "It's all complicated; it's all connected. That's why we have to pay attention." - Jon Carroll, SFGate.com

            by Turbonerd on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:58:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Your truth sometimes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            4Freedom

            is only evident through your eyes.  I read the diary twice and, to me at least, was based solely on Snow's comments.  It was not a legal dissertation.  Without speaking for the diarist, I assume that an 'end run' around this decision is defiance.

            but opinions, like mine, are cheap to formulate and to repeat.  

          •  Agree with you: this diary is simply incorrect (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oregondem, Malachite

            Neither Snow nor anybody else in the administration has indicated they intend to defy this court decision.  If nothing else, they're not that stupid.
            I am surprised that among all of the dKos diaries on the subject, this is the one that has sucked up all of the oxygen.

            The sole item relied upon by the diarist to support his opinion is Snow's remark that

            "I don't think it weakens the president's hand, and it certainly doesn't change the way in which we move as aggressively as possible to try to cut off terrorists before they can strike again," he said.

            Snow is factually 100% correct, in terms of the president's ability to carry out the Congressional resolution authorizing force in reaction to 9/11.  I believe the SCOTUS would have ruled the other way had they thought they were tying his hands.

            In this case, the court told Bush to either:

            1. bring no charges against the Gitmo detainees.
            1. use the regular court system.
            1. have Congress use their Art. 1 Sec.8 power to describe what sort of tribunals will be set up.

            There is every indication Bush will plump for item 3.  Of course, what his rubber stamp Congress gives him may not be what you and I would call justice, but the fact remains that he will "comply" with this ruling.

            Where the diarist has a point, I think, is politically as opposed to legally the administration will behave:  they will behave as if they won the case, and that Yoo's theory of unlimited executive power especially during war has been vindicated.  Now, I think that is very scary, but it is fundamentally different from refusing to obey the court.

            In that regard, one thing I've been surprised hasn't been highlighted in any of the diaries on Kos (or elsewhere) is the tenor of Bush's remarks.  Remember, he's just been ORDERED by the Supreme Court to get Congressional approval for any special tribunals -- unless he wants to use the regular court system.  And yet, here's his reaction:

            to the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so.

            "to the extent there is latitude..." HUH???  Now, I realize this was his first, impromptu, reaction, but it speaks volumes about his attitude towards the now-declared, settled law of the land.  Is this the statement of somebody who realizes he is bound by an ORDER?  No.  It is the equivalent of telling the Supreme Court: "I'm still the decider.  I will do what I want.  If I can do what I want to do while obeying your opinion, I will.  Otherwise..."

            ...but again, that was his first, impromptu reaction, and while it speaks volumes about his view of himself and his political power, it is not a statement about how his adminsitration will behave in the strict sphere of law.  In that fundamental regard, this diary is simply incorrect.

            Finally, I saw where you recommended Glenn Greenwald's take.  I recommend it too.

            •  Yes, mine was a political analysis, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Annalize5, 4Freedom

              rather than a strictly legal one.  I explicitly said that I expect the Administration to "ignore" the decision by interpreting it to their will.

              But even more importantly, I specifically said that regarding "President Bush's notion of unlimited Presidential power, the President will just ignore it.

              The logic of the decision, in fact, undercuts also his other uses of the unilateral and unlimited Presidential power theory -- domestic spying, and who knows what other things we have not year uncovered.

              I said:

              "He will act as if his power is not impaired by this decision, as if the authority for his domestic spying has not been eviscerated, as if his claims to unlimited Presidential Power have not been dealt a fatal blow by the Supreme Court. "

              This is the kind of ignoring I was discussing -- not whether he will seek a little Congressional authorization on military tribunals.  Sure, he will do that.  

              But he will not stop his march toward near-absolute Presidential power during his self-defined "war."

              That is ignoring the spirit and even letter of this Court decision.

              •  Agree politically, disagree legally (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Armando, Alexander G Rubio, DSmith

                Legally, Bush will comply with this decision.

                Politically, he will pretend he won and his untrammelled power is intact.

                BIG difference.

                That being said, I do agree with your political analysis including your reply to me above.  But I emphatically do not agree that he will ignore the letter of this court decision (for reasons I set forth above and don't have to rehash).

                Cheers

  •  Excellent Diary!!! (18+ / 0-)

    Through your citation of Breyer, I believe you have made the perfect parallel, and, in the process, reminded us all of a shameful chapter in our Nation's history--thank-you!!!

  •  Unfortunately, I Think You are Exactly Right. (5+ / 0-)

    Just as the Geneva Conventions are "quaint," I think that the WH plans to completely ignore this decision.

    How can the rubber-stampers ignore this?

    "[T]hat I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake."

    by Heronymous Cowherd on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:11:44 AM PDT

  •  he will seem to obey it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    barbwires, gsbadj, New Deal democrat

    The Supreme Court gave Bush a congressional out card. And the rush to accomadate.

    fact does not require fiction for balance

    by mollyd on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:16:18 AM PDT

    •  And they gave him time (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oregondem, migo

      W is NOT going to appear to disobey this decision.  He will stall this issue until 2008 by pretending to be working on it with Congress.  

      Eventually, W and Congress will set up an unfair tribunal (complete with lots of partisan accusations in Fall 2006 that the Dems are disloyal for wanting to give terrorists all sorts of due process rights) and the case will be back at the SCOTUS for Round 3.  No way on Earth this stuff gets enacted, reviewed by courts, organized and trials begun by 2008.

      In the meantime, these guys will sit and rot in Gitmo.  Hell, that'll be another GOP wedge issue in 2008, i.e. why do the Dems want to endanger America by closing Gitmo and cutting loose terrorists?

      Straight out of the Rove fear-mongering playbook.

      "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright

      by gsbadj on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:13:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Haven't you heard? (29+ / 0-)

    President Bush has issued a signing statement concerning his interpretation of Supreme Court rulings.  As the Unitary Executive, he must decide how to enforce such rulings as they apply to other members of the Executive Branch, including the SecDef.  The President's signing statement enables him to interpret and construe such adverse rulings consistent with his own view of the Constitution.

    ;)

    Sometimes you cover your ass with the lame excuses you have, not the lame excuses you wish for.

    by litigatormom on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:30:03 AM PDT

  •  This is the problem with democracy (15+ / 0-)

    In the end, the only thing that can maintain a democratic system is the awareness and engagement of the voters.  No matter how many "clean government" rules and techniques we establish, the only true barrier to tyranny in a democracy is an electorate that is awake and paying attention.  This is particularly important in an environment like ours, which depends on antagonism between the branches of government but currently features tight centralization of political power within the White House.  Congress isn't watching the Executive branch, and the court can't effect changes by itself.  As Lincoln famously warned us: a house divided against itself cannot stand.

    If we want Bush to follow the orders of the Supreme Court, we have to make him do it by levying intense public pressure.  Luckily, I think any real power grab contrary to the court on Bush's part WOULD wake people up -- as long as Dems and activists yelled long enough about it.

    Read James Loewen's "Sundown Towns"!

    by ChicagoDem on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:30:46 AM PDT

    •  Not only that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson

      There are other avenues of erosion of a democratic system such as ours. Congress has captitulated to often to the Executive branch. And Bush, on behalf of the Far Right, is trying to stack the courts. Congress has also sold out to big business.

      I am afraid that we can forget about awareness and engagement by the voters. At least most of them. Many don't care at all, and many are on side of more power to the Executive branch (not knowing that it is at their own peril).

      Tony Snow's job is to praise and support the Bush Administration -- at all costs. When ideaologues are in power they truly believe that lying and deceiving and misleading are all okay when they are right and are doing so for the "good of the country."

      Feed Them To The Lions
      http://www.cafepress.com/ihavecondoms http://www.cafepress.com/supportwho

      by feedthemtothelions on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:23:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The point is... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, oregondem

        The only thing that can stop the government when rules intended to keep it fair fail is the people.  If we can't depend on them then it's only a matter of time until the system falls apart.  Even the very limited amount of control the far right exerts today (two jury-rigged Presidential wins and narrow majorities in both houses of Congress) has resulted in very serious erosion of civil liberties.  Our whole system is set up with the three branches snarling at each other, with the assumption that any one out of control branch would be brought down by the other two.  But when two branches collude against the third, there's no check on governmental action.  Once events reach that point,  the only hope for maintaining democracy is voter awareness.  If we're going to write the voters off, we can write our system of government off as well.

        Read James Loewen's "Sundown Towns"!

        by ChicagoDem on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:51:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Start writing. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson, amsterdam

          You can not force a state controlled by a single party to give up their control. There is no feeback loop to force them to comply with any true balancing of interests. So that party's over.

          As to the people: well, if you want to make a population docile, just give them credit cards and tell 'em to charg'em up. A population in debt is a compliant population. If you don't think so, just look at how we handle third world governments when they want to address the needs of their people. We sic the IMF on them so they will owe billions and do what we tell them and if they don't like that, we overthrow them. Check out Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

          Our saving grace (if we can handle it) is the dwindling supplies of oil and global climate catastrophe. Their oligarchy is addicted to oil, and like addicts they are only interested in the next fix. They have no real long term strategy other than staying on top.


          -7.25/-6.41 Service [to others] is the rent we pay for the space we occupy. -Rev. M. L. King, Jr.

          by sravaka on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:04:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Debt slavery is (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cotterperson, migo, Sophie Blue, 4Freedom

            more efficient than the old-style slavery.  You don't have to be responsible for keeping the slaves fed, and you don't have to get up in the middle of the night to hunt them down when they run off.

            Pumped and ready for "the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace."

            by sagra on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 12:30:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  frighteningly true (0+ / 0-)

              when you consider that economists say real earnings haven't gone up since the '70s, and families work longer hours with two wage earners to get by or get ahead

              Republicans are not smart enough to protect America. Howard Dean

              by 4Freedom on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:00:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Normally the press applies the pressure (4+ / 0-)

      to induce change. However, the press is part of the problem. Politics on the national level seems to have been reduced to an orgy of self gratification fueled by anger, power, greed, and ego. The press seems to acting more like spectators at a blood sport event, cheering on the death and destruction they are witnessing. They seem to be reveling in the chaos, stupidity, greed, and malevolence that passes for government these days.

    •  the 'problem with _'democracy',' huh? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sagra, sravaka

      "In the end, the only thing that can maintain a democratic system is the awareness and engagement of the voters.  No matter how many "clean government" rules and techniques we establish, the only true barrier to tyranny in a democracy is an electorate that is awake and paying attention. "

       
       Yeah, that's a problem, all right.  How does one devise a democracy which can save stupid, careless, ignorant and indifferent people from themselves ?

       Which form of government is that not also true of, however?

       No matter what the form of government may be, it cannot and, eventually, shall not, protect people from their own irresponsibility.

      No run of monarchs; no rule by benevolent despots, no "philosopher kings", nor plutocrats, nor aristocrats, nor People's Revolutionary Committees, shall indefinitely protect a foolish and irresponsible people from their owh folly.

       On the other hand, a democracy offers the possibility of people's making idiot mistakes and learning from them.

      Currently, in the United States, our political system has become so corrupt that it has short-circuited and undermined every such process for the "learning from the mistakes" part of the process.

       That leaves, then, only violence--or the recovery of political responsibility by those in positions of power.

      "All life is problem-solving." (book title) --Karl Popper

      by proximity1 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:26:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That was meant ironically... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, proximity1

        Of course it's not actually a problem.  An aware, informed citizenry is the whole point of a democratic system.

        Although I don't think we're anywhere near the "violence" point yet.  More just "yelling at the electorate"

        Read James Loewen's "Sundown Towns"!

        by ChicagoDem on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:35:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How indeed! (0+ / 0-)

        How does one devise a democracy which can save stupid, careless, ignorant and indifferent people from themselves ?

            You cannot save anyone from themselves, whether it's an individual, or a group.

            We will have the government that we deserve, but it's tragic that we don't deserve a good one.

            We will have to earn a better government by being informed and voting, but the vast majority of US citizens are guilty of not bothering with one or both of those items.

            And I can only wonder what would force the non-voters to do thair duty...

            Muttly  

        "I'd rather have a bottle in front 'o me, than a frontal lobotomy" Groucho Marx

        by Muttly Crew on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:11:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The president is a product of his generation (4+ / 0-)

    We have an incoherent body of laws and customs that the populace grew up disrespecting and defying.  Cafeteria-style law abiding.

    • Canabis cultivation and distribution is illegal within a sustained $6billion/yr (?) US market.
    • Nuclear tests spewing cancer in the wind and morning dew across the nation
    • The  Vietnam draft
    • Military service for all but the rich
    • Business ethics vs. "thinking out of the box"
    • Abstinence training for the children of the "sexual revolution"
    • Reduce abortions w/o PlanB
    • Increase profits by laying off employees
    • Immigration laws

    Defiance has been a valuable American trait, but not necessarily profitable until one gets to the top, then all rules can be broken. Suddenly, it becomes "macho". The tragic figure of GWB will influence our youth for the rest of their lives...half of us fear the consequences and the other half will capitalize on them.

    > 518,000 American children are in foster care. Got any bandwidth?

    by kck on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:35:37 AM PDT

  •  A-fucking-men (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, noweasels

    That decision is a sledge hammer. It must be used.

  •  I was horrified (16+ / 0-)

    (but, alas, not surprised) that CNN put up as a "breaking news" line yesterday afternoon something along the lines of "Bush announces he will adhere to Supeme Court ruling."  My thought: as opposed to what?  What kind of statement is that?  Then this is what occurred to me -- Bush said that because he means this: "I'm still the Decider.  And I'll decide what I'll adhere to."  What's next?  A signing statement on the Constitution itself?  Keep working for your local Dems, people -- we've got to take back Congress this fall.

    PS: Fantastic diary.

  •  impeach this jackass n/t (3+ / 0-)

    Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

    by MarketTrustee on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:40:37 AM PDT

  •  No defiance, but no acceptance (4+ / 0-)

    The Bushies immediately started downplaying the decision. The Doofus-In-Chief began by reassuring the American people that no terrorists were going to be released onto our streets as a result of the decision. (CNN took this seriously as something like "the Administration played to its strengths of protecting the American people"). There was no hint of defiance or defeat, just a suggestion that they would work around the decision. In fact the decision is very hard to understand and commentators seem unsure of its ultimate ramafications. One thing is that Congress will act quickly to give Bush everything that SCOTUS found lacking in his authority and perhaps that will be enough for prez to declare victory for himself and the rule of law. It does send a signal to Bush that his authority as commander-in-chief is not limitless, but the administration is not responding to the signal and will ignore it, simply accommodating the decision as narrowly as possible, so that Bush's powers might remain and appear as wide as possible.

    •  They will start chipping away... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snacksandpop, steep rain

      ...at anything that smells like controlling power of international law.  This means they will not repudiate the Geneva Conventions in general, but they will immediately start passing laws to carve out exceptions.  International treaties have the force of law only if ratified by the Senate, and (help me out here lawyers) if specific legislation incorporating the treaty or agreement is passed as US law.  I know that's the way it worked with the UN Refugee Convention (which was passed as the Refugee Act of 1980) and the Convention Against Torture.  

      So expect them to start carving off portions of the Geneva Conventions through specific bills, all the while claiming to support the Geneva Conventions.

      I really hope our experience with these clowns will lead to real popular support for the ICC.  Just today, another story came out of Iraq of US troops raping a young woman and killing her and her family.  We need to hold our leaders accountable for these actions.

  •  Right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty, CTLiberal

    same reason it took twenty years to enforce Broad v. Board of Ed.

    It's not easy being a Floridian.

    by lawstudent922 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:42:27 AM PDT

  •  Did Jackson actually say that? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pico, awakenow, CTLiberal

    Wikipedia thinks he didn't.

    •  Interesting, from the same Wiki: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lipstick Liberal, Geotpf

      During the 1828 election, his opponents referred to him as a "Jackass". Jackson liked the name and used the jackass as a symbol for a while, but it died out. However, it later became the symbol for the Democratic Party.

      I did not know that.  Neat.

      President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale. -AG

      by Stymnus on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:59:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As I said in another discussion today... (15+ / 0-)

    Law professors and theoreticians like Yoo (and Addington) spend their lives waiting for the chance to overturn cases they believe were decided "wrongly."

    Yoo and his ilk almost certainly believe that's what happened here, and that the Supreme Court is simply not yet correctly constituted.

    After all, we all know where Roberts stood when the case was before him in the lower courts. That may mean that the real decision, with his participation, would have been 5-4.

    To people who think the case was wrongly decided, that's an engraved invitation to commit the same crime under slightly different circumstances as a "test case," and refight the same battle, sometimes over and over again, until they get the right composition of the Court.

    And when they do, all previous understanding of what "the law" on the subject is goes out the window. At which point they begin to ask why anyone who believes otherwise still has a job.

    That's what's going on here. That's what's at the heart of the administration's philosophy. This interpretation of presidential power was rejected soundly (but not finally) when Nixon exercised it. Then it became a closer call under Reagan (and everyone who was convicted got pardoned or walked on a technicality). Now the margins are razor thin, and Bush's partisans will be openly criticizing the decision as treason.

    They're just slowly pushing the window (remember the Overtondiary?) to the right, more and more, until their crazy theory erasing the separation of powers suddenly becomes the accepted state of the law.

    But we'd better not impeach them, because we might miss out on a chance for front row seats to the show!

  •  Andrew Jackson (5+ / 0-)

    A good friend of mine says that quote (well, the original, but you get my drift) shows why Jackson was the worst president in history, or at least 2nd worst after the current one.  It's an absolute textbook example of a president refusing to do his job: chief executive.  It's a clear breach of separation of powers.  

    Kinda tangential, but my point is that this would be dereliction of duty at its most fundamental level.  The president's job description is essentially to enforce the law as created by Congress and interpreted by the Courts, and to refuse to do so would be to eschew the central responsibility of his position.

    Comment tentatively approved by Supreme Overlord Kos

    by exiled texan on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:46:25 AM PDT

    •  Jackson was the worst (6+ / 0-)

      He was a butcher of Native Americans, a bigoted mass murderer. No amount of bullshit they write in our history books can ever make up for what he did to the Seminoles and Cherokees. Nothing. He was our Hitler. Trail of Tears and the institution of slavery was our worst moments as a nation., Jackson was directly involved in both as a murderer of Native Americans and as a slave owner and proponent of slavery (although he was a firm advocate of the federal union of the states, and declined to give any support to talk of secession). The reason I dislike Charleton Heston was well before I ever knew what his politics were. It was that damn movie with Susan Hayward where he played Andrew Jackson. Imagine glorifying a mass murderer.

  •  Whoa, calm down, everybody! (6+ / 0-)

    What we have here is the second of two decisions repudiating the unitary executive concept, and it must be viewed in that big-picture, long-term manner.

    As much as anything it simply reminds the President, and future presidents, that courts are created by the Congress (Constitution Art. III, Sec. 1), but no one in Congress or the Administration thought when passing the Patriot Act that we were going to actually capture people then have to figure out what to do with them.

    So the President ought to do what he should have done in the first place--ask Congress to establish a special court, just like the FISA courts, the federal Bankruptcy Court, Court of Federal Claims, Tax Court, and so yawn, with purely federal purposes.

    Having Congress "strip jurisdiction" from the legal system over "enemy combatants" was just a butthole stupid idea, easier and cheaper than doing the real work: Designing and funding a court to try cases against individuals who the administration would rather not have in the U.S. military, criminal or civil justice systems, and--here's the money shot--accepting the possibility that some defendants might be acquitted.

    Dubai-ya took the easy way out, cheap and dirty, just why we are "losing the peace" in Iraq.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will watch the watchers?)

    by The Crusty Bunker on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:46:27 AM PDT

    •  Bush isn't bothering (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Crusty Bunker

      to wait around for the FISA court rulings either.  What if we set up a court and nobody came?  Instead of the star chamber, would it be the echo chamber.

      Robert (R) Kansas can't wait to pass a bill protecting the president's posterior.

      Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!

      by barbwires on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:52:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The really scary part (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        barbwires

        Another Bush nomination and it's 5-4 the other way. Take this and be thankful it can't be over-ruled for a long time, even with another GOPer nominee. The Court is screwed up but not lost forever, and it will get unscrewed someday but not quickly.

        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will watch the watchers?)

        by The Crusty Bunker on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:13:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  projecting? wishful thinking? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, Carl Nyberg, HarlanNY, Red Bean

    Snow later disagreed that the ruling undercut Bush's authority. "I don't think it weakens the president's hand, and it certainly doesn't change the way in which we move as aggressively as possible to try to cut off terrorists before they can strike again," he said.

    How exactly is this anywhere near Jackson's famous disobediance?

    When Snow says, "Well, we're still gonna use these military tribunals, vafanculo, Justice Stevens," then you can re-post this diary and it will have some merit.

    Snow's just a PR guy; it's his job to make shit smell like roses.

    Is this just projecting a deep-seated disdain for the Bush Administration, or is it actually hoping that Bush & Co. force a constitutional crisis?

  •  HAMDAN & FISA (9+ / 0-)

    The majority view in Hamdan, i.e., that even the President must obey the law, has incredible resonance in the context of BushCo's admitted warrantless wiretapping.

    The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is  explicit: TITLE 50 USC CHAPTER 36, SUBCHAPTER I, § 1809 Criminal Sanctions says:

    A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—

    (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; . . .

    An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

    That's 5 years and $10,000 for each count; each wiretap = 1 count; 1,000 wiretaps = 5,000 years in prison and a $10,000,000 fine.

    Notice there is no intent in the language of the statute, it is a model of simplicity: if you intentionally tap without a warrant you're guilty.

    Bush has already admitted he okayed the wiretaps because he thought he was above the law. Retrospective realization of an error in thinking doesn't relieve him of liability for criminal sanctions.

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex"

    by bobdevo on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:58:29 AM PDT

  •  Or as Stalin reportedly mumbled... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Ralfast, Pam from Calif

    when asked about how the pope might react to one of his  decisions - "Fuck the pope. How many divisions does he have?"

    Somehow, comparing the Cheney administration to Josef Stalin seems more apt.

    Great diary. Key issue. Reccomended.

    See also the interview with Jane Mayer regarding her profile of Cheney's Cheney in this week's New Yorker magazine.

    "...psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the domains of...politics, law enforcement, (and) government." Dr. Robert Hare

    by RubDMC on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:59:11 AM PDT

  •  what's wrong with our current justice system? (7+ / 0-)

    It was good enough to try Timothy McVeigh and Charles Manson.  It's sent serial killers, mob bosses and corrupt politicians to prison.  It deals with difficult questions, hostile defendants, and the worst humankind has to offer every single day.  It's filled with experienced professionals and our best and brightest.  It's already been vetted and tested, and it works.  It's the fairest and most popularly supported system we have ever and could ever devise.  

    Someone should finally ask the president: how is our justice system not good enough for terrorists?  In what way is this system unequipped to handle enemy combatants?  

    Yeah I know, no one will b/c that would require the media to do their job... sigh...

    Comment tentatively approved by Supreme Overlord Kos

    by exiled texan on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:59:27 AM PDT

  •  If I understand this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Jesterfox

    Hamdan sues Bush, goes to supreme court, court says what Bush did was illegal. So doesn't that, on it's face, make Bush somone who committed Illegal acts?

    If I decide on my own, 'cause I'm such a good driver IO can go as fast as I want but I get busted for speeding, when the court, however high, decides I was wrong, don't I now have to pay the price, beyond promising not to do it anymore?

    Shouldn't this decision by itself be sufficient to create impeachment charges?

    "red hair and black leather, my favorite colour scheme"

    by blindcynic on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:01:03 AM PDT

    •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

      Hamdan vs Rumsfeld - not impeachment issue, but doesn't rummy suffer any?

      "red hair and black leather, my favorite colour scheme"

      by blindcynic on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:08:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ralfast, oregondem, Brother Love

      Matters of government power don't necessarily translate (in a legal sense) into individual wrong-doing.

      If that we're the case, we'd be talking "impeachment" every time the Courts found against the executive branch.

      Personal abuse of presidential power is a different thing.

      Unless I'm wrong, which, you know, I'm not

      by Hkingsley on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:15:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, it depends on what the acts of the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, oregondem

        Executive are.  If they merely overstep bounds, no crime, but if the overstepping is itself a criminal act, e.g. torture in violation of the war crimes act, then, yes, prosecution or impeachment can follow.

        Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

        by StrayCat on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:54:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes and No.... (0+ / 0-)

      The American judicial system is based largely opn thrust, since the Courts really have no power (except inside the courtroom itself) to execute their orders. That what the "executive" is for. Citizens thrust that the courts are the best place to resolve some issues, and in turn the justice systems thrust that their decisions, no matter how flawed, will be obeyed. That why the Rethuglicans assault on the judicial system is dangerous. By calling for the death of judges and shifting power the legislative branch who in turn defers to the executive. Instead of co-equal balacing branches of goverment we have bodies that merely rubber stamp anything the President does, or see fit to do.

      "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Seneca

      by Ralfast on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:05:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  is the U.S. government legitimate? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie, Annalize5

    What gives the U.S. government its legitimacy. The consent of the governed assumes that those trusted with the power to govern will accept the limits set by the Constitution.

    If the government refuses to accept these limits, why isn't violence a legitimate response to the government?

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:06:15 AM PDT

    •  That's why the second amendment was made (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      claude, bustacap, libnewsie, UnaVista

      Technically the second amendment was partly security measure in case the federal government got out of hand.  In that case it was the bound responsibility of the people to raise up and overthrow the government to fix the problem.

      That's also one of the reasons the military is restricted from being used on US soil.  In case of a revolt, the government should be able to stand on it's own or not at all.  The thinking being a government that represents the people will always have enough defenders from the people, and the military would be an unfair advantage.

      At this point we're nowhere near an armed overthrow of our own government.  While there have easily been enough people to take over DC during several protests over the years, in reality even a million people on the whitehouse lawn is a tiny minority of the population.  The rest of the population isn't likely to agree with an armed takeover.

      So in reality, violence is a legitimate option, just a very bad one with horrible costs in human life.  And in the end, it's very likely to create worse conditions than what was being fought against in the first place.

      It's kind of like the old phrase "Kill all the lawyers".  It's a heart warming thought, but you wouldn't actually want to live in the society you'd end up with.

      •  Actually, I don't think you have it right (0+ / 0-)

        "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

        The second amendment is designed to allow for a well armed militia to protect the security of a free State.  Its intent being to protect the USA.  It is otherwise stated in the Constitution that the people have a right to a peaceful overthrow of the government.  While in private letters, the founders did want to make sure that the government would never become tyrannical, that was handled much more curcumspectly that many would like to assume the Second Amendment allows for.

        •  I'd say a case of antique political correctness (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          catfood

          While your right, the primary purpose was to establish a protective malitia.  It was known and expected that an armed populace would be able to defend themselves from their own government if needed.  And the primary methods of change (petition, protest and voting) were the ones laid out to prevent the need for violence.  Even though  the founders realized that a violent overthrow was an absolute worst case scenario.  They had also just gone through it, and realized it might very well happen again.  

          The constitution was their attempt to make sure it never needed to happen again.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights were designed around that attempt with the realization that there was no chance they'd get it all right on the first try.  Thus the checks and balances, amendments etc.  

          The last thing they wanted to do would be to openly state "If This don't work, shoot the buggers and start over."  It would have crippled the whole thing from the start.  And yet, they had the military and police covered with the executive branch and the ability for more amendments.  They knew a malitia could have been conscripted by the President or a governer given what they had already laid out.  The second amendment wasn't needed for that alone.  So I'd have to take it for an unwritten "If it really gets that bad, do what has to be done."  Unwritten, mainly to keep the constitution in good light, but also because of the severe consequences.

  •  Impeach NOW (4+ / 0-)

    If you can't impeach a president for defying a clear, fundamental Supreme Court decision, you can't impeach that president.

    If you can't impeach that president on those clear legal grounds while their political situation is around 25% approval, their party is at least 10 points below their opposition party in public approval, when the whole issue is the center of an unpopular, losing war that's stretching on for years built on lies, you can't impeach that president.

    If the Democrats do not go on TV and tell the public that Bush is breaking the Constitution with Guantanamo kidnappings and domestic spying, that the Republicans are rewriting laws he breaks to cover his ass retroactively, they cannot even win an election.

    If Bush completes his full term through January 2008, he will have destroyed America. And he will have done so at the whim of Americans who hate America - tens of millions of us.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:07:46 AM PDT

  •  Where does the military stand on this??? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson

    They're the ones with the guns. They serve at the leisure of the commander-in-chief and DOD. And ultimately, they're the ones manning Guantanamo. I wonder if SCOTUS has any kind of real enforcement power backing its rulings...that is the 230-year-old question.

  •  media should draw attention to this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, mvr, Annalize5

    and force the Bush administration to back down.

    But the media isn't as independent as it's supposed to be.

    We are being governed by a sinister alliance of the Bush administration, telecoms, oil companies, military contractors and media companies.

    Welcome to 21st Century America.

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:10:07 AM PDT

      •  not all corporations part of Bush 'inner circle' (0+ / 0-)

        "Corporate Supremicists": that's the lazy Left's shorthand for the problem.

        But not all portions of corporate America are equally invested in the oligarchy.

        I probably should have added the medical-industrial complex too.

        For example, non military manufacturing and portions of the tech sector are not inner-circle members of the Bush cabal.

        If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

        by Carl Nyberg on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:09:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually corporatism is the enemy. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson, amsterdam

          To be precise, the system of corporations being held as persons in perpetuaity with limited liability for shareholders and without any stake in the welfare of the communities in which they are located, or customers, suppliers, employees, et al, is a severe burden on the commonweal and has irrevocably distorted our country, our economy, and the well-being of the world.

          But fear not, it's days are numbered. What with the degrading of ALMOST ALL the major oil fields in the world (with the exception of Iraq's and Iran's) and the quickening pace of global warming, we will reap a bitter harvest, and I have to share the blame for leaving behind me a rotten world for my son, for not having stood up to the bloodsuckers until one of us was wasted. Both the dwindling supplies of oil, and the loss of climatic stability will mean the collapse of agriculture, and our current unsustainable population levels will be catastrophically reduced (with the exception of Crawford, TX and Kennebunkport, ME).

          While some corporations may be 'good citizens', the system itself is the problem.


          -7.25/-6.41 Service [to others] is the rent we pay for the space we occupy. -Rev. M. L. King, Jr.

          by sravaka on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:38:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I got that phrase from Lou Dobbs actually (0+ / 0-)
    •  Attention to what? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jorndorff, theadmiral

      This diary is wrong.

      Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

      by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:32:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a very enlightening post (6+ / 0-)

    excellent historical perspectives. Obviously, European descendants that now make up white America believe Andrew Jackson and his successor James K. Polk were the greatest presidents between Washington and Lincoln. In my opinion, the most fascist president in our history was Andrew Jackson. Except for his defense of New Orleans as a general in the War of 1812, his butchery of Native Americans is a legacy of shame unmatched in the history of this country. I connote Jackson with some of Stalin's bullshit.

  •  Tony Snow: 5 to 3 is 'a number' (5+ / 0-)

    Remember, just like 2,500 US servicemen killed in Iraq is "a number," so is the 5-to-3 ruling of the US Supreme Court in Hamdan V Rumsfeld.

    "A number."  Nothing more. So they're just going to listen more closely to the 3 jurists on their side than the 5 jurists who hate America;  after all, 5 or 3 is just "a number."

    •  Alas, for him (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oregondem

      it's also called "a majority opinion."  I saw that idiocy on TV yesterday -- as if the fact that the opinion wasn't unanimous means it isn't any good.  I'd love to find a lawyer who would say that.  And, of course, does that mean Bush v. Gore (5-4) wasn't any good?  Huh?  Thanks for this.  That "just a number" comment the other day infuriated me; this did, too.

      •  ...If Justice Thomas believed trials need charges (0+ / 0-)

        Yeah, but in this upside-down world of nonsense leaders, we have a Supreme Court justice (Clarence Thomas) who argued in his dissent (according to Stephens' discussion) that one could be indicted and perhaps punished for things for which one has not been charged -- and for which there may not exist relevant laws and charges.

        I.e., if the government says you've been "associating with the enemy" and "acting as a guerrilla", then maybe, Thomas suggests, maybe we can lock you up, read an indictment, imprison you, and maybe execute you for these phrases for which you've never been charged or tried.

  •  Bush said he would 'conform' to Supreme Court (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Ralfast, oregondem

    he did not say he would "comply" with the decision - more than semantics involved here.

    •  and what more is that? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando

      what is the distinction with a difference between "conform" to the decision and "comply" with the decision?

      •  'Comply' infers the President is subordinant (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, oregondem

        to the Court. "Conform" not only does not infer any power relationship, it really implies no legal necessity. Tricky dance between law and rhetoric going on here, adn I don't think th word "conform" was inadvertent off the cuf remark but a seriosuly well thought out statement reflecting policy.

        Maybe I'm over-interpretng this, but in those same remarks (don't have a transcript) Bush also went out of his way to say that regardless of the Supreme Court decision, Bush would take steps to protect the american people from terrorism. THis means even if he recognizes the ned to "cvomply" with teh decsion, he will narrow its scope and go to Congress for rubber stamp anyway.

        This is more than political rhetoric - it goes to Bush legal theories of the Unitary Executive and CIC powers - who knwos, he may be sitting on antoerh craxzy legal opinion that says his CIC war powers are not sunbject to supreeme court review.

        •  i think you're over-interpreting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Armando, Red Bean

          and that you should look those two words up in a dictionary.

          or just one of them, in a thesaurus.

          •  a word's meaning is influenced by context (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cotterperson, sravaka

            a context which I went out of my way to explain - several comments above have raised the same set of legal and political issues.

            So, if you think otherwise, lay out your argumetns man, or, as they say here, shut the fuck up (or take your thesaurus and shove it).

            I'll also note this is not the first time you've come soley after my Diary comments (which constitute informal dialogue that obviously is not subject to the evidentiary  and tight writing standards of a journal publication, thesis, or legal brief - I even leave typos uncorrected. Yet, you not only come after me only adn with nitpick bs, but you criticize with no backup.

            •  time for a chill pill (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Armando

              for a guy who leaves his typos uncorrected, you've got quite an ego, there.  try looking up from your navel; i haven't "come soley [sic] after" your comments--i myself posted a comment to the diary.

              also, no one else has tried to make a distinction with a difference between "conform" and "comply," although there is plenty of projection going on this diary as i noted in my own comment.

              and still, comply and conform are synonyms--conform also implies obedience or subordinance.  your attempt to make something more of the "context" was almost non-sensical and smacks of the same hyped anti-bush biased/pre-formed-conclusion type of analysis typical "here," just as vulgarity is typical of some here, as you noted.

              in the end, just as tony snow's statements are nowhere near andrew jackson's famous disobediance, bush's saying he will conform to the court's decisions is as far as possible from him saying that he will disobey, ignore, or otherwise not conform or comply with the decision.  in fact, your leap is a league further the diarist's.  congratulations, you've taken a somewhat absurd diary and carried it into moonbat territory.

              •  get a transcipt of Bush's remarks (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cotterperson, sagra, Annalize5

                not only did he say "conform" he also said he had an obligation to protect the american people from terrorism. He went out of his way to emphasize that, with a harsh edge in the tone of the remarks (Somthing like - "the american people just need to understand"). That caveat rhetorically puts his CIC powers at least on an equal footing with the Supreme Court's decision that he would "conform" to. I've worked in government on policy and law for 20 years, and conform word implies voluntary compliance, dude.  

                That's also spin for John Yoo's legal theories and Karl Rove's November 2006 campaign message. No accident.

                It's you my friend that needs some form of political thesaurus - you are tone deaf adn without anticipation or vision(I did read your upthread comment after I already had replied).  

                •  admission accepted (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Armando

                  yes, indeed

                  conform...implies...compliance

                  indeed it does.  in fact, it does more than imply.

                  •  left out a key word I used: VOLUNTARY (0+ / 0-)

                    wish I could troll rate that abuse, but somehow lost my TU status again recently, (despite having no bad ratings that I'm aware of).

                    Maybe it was those anti-troop posts about war crimes in Iraq.

                  •  Armando! - surely you are not vocabularly (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    oregondem

                    impaired, and recognize the differnce in meaning between "conform" and "comply".

                    I even checked the dictionary and thesaurus. Strictly defined, they are not idnetical. Couple that difference with the context, and it is huge.

                    BTW, I thought you wer gone armondo - what are you jumoing in behind the scenes to support thomaswilliam anyway?  

                    Come out of the weeds and show yourself man if you have somethindg to say! Don't do it backdoor by recommending comments - my how far we've fallen!

  •  greatest tragedy? (9+ / 0-)

    If the people and the Congress allow the President to get away with this gambit, it will be the greatest tragedy for our democracy....

    Yeah, this one is big, but I thought the 5-4 decision that installed this jackass as president in the first place was the greatest tragedy for our democracy.

    Good diary, btw.

    •  Jesus hear this (5+ / 0-)

      I will go to my grave knowing this country was forever in denial about what Bush vs. Gore truly means.

      Most of us act as if we lived in the same country we grew up in, that somehow the people still mattered.

      The United Sates of American was gone the moment those five folons stole the election and our country with that cowardly dump on the courthouse steps in the middle of the night.

      It's one of those days where I have no faith in this sick joke of a place.  I'm tired of the burdens of grating hypocrisy and death for this evil little shit.  Why on earth did they trash the country just for him?

      I still don't truly know that answer, doubt I ever will.

      •  We thought we were free. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        paradox, cotterperson, 4Freedom

        And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident [...] collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in – your nation, your people – is not the world you were in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

        From "They Thought They Were Free", by Milton Mayer. (Longer excerpt here)

        Pumped and ready for "the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace."

        by sagra on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 12:44:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  R's in Congress moving quickly to delegate (4+ / 0-)

    power and politically legitimize Bush's imperial presidency.

    This is what needs to be stopped now.

  •  How Many Divisions Has the Pope Got? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lipstick Liberal, Ari Mistral

    When French Foreign Minister Pierre Laval told Stalin he should accept Soviet Catholicism to score points with the Pope, Stalin said "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?"

    I hope American faith in our Constitutional democracy compels Bush to stop breaking the law as per this Hamdan decision, or deposes him - preferably both. Because Bush's Republican Congress sure ain't gonna do it, and certainly not his Gonzales Inquisition "Justice" Department. I already saw Arlen SPECTRE drooling about papering Bush's ass on this one.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:19:25 AM PDT

  •  That story just made me sick... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Ari Mistral, noweasels

    ...to my stomach. For being raised on the myth/ideal that "no one is above the law," Americans seem all too ready to live by the new "the world changed on 9/11" meme. Who the h^@$ really believes we have to forfeit our basic notions of checks and balances, due process, and open government to make the world safer? I'm glad you guys are here to remind us all that we're not taking it lying down. :)

  •  support checks and balances (6+ / 0-)

    vote democratic.

    The Dems had better get prepared for this one.  They're going to be smeared as obstructionist, as America-haters, as terrorist-coddlers, everything.  The President's minions in the House and Senate are going to throw the book at our guys.  It's clear that Bush will seek the exact same standard for military commissions through Congress that he's already had.

    All we have to do is defend the Constitution and the Supreme Court.  The wingnuts will smear and smear, but as long as we don't give an inch, and set it up as a choice between monarchical rule and checks and balances, I still have faith that we win on that score.

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:29:26 AM PDT

  •  Have you submitted this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Annalize5, rcbowman

    as an OPED w/in the MSM?  Certainly would get readers ... and hopefully their attention ...

    19 June 06, Day 1746, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

    by besieged by bush on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:37:58 AM PDT

    •  It would not be published (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cookiebear

      as it is erroneous.

      Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

      by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:31:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Continue, please! (0+ / 0-)

        Why is it erroneous?

        "The skeleton in the closet is coming home to roost!" Tom Stoppard

        by Apotropoxy on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:41:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because (4+ / 0-)

          Bush is NOT defying the decision. Period.

          He will NOT be going forward with the military tribunals UNLESS Congress acts.

          PEriod. End of story. The diary is a lie.

          Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

          by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:47:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? I don't get it...please help (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nightprowlkitty

            by explaining more.  The diary is a lie?  

            •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cookiebear, jorndorff, noweasels

              The diary is a lie because it says Bush will not comply with the Hamdan decision.

              In fact Bush WILL comply with the Hamdan decision.

              Since the diary says but is defying Hamdan when in fact he is complying with Hamdan, it is a lie.

              Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

              by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:57:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Okay, thanks I guess (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Annalize5, noweasels, Nightprowlkitty

                but aren't people here speculating that he might not comply based on what he Snow said yesterday and then what?  

                •  Speculating? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cookiebear, theadmiral

                  IS that a nice word for making shit up?

                  Indeed, Snow said nothing that supports this horrible diary.

                  Bush and the GOP Congress are moving to enact legislation, the compelte oppoistie of defying the SCOTUS.

                  I repeat this diary is a hoorrible erronwous piece made wrse by the fact that it is writeen by a law professor.

                  Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                  by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:07:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Right, about the speculation part (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Nightprowlkitty

                    not sure I understand the rest.

                    •  My last try (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cookiebear, jorndorff, theadmiral

                      The diary begins -

                      The President plans to act as if he won the Hamdan case.  He will ignore the Supreme Court's broad rejection of his assertions of unlimited power.  Will he succeed in this gambit?

                      That is a lie. The PResident's military tribunals are suspended. The President is already complying with the Hamdan decision. He has asked Congress to enact enabling legislation.

                      Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                      by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:28:10 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK. I've set my parser on stun. (5+ / 0-)

                        I see what you're getting at.  If you don't mind my trying to lower the thermostat here, let me point out what I think is the difference in how we interpret this.

                        You read "act as if he won" and "ignore the SC's broad rejection of his assertions of unlimited power" as saying that he will continue exactly as before.  You're right that in the narrow case of whether he can proceed with military tribunals, he has indicated that he won't.  (The question of what he will do with prisoners if Congress doesn't grant him the right to suspend application of Geneva here is still open.  Hopefully it would mean court martial or federal court cases.  But can you rule out that it might mean extraordinary renditions?  Do you agree that Hamdan should make those impossible, and that Bush may nonetheless go ahead with them?

                        I read the "act as if he won" statement as addressing political rather than legal responses; it's clear how our different interpretations would lead to different conclusions.  But as to the second part, I think you'll selling the diary short.  Based on the commentary I've seen, Hamdan should be read to include a broad repudiation of the John Yoo notion of a unitary executive at all.  In this broader forum, it seems to me that the diarist is right that the Administration seems poised to reject and ignore those broader implicationsand continue to push unitary executive theory wherever it hasn't been explicitly repudiated.  Maybe that's not a sure thing either, but it hardly seems unlikely, no?

                        So, I think you've been too hard on the diarist despite your point about compliance with the holding of this decision re military tribunals being well-taken.

                        My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                        by Major Danby on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 12:12:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

                          The diary starts with a falsehood.

                          The headline is wrong. The above the fold is false.

                          It is a terrible diary.

                          Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                          by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:03:13 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  OK, I've said my piece (0+ / 0-)

                            The basis for our different reactions should be clear to readers, and I note that oregondem endorses my understanding of his intent below.  Your critique is well-taken to the extent I previously noted.

                            My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                            by Major Danby on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:53:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Major Danby does understand my diary (0+ / 0-)

                          I said, "He will ignore the Supreme Court's broad rejection of his assertions of unlimited power."

                          I was referring not to military tribunals and that the President may, indeed, go to Congress to get them authorized.

                          I was referring to the Court's broad rejection of his assertions (plural) of unlimited power.

                          In other words, I was referring to domestic spying, torture, detaining people in America outside the justice system, signing statements, and most likely exercises of unauthorized power that we don't yet even know about.

                          •  not exactly a broad rejection (0+ / 0-)

                            I wouldn't say this case represents a broad rejection of his other assertions of "unlimited" or excessive power, but I think it clearly reflects the courts ability and willingness to provide a check to this power.  It doesn't obligate Bush to cease any of his current activities, but I think it does lend some insight into the way the court is leaning and its independence of Bush's control.  It is certainly still well within the court's power to validate some of his actions if they deem them to be Constitutional.

                            I respect all beliefs... and I am willing to consider anyone's opinion.

                            by Krexent on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:06:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Well finally! (0+ / 0-)

                        Disregard my earlier comment/question.  Thanks for the clarification.

              •  Help (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nightprowlkitty

                Please explain how Bush will comply with the Hamdan decision, and how we know that he will.  What things will he do to ensure that he complies?  Or are you saying that he is already complying with Hamdan?

                Thanks.

                •  How will he comply? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cookiebear, barbwires, joanneleon

                  By suspending the military tribunals he created and asking Congress to pass legislation.

                  Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                  by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:26:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  A panel from The Georgetown Law Center (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cotterperson

                    seem to think that congress cannot pass legislation to alter parts of treaties. According to the panel the only option congress has is to repudiate the entire treaty.

                    •  Sort of (0+ / 0-)

                      Here's a short version of one of the speakers from the Georgetown Univ. Law Center Faculty blog [summaries of each speaker are also available]:

                      Can Congress change the result? Most commentary has said yes, because statutes and treaties are of equal stature and the statute can make the treaty no longer valid as domestic law. But there are significant limits on how Congress can act after Hamdan. Look at the opinion from the previous day: Sanchez-Llamas, in which the Court made the point, quoting Marbury, that the Supreme Court itself is the authoritative interpreter of treaties. Thus Congress can’t do what Yoo advocated, “restore the correct interpretation of the treaty” through a law stating Congress’s interpretation of the treaty. Congress can pass a statute inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions, but it would have to do so by repudiating the Conventions. Congress has the raw power to authorize military commissions that violate Common Article 3, but Vázquez thinks and hopes that it would not do so overtly because the Conventions are of tremendous importance to our troops abroad.

                      So Congress can repudiate the Conventions by passing a statute which conflicts with it (either in part or on whole). But it can't, as Yoo suggested, pass a law which simply "re-interprets" SCOTUS' decision in order to get around it.

                      'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

                      by jorndorff on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:01:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Can conress via statute cherry pick (0+ / 0-)

            and contradict treaties and constitutional due process requirements?

            What was the foundation of this case?

            Is it amendable to statutory remedy?

            Are there constraints on statutory remedy?

            These are not fact questions amendable to accusations pof lies and truth.

            shame.

  •  Funny, considering how he came to power. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Carl Nyberg, joanneleon, Annalize5

    We all had to swallow the Gore decision despite the bad taste.  I wonder how these guys will respond now that they are on the other side of a ruling.

  •  Calling John McCain (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PaintyKat, libnewsie

    Maverick, man of reason and great leader in the Republican party:  Can you do nothing to rally the fair minded among your party to rein in your President and call on him to abide by the rule of the Supreme Court?  

    McCain who has long thought himself worthy of the office of President, what say you?

    (I won't be holding my breath)

    •  Maverick John McCain is a figment (11+ / 0-)

      He never existed. It's a construct, and a damned persistent one.

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:46:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

        I agree.  A persistent construct and still convincing to too many people.

        This would be the perfect time for him to step up though.  If he had a spine, he would be very uncomfortable with the administration declaring that this SCOTUS decision doesn't "weaken the president's hand" and such.  

        Just like after the famous signing statement on his torture legislation, I say that if McCain doesn't step up on this issue, he has absolutely no credibility.

        •  joanne, McCain seems to be coming through on the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon

          Senate investigations on Indian Affairs, Jack Abramoff, and his infamous co-defendants.

          Having said that, I sure don't mean to imply some kind of support for McCain.  He makes my skin crawl and if he wants to sell his own soul to the devils (Bush and Cheney)that is his choice.  But, I find it totally unacceptable that he can publically pander to those who treated his wife so terribly.

          If he were mistaken for some galliant hero, wouldn't he be honor bound to defend his wife's good name?  Happens that way in the late, late movies anyway. :)

          Some of the damage done to McCain's image by the South Carolina attacks and inuendos are likely not reversible in folks minds.

          If my dear mother who has been a Republican all her voting life is any indication, there are Arizona GOP members who can not and will support McCain on any issue.

          Not sure McCain has any credibility left after his monkey business with the Bushies.

          PaintyKat

          I donated to ePluribus Media. Support citizen journalism!

          by PaintyKat on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:58:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Now we can impeach! (0+ / 0-)

    No more 'censure' bullshit...GRRRR...I can just hear him this weekend trying to spin this...
     
      'well, its hard to understand these things,
       but I'm doing my best--you see, nobody's
       ever had to fight a global war--we have us
       an enemy that--and we're working hard...'

    Its time for the democratic leadership to step up and carry the ball.  I'm off to call them now!

  •  I got a little concerned yesterday (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, oregondem, Annalize5, el cid

    when I heard the reports that Bush said he would take the ruling seriously.  Knowing Bush, this sounds rather dismissive to me, and I doubt that he really intends to "take the ruling seriusly".

  •  Eh (5+ / 0-)

    I don't think this diary is merited by the facts yet.

    Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

    by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:17:12 AM PDT

    •  I just read that you are a law professor (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HarlanNY, Geotpf, cookiebear

      I must chide you now.

      Y ou know better then than to write this diary.

      Why do you pass along false information?

      Why is Congress readying legisaltion if there is defiance from the Bush Administration?

      Bad show.

      Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

      by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:23:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HarlanNY

        My understanding is that Bush wants to do what he wants to do with the NSA thing; IE get a law passed in congress so what he has been doing all along becomes legal.  Of course, this is constitutionally acceptable, if the action itself is not unconstitutional, and it's not.  My understanding is the Supreme Court even telegraphed this plan in it's ruling.

        •  More specifically (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TaraIst

          Hamdan was challenging the military tribunals Bush set up.

          Those military tribunals are now defnunct. Bush is NOT continuing with them.

          Congess is gong to act.

          Bush is defying nothing in Hamdan.

          This diary is simply false.

          Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

          by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:49:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  defunct military commissions (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenearth

            If the commissions are no longer in operation, why did the Court agree to hear the case? Wouldn't it be moot now?

            If the commissions are no longer in operation, why does Congress need to act to enable them?

            Personally, I'd love to see the Republicans try to get a bill authorizing torture through in an election year. "Mr. Speaker, Americans of every walk of life understand that torture is wrong. It flies in the face of the notion of decency and human dignity. It is immoral, heinous, and inhumane. In short, it is profoundly un-American.

            "So why are the Republicans in this chamber so eager to enshrine in law a practice that the President has said he will not use, that Americans find morally reprehensible, and the Founding Fathers themselves prohibited in the Bill of Rights? Shame on you, Mr. Speaker, shame on you for even allowing this to even be debated. And shame on us, for neglecting the important business of this country and instead wasting time discussing this barbaric institution."

            -4.88, -4.15 "It's all complicated; it's all connected. That's why we have to pay attention." - Jon Carroll, SFGate.com

            by Turbonerd on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 12:37:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  No, Bush (or Gonzalez) said they don't need (0+ / 0-)

          Congress to authorize NSA domestic spying.

  •  Why does this not surprise me? (4+ / 0-)

    Leopards never change their spots.  What makes anyone think for a minute that W will let a bunch of liburuls in robes [one of whom his (earthly) father appointed] deter him from his God-given duty to wage the endless War on Terra?  750 signing statements tell us everything we need to know about this crew.  I felt before that we were headed for a constitutional crisis of epic proportions, and I'm sure of it now.

    There is a core difference between the parties now in their views about the basic concept of the rule of law.  Gore accepted a 5-4 decision that had absolutely no basis in either fact or law.  This WH is already giving signals that it won't obey this decision.

    Anyone who was paying attention back in 11-12/00 understood the basic contempt these people hold for the basic concept of the rule of law.  I'll never forget the anger that James Baker exuded w/ his "this cannot stand" comment about a unanimous decision from the FL Supremes on a question of state law.  Might makes right was their core philosophy then, and it remains their core philosophy now.  9/11 merely gave them the cover to carry out that philosophy.

    The scary thing is, Anthony Kennedy basically is the last obstacle standing between them and their de facto abolition of our system of checks and balances.  They had 4 votes on the Court for their position yesterday.  Kennedy is a pretty wobbly balance of power in this perilous situation.

    I know that I've ranted about the Scalito hearings many times, but WTF were the Dems thinking at the time?  They knew about NSA eavesdropping then, and they knew that Scalito takes a much broader view of prez power than O'C took.  Why was it not made an issue when something might still have been done about it?

    Maybe we'll get lucky.  Maybe other cases about Executive overreach will make their way to the Supremes in the next 2 years, and maybe Kennedy will continue to buck up under the pressure then.  It would be ironic to see a WH that took power b/c of the Supremes start to lose power b/c of the Supremes.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:21:33 AM PDT

    •  I kept getting slammed for harping on Alito (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RFK Lives

      during the hearings. Some said I overposted on the topic. I knew he was a beastie from his history, and that most of us would rue the day of his elevation to a place where his narrow viewpoint would be given more power to oppress. His potential to do Constitutional harm is now great.

      Republicans are not smart enough to protect America. Howard Dean

      by 4Freedom on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:24:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's an awfully important issue... (0+ / 0-)

        He's a visible move to the right from O'C (who was no great shakes).  He wasn't as telegenic as Roberts, and he had the paper trail that Roberts lacked.  Maybe he would've been nominated, anyhow, but there was no excuse for not trying.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:30:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  We need to enforce it! (0+ / 0-)

    Come November 2006, we will be the "enforcers".  Our only hope is to run as many "Rubber stamps" out of Congress we can and then force the Dems to do their job.

    Justice Stevens may be the decider, but "we the people" must be the enforcers.

    Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

    by landrew on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:22:23 AM PDT

  •  Presidents enforce laws (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie

    When the SCOTUS ruled on Brown v Board of Ed., Eisenhower sent the troops to integrate the schools in Little Rock.  Eisenhower understood his role and the importance of the rule of law.  Clearly, Bush never intends to obey the laws.  He breaks them at will and announces in his signing statements that he's going to break the laws.  Gonzo will never charge his pal Bush.  Rummy will never order the military to haul his butt out of the WH.  The court has ruled and BushCo with the guiding hand of Rove has completed a coup. We are no longer the USA.  We have a monarchy with totalitarian rule.

    Winning without Delay.

    by ljm on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:31:04 AM PDT

  •  If he does ignore the rule of law (0+ / 0-)

    then you and I are released from our obligations to also obey the rule of law in regards to removing the President.

    Someone really should explain that to our dear leader:  If you can ignore the law then the people, you know the ones that own the more then 200 million firearms in this country; can smoke your chimpy ass like a kipper.

    Tread lightly dear leader, tread lightly...

    •  my advice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skippythebox

      whether or not you're speaking generally I'd advise being very, very cautious in making such references.

      just my own opinion w/ regard to today's secret service.

      •  Although I appreciate the advice (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        4Freedom, el cid

        and it is good advice, make no mistake about it.

        I refuse to live in fear of that demagogue any longer.

        I was born a free man and a free man I shall remain, and no person or persons can take that from me unless I allow it.  And the first step to allowing them to remove my freedom is to let them make me afraid.

        There is only one response to the President of the United States ignoring the law:  Removal from office.

        If our elected representatives will not carry out their constitutional duties then it is up to the American people to carry out their rights as defined by the declaration of independence and remove the government and establish new guardians of their freedom.

        If it is an act of sedition to note that in the eyes of our dear leader, then perhaps he is no better then that other George who so abused his position and deserving of no better treatment by the citizens of this continent.

        Bush ignoring the law is an open declaration of war upon the constitution and the people of the United States and it is about time somebody had the guts to stand up and say it.

        Now I will sit back and await my trip to Gitmo.

  •  Wise words from Glenn Greenwald (6+ / 0-)

    Glenn Greenwald offers these wise words in the conclusion of his excellent article  Will Hamdan have any effect on the Bush Presidency?

    An immediate and complete solution to the problem of Bush lawlessness does not exist, at least in any realistic sense. Restoring our country's constitutional framework is going to be a slow, difficult, and incremental process. Victories have been rare and hard to come by, but yesterday's decision is unquestionably a victory -- and it is a significant (albeit partial) victory. The fact that it doesn't achieve every goal or solve every political problem is no reason to disparage its significance. Doing so breeds a destructive cynicism that, in turn, breeds resignation and defeatism. In that regard, the excessively cynical claim that "nothing matters because they will just do what they want and ignore every law" -- a claim I hear every day here -- is not much different than the claim that "none of this matters because they control voting machines and will always win."

    Earlier in the article he goes through many of the arguments we see stated in this diary and its comments, and he is not at all overly optimistic or unrealistic in his analysis.  He feels that in the end this will be a political battle, not a legal one, and that the SCOTUS is the one body that has finally stood up to this administration.  This decision won't solve everything but it should be the catalyst for the rest of us, Congress and media included, to get the job done.  Greenwald's article is well worth reading.  I can't say enough about they guy - I find him to be one of the best reads in the blogosphere.

    •  Interesting words from Glenn (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      docangel

      For all their talk of judicial activism, Bush followers reveal themselves as the ultimate judicial activists whenever they discuss judicial decisions. The crux of the decision yesterday turned on relatively obscure and legalistic questions involving the legal effects of Congressional enactment of the UCMJ, rules of statutory construction as applied to Common Article 3, and the retroactivity of jurisdiction-stripping statutes. Among most Bush followers purporting to condemn this decision as an act of judicial tyranny, you won't find any discussion of those legal issues, because they know nothing about them and don't care about them.

      This diary is the mirror image of the Bush followers described. It is just as ignorant and just as pernicious as the Bush followers described by Glenn.

      Stick to the honest facts. Don't make shit up.

      This diary is completely made up.

      Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

      by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:46:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  C'mon Armando (0+ / 0-)

        Admit it, this place is like crack and you got the monkey on your back.
        Go ahead and hit the pipe, it's almost december anyway.

        Impeach and Imprison! -6.63/-6.10

        by FireCrow on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:59:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

          And even if I  were I would take the time to debunk a diary that kossacks ill advisedly moved to the top of the recommended list.

          Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

          by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:13:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I tried (0+ / 0-)

            maybe I should have tried something besides the crack allegory to hook you back in. These are the times when I would like to hear what someone like you with a solid understanding of law has to say. I don't suppose there's anything I can shame you with to get your views, so I guess I'll be waiting till the middle of winter. Let us hope there is an abundance of good news to discuss by then!

            Impeach and Imprison! -6.63/-6.10

            by FireCrow on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:27:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This diarist is a law professor (0+ / 0-)

              he/she should and I believe does know better than to spread lies.

              Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

              by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:31:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Armando (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                civil society, hatdog, FireCrow
                you, more so then most, should be hyper-sensitive to divulging information to other's meta reality. If the diarist wanted us to know that s/he was a law professor do you not think that s/he would have imparted that info in their diary?

                I call SHAME! I call HYPOCRISY!

                As to the 29+ threads you've left attempting to discredit this diary, and diarist, by resorting to some of the exact same lowball tactics as were employed against you - this diary is erroneous, and if I weren't so wounded I would explain why - I tend to agree with you, this diary trends to the inflammatory rather then factual - so the fuck what?

                We may not all be blessed with the BIG brain you possess, but IMHO DKos, as a community, has a pretty sensitive BS meter, and mine is pegged in the red at your histrionics today.

                Some may be counting the days, hours, minutes, and seconds, till your December rebirth, I am not one.

                Quotes from others express a mental laziness in themselves.

                by rudgrl on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 12:05:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, to be fair (0+ / 0-)

                  the diarist does say in a comment that s/he is a lawprofessor.  I left this thread to look at Democracy Now's program on this subject today; then I reread this diary.  Here's the quote by Snow that everything seems to hang on:

                  "I don't think it weakens the president's hand, and it certainly doesn't change the way in which we move as aggressively as possible to try to cut off terrorists before they can strike again," he said.

                  Now that I read what Snow says again, I don't see that he said anything much to suggest what the diarist is saying about Bush basically ignoring the law.  I know you were irritated Rudgirl, I was getting miffed too, but I just want to know is that why you would tend to agree with Armando or am I not getting something here?  I've had a real difficult time understanding what is going on in this thread.

                  •  Damn (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sophie Blue, Cat Whisperer
                    wasted effort - apologies for missing the thread the diarist posted 'exposing' him/her A-man, the rest still holds true for me - Xanax is your friend.

                    Quotes from others express a mental laziness in themselves.

                    by rudgrl on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 01:13:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sitting in the sunshine with a Bombay blue (0+ / 0-)

                      martini are my friends ...with all that is going on in this thread; it's easy to miss the "outing comment."

                    •  Agree with Armando (4+ / 0-)
                      on the facts. Bush will NOT go against the SCOTUS IMHO - he will just use the resources that the SCOTUS spelled out for him in their decision - Congress's blessing, and that is one of the many reasons why this November's elections are so important - oversight of crap like this.

                      Why I'm miffed with Armando is that while technically more correct in his interpretation of Bush's course correction then the diarist - IMHO - it remains just that, an opinion. At this point any speculation is at best an informed opinion, the diarist has one and Armando has another. Who is actually correct we'll only find out for sure in the month's to come, and it might turn out that both are correct - Bush will ask Congress for a nod while he circumvents the SCOTUS decision by moving 'detainees' beyond the reach of SCOTUS - into the hands of the Egyptians, etc.

                      But rather then admit this reality Armando screams foul and goes on to trollrate the diarist for simply disagreeing with his/her opinion which is a direct violation of the TR rules. This is nothing new for Armando, he's right and everyone that disagrees with him is an idiot, ask him yourself he's not 'shy' about it - well except that since he was 'outed' he has been 'shy' except to troll lurk just like he has in this diary.

                      DKos is a pretty intelligent community and will decide what is worth discussing or not. Most times we even come to a fairly rational consensus regardless of Armando's attempted threadjackings.

                      Quotes from others express a mental laziness in themselves.

                      by rudgrl on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 01:42:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That's why I didn't unrecommend this diary nor (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        joanneleon

                        any of the comments I recommended within the thread.  Thanks for the clarification about your view on his post as a troll lurk.  It did, however, get my attention in a way that I think was helpful, since so many others were basically agreeing with the diarist, or if they weren't it was hard for me to understand not being a lawyer.  His hammering viewpoint made me think again about all of this.  Still, I get what you are saying.  Don't know Armando, and I'm pretty new here.  I like what you said about this community deciding what is worth discussing or not; I may have made a mistake in another diary this week that I thought was trollish despite the fact that many other people wanted to discuss it.  Live and learn.

                  •  Snow said 'it certainly doesn't change the way (0+ / 0-)

                    in which we move as aggressively as possible."

                    I had the distinct impression that the Supreme Court intended to change the way that the President moves.

                    Snow's assertion that the Court opinion doesn't change anything amounts to ignoring through reinterpretation.

                    Senator George Aiken of Vermont was famous for suggesting during the Vietnam War that, in the fact of losing, "We should just declare victory and get out."

                    In the face of losing in the Supreme Court, President Bush and his spokesman are declaring that the Court's decision is no big deal.  

                    "it certainly doesn't change the way in which we move as aggressively as possible."

                    This was the whole point of my diary.

          •  Armando: Is Greewald a liar too? (0+ / 0-)

            Greenwald's words:

            "And even beyond that, I think there is a very real question as to whether the Bush administration even considers itself bound by Supreme Court decisions which it perceives to encroach on the constitutional powers of the President. This is an unpleasant question which hasn't been examined, but it may need to be now. After all, the administration's theory is that the Constitution vests unlimited power in the President to make decisions to defend the country, and nobody -- neither Congress nor the courts -- has any power to interfere with those decisions. Those decisions are, as the Yoo Memorandum put it, "for the President alone to make."

  •  Let me say that I think (6+ / 0-)

    this diary is correct politically and completely wrong legally.  Here's why.

    Yes, on a political level, Bush will act as if this decision doesn't undercut his across the board claims to broad executive authority to make national security decisions without regard to other branches of government and without regard to law.  In short, politically speaking, he will ignore this decision.

    Legally speaking, however, this decision is a major blow to Bush, and he knows it.  Ignore what he says for a minute -- he doesn't do anything that's not explicitly political and calculating.

    What's the first thing that happened yesterday after this decision came out?  Congress said they were going to try to pass a law giving Bush authority for military tribunals.  OK, that's nice, although in an election year, I doubt it's going to pass, particularly in the Senate.  But let's look at the LEGAL, as distinct from the POLITICAL, consequences here.  Bush claimed he DIDN'T NEED Congressional authority.  The Supreme Court says he did -- and now he's trying to get it.  He lost.  He needs help from another branch of government.  Legally speaking, the efforts to patch and fill this situation are an explicit and clear recognition of the Supreme Court's rejection of broad executive authority.

    And, just to be clear, the Bush arguments about broad executive authority don't just go to military tribunals -- they go to virtually every controversial decision this Administration has taken, from the NSA on down.  The fundamental principles of this Administration's governing philosophy are, legally speaking, in complete and irretrievable disrepair this Friday afternoon.  From this point forward, Bush needs, as a legal matter, to go to Congress for EVERYTHING.  Previously, Congress could punt and say "well, he can do what he wants."  Now they have to take responsibility -- and in an election year, to boot.

    Bush is legally honoring this decision.  Everything else is just so much window dressing.  Don't listen to what he SAYS, watch what he DOES.  He's going to Congress -- that's a huge defeat, in and of itself.  And Congress now needs to take responsibility for these actions.  That, given public opinion polls about attitudes towards Congress, may be an even bigger defeat.  We'll know more in November.

    Jamie Raskin for State Senate -- Progressive leadership for a progressive Maryland

    by jsmdlawyer on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:51:58 AM PDT

    •  Correct politically? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cookiebear, jorndorff

      Whatever are you talking about?

      Whe n you are wrong on your facts you do not help your poltical argument.

      Terrible diary.

      Now people are going to get pissed at me because I keep repeating this but this diary needs to be debunked and, imo, what the diarist has done needs to be criticizied.

      And from a law professor too.

      Just awful.

      Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

      by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:55:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Didn't jsmdlawyer just (0+ / 0-)

        do this?  I'm starting to get miffed, (not quite pissed yet), at you because you don't debunk in away that is clear to those of us who aren't lawyers.  How about a longer comment?

        •  No he didn't (0+ / 0-)

          He lent it credence.

          I am sorry that my explanations are not satsifying you.

          I am trying my best.

          Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

          by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:11:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  yes! and... (0+ / 0-)

          Please stop scolding and lay it out for us!

          Anyway, I think Bush is gonna get congress to give him the tribunals, but they still have to adhere to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Military Code of Justice. Looks like they are going to try to change the UMCJ.

          Broadly interpreted, the decision may set a minimum standard of treatment required by the Geneva Convention under Article 3 even for alleged members of al-Qaida, who are not signatories of the treaty and promise no such consideration for the prisoners they take, said Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

          Senior administration officials rejected that interpretation in a press conference Thursday, saying the Article 3 references were only meant to apply to Hamdan`s legal proceedings, not the treatment of detainees in general.

          They also said they are considering 'all options' to respond to the Supreme Court`s decision, including asking Congress to strip or amend Article 21 of the UCMJ to remove the Article 3 constraints.

          •  Stop scolding (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cookiebear, airshipjones

            That is what I will NOT do.

            This diary was the top recommended diary and it starts with a bald faced lie.

            I will not act like a Republican and I will scold all of you who start to act like them.

            Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

            by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:29:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  acting like a Republican?? (0+ / 0-)

              oooooh why'd they take my TU status away! Coulda woulda been my first troll rating!

              •  Deal with reality (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cookiebear

                not making shit up.

                The Republicans lie and avoid the truth.

                That is what you are doing here. That is what the diarist and thse who love this diary have done.

                They have acted like Republicans.

                Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:37:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I read this diary as *speculation* (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oregondem

                  based on Presidential spokeperson, Tony Snow's somewhat defiant response to the Hamdan decision. The President says he'll work with congress, but we all  know this President doesn't play well with other branches of government.

                  In order to deal with reality, we'd all probably benefit from a brick and mortar tour of the Gitmo facilities, because I have NO GOOD IDEA about what the fuck is going on in that God forsaken hellhole.

                  -4.38, -7.64 Voyager 1: proof that what goes up never comes down.

                  by pat bunny on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 12:03:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  well... (0+ / 0-)

                    it's established historic fact that Hitler declared war on Great Britain based on a response by a BBC announcer to his ultimatum...

                    To declare the Revolution based on the statement of the loose cannon Bush hired out of Fox to serve as his spokesdroid as some around here have done (no, not accusing you of this) would make that decision look inspired.

                    Particularly if Bush is trying to backdoor SCOTUS by using Congress... which is not illegal. Misuse of checks and balances, certainly.

                    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                    by alizard on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 12:46:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  now I'm lying? (0+ / 0-)

                  and avoiding the truth? WTF?

                •  well that is dopey (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cat Whisperer

                  "The Republicans lie and avoid the truth"

                  therefore "those who love this diary ..." are thus acting like Republicans?

                  I loved this diary -- and you have clarified for me why I was in error.  That doesn't mean I was acting like a Republican.  It just means I was ignorant of the flaw in the diarist's reasoning.

                  So a big :P to you, Armando.  But also thanks, cause I would have never figured this out otherwise.

                •  What? (0+ / 0-)

                  The republicans lie and avoid the truth?  All of them?  Nearly half the population of the United States?  Can we say oversimplification and an obvious attempt at insulting the diarist?

                  I won't accuse you of "acting like" anything... I'll tell you how you are acting:  Insulting and counterproductive.

                  I also think that this diary is off the mark, but your statements are without basis and simply designed to upset people.  Not needed here, and not called for.

                  I respect all beliefs... and I am willing to consider anyone's opinion.

                  by Krexent on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 05:19:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  you throw the lie word around recklessly (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Annalize5

              YOu can't just call people liers.

              Do you know the differnce between fact and opinion? Speculation and current condfition> Normative versus descriptive?

              Law versus politics?

              Thought and action?

              Methinks Armando doth protestheth too much, just speculating, as a potentially displaced top legal dog.

              •  Opinion? (0+ / 0-)

                It is a fact that this diarist chose to tell falsehoods in this diary.

                Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:27:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  inappropriate to apply true/false logic (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Annalize5

                  to this Diary.

                  Your accusations are not credible.

                  See my above comment which quotes Greenwald - he is asking very simialr questions - is he a liar too?

                  •  N o (0+ / 0-)

                    the first two sentence are declarative factual statements that are absolutely and unequivocally false.

                    Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                    by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:13:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  WRONG - I went back and checked the Diary and (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Annalize5

                      both sentences are PROSPECTIVE in nature and therefore have no current condition or factual basis.

                      Therefore, they can not be considered factual statements and they can not be  evualted as true or false.

                      On their face, they are predictions of a future condition and therfore judgement.

                      Your attacks are way over the top - why keep digging?

                      •  Plans to act (0+ / 0-)

                        is a statement of fact.

                        It is false.

                        I am done with you.

                        Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                        by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:21:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  are you sure (0+ / 0-)
                          6 months is adequate time for recovery from your intrapersonal Tourettes?

                          I suspect "Christmas in July"

                          "Come on, Nicky, come home. Just come home. Home. Talk to me. ....Do you remember the trees?"

                          by Miss Devore on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:23:46 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you asking for my early return? (0+ / 0-)

                            Anything for you Miss Devore.

                            Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                            by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:25:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'd prefer (0+ / 0-)
                            "ok, so I never really left" for your tag.

                            "Come on, Nicky, come home. Just come home. Home. Talk to me. ....Do you remember the trees?"

                            by Miss Devore on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:33:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                            I am going with "Miss Devore insisted I return."

                            Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                            by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:35:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  would never hold up (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sophie Blue
                            in a court of Haw.

                            "Come on, Nicky, come home. Just come home. Home. Talk to me. ....Do you remember the trees?"

                            by Miss Devore on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:42:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you are not asking for my return? (0+ / 0-)

                            I am crushed.

                            Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                            by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:00:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  only if (0+ / 0-)
                            you sign the generic social contract.

                            (hint:it's like the Geneva conventions, in a way)

                            "Come on, Nicky, come home. Just come home. Home. Talk to me. ....Do you remember the trees?"

                            by Miss Devore on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:05:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  X (0+ / 0-)

                            Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                            by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:10:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it does include (0+ / 0-)
                            provisions wherein one civilly argues one's point.

                            As opposed to attacks on opponents' "stupidity", "moral flaws" etc.

                            after all, the great girlsingers never uttered such blanket slaps.

                            "Better than sailing at midnight
                            Better than diving for pearls
                            Better than skiing in Aspen
                            Better than feeding the squirrels
                            Better than playing the horses
                            Better than flying a plane
                            Better than dancing and singing
                            Better than walks in the rain
                            Better than swimming after dark
                            Or riding once around the park...

                            Better than elephants dancing
                            Better than clowns on parade
                            Better than peanuts and popcorn
                            Better than pink lemonade
                            Better than rides on the Midway
                            Better than seals blowing horns
                            Better than men shot from cannons
                            Better than fresh ears of corn
                            Better than waltzing on a wire
                            Or watching tigers jump through fire
                            Better than anything....

                            Better than making a million
                            Being a queen
                            Oil wells and goldmines, pastures of green
                            Better than finding a horseshoe
                            Better than losing your head
                            Better than anything thought up
                            Better than anything said
                            Better than than singing like a ___
                            Or being spotted in a crowd
                            Better than anything....

                            "Come on, Nicky, come home. Just come home. Home. Talk to me. ....Do you remember the trees?"

                            by Miss Devore on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:48:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  provisions wherein one civilly argues one's point (0+ / 0-)

                            So I take it you are not signing?

                            Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

                            by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:08:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  singing (0+ / 0-)
                            what could be more civil?

                            I've since moved on from Sheila Jordan to (the late great) Laura  Nyro

                            "Where is your woman
                            Gone to Spanish Harlem
                            Gone to buy you pastels

                            Where is your woman
                            Gone to Spanish Harlem
                            gone to buy you books and bells

                            Beneath Indian summer...."

                            ---
                            Must hit the sack and read books....

                            "Come on, Nicky, come home. Just come home. Home. Talk to me. ....Do you remember the trees?"

                            by Miss Devore on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:17:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  OK, be done w/me but (0+ / 0-)

                          the Diarists claim of "plans to act" is clearly a prediction.

                          Based on the statements by Bush and Snow and the legal record (Yoo. Gonzalez, Senate hearings, et al) there is sufficient basis to support this prediction that Bush "plans to act" (or that he has plans already developed or is engaged to act - you tyourself have claimed he has already acted in complaicne with the decsion. On what factual basis do you make this claim?).

                          Good nite, from the east coast.

      •  Well (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TaraIst, alizard, Krexent

        maybe not "correct" in the sense of some remarkable new insight, but the diarist does point out that Bush is going to ignore the decision and its consequences as much as possible in his public pronouncements.  While that's not remarkable and not the major thrust of his diary, it is nevertheless true.   Bush never acknowledges defeat on ANYTHING.  That goes in the "dog bites man" category, I realize, but it is true.

        But I agree with you that the suggestion that Bush is going to LEGALLY ignore this decision is complete and utter bullshit.  If he said "I'm going to hold military tribunals regardless of what that old bow-tie wearing fart John Paul Stevens says, let him enforce his own decision", that would be comparable to what Andrew Jackson did.  Simply spinning the decision to try to lessen its sting is not refusal to abide by it.  And ignoring the fact that Bush is seeking congressional authorization for military tribunals is really weak as well.

        So it seems like we agree, and maybe I'm just being nicer than you.  Speaking of "dog bites man" . . . . . . heh.

        Jamie Raskin for State Senate -- Progressive leadership for a progressive Maryland

        by jsmdlawyer on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:04:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ignore this decision? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jorndorff

          that is not true at all. The Hamdan decision has spurred action from Bush and the Congress.

          I don't know what you think is accurate here but I find none of it.

          Now you are alawyer too and you must know that what the SCOTUS decided is one case - not the FISA case, not the other issues.

          The SCOTUS has NOT ruled on the FISA matter.

          So Bush is NOT defying the SCOTUS at all.

          This diary is a lie. And lies must be debunked. They hurt politically.

          So I guess we do not agree on this.

          Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

          by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:11:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you read everything? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oregondem, civil society

            Did you actually read his whole sentence, the one which you partially quote in your subject?  It goes like this, if you keep reading:

            ...ignore the decision and its consequences as much as possible in his public pronouncements.

            This does not indicate that Bush will defy SCOTUS.  It indicates he is pretending to.  This comment does not agree with the diary, it instead explains an alternate interpretation of Bush's public statements.

            Also, where is the lie in this diary?  Please quote it, I cannot find it.  You can disagree with the opinions in it, because it is clearly speculation... but I do not see any falsely stated facts anywhere. Please elaborate.

            I respect all beliefs... and I am willing to consider anyone's opinion.

            by Krexent on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 05:29:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for the clarification. n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  Indeed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oregondem

      I agree with this assessment.  I fully expect that Bush will minimize to the public any failure that he incurs.  He has done so consistently throughout his presidency.  If he acknowledges failure, error, or weakness, he loses one of the few things that keep anyone supporting him: He exudes a sense of self-confidence and security.  This I believe is the only thing that got him reelected and the only thing keeping the last 30% of his supporters from seeing him for what he really is.

      I have yet to see Bush openly defy any law... he has all along acted through the legal system, at least his interpretation of it, and I cannot see the American public tolerating any blatant violation of it.

      I respect all beliefs... and I am willing to consider anyone's opinion.

      by Krexent on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 05:13:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My diary explained that the decision is a legal (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Annalize5, mojo workin, civil society

      blow to the President, but that politically the President will weasle out of its broadest implications -- namely that his Presidency is based on an improper view of Presidential power.

      As for the legal impact, I quoted a Washington Post article to the effect that the decision "struck at the core" of the legal theories of the Bush Presidency.  I said "Sounds right."

      Is that clear.

      Then I said, "but here is how Tony Snow, the President's spokesman, viewed the decision" and suggested that the Administration will sidestep those broad implications.  

      The Administration is acting as if this decision is only about tribunals, when in fact its logic "strikes at the core" of the Bush Presidency.

      They will get Congress to authorize tribunals.  But will they admit that their domestic spying is also illegal under the logic of the Hamdan case?

      Not a chance.

      •  For a law professor (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando, jorndorff

        you seem very dense on the legal side of this decision, I have to say.  Are you really a professor?

        While "the logic" of the case may strike at the core of the Bush presidency, "logic" doesn't decide court cases.  Any law professor would know that.

        This case was about military tribunals.  Cases are decided one at a time, based on the issues presented to the court.  Domestic spying is a separate case, as is any other issue.  Do you seriously expect Bush to say "well, now that the Court has ruled, I think I'll just fold up and go home"?  And anything less is acting like Andrew Jackson?  We may be able to PREDICT what will happen in the future with other cases, but that doesn't mean that Bush is REQUIRED to give in to our prediction or else be accused of violating the law.  There has been no ruling in any of those other cases.

        Bush will NEVER admit anything -- he will fight on every issue to the bitter end, and continue to pretend that nothing bad happened.

        Something bad for Bush did happen yesterday -- very bad.  Be happy.  But don't expect him to just cave in and concede anything more than he absolutely needs to to be seen as in compliance with the law.  That point is in direct contradiction to your conclusion that he is refusing to abide by the ruling.  Do you honestly not know the implications of a court ruling in a legal case?  What kind of professor are you?  Clearly, you've never litigated.

        Gee, maybe Armando was right -- I did give you too much credit.

        Jamie Raskin for State Senate -- Progressive leadership for a progressive Maryland

        by jsmdlawyer on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 05:53:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not sure that I should reply, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Annalize5

          but I will.  Yes, I have litigated extensively, including two cases that went to the Supreme Court.  I have taught Constitutional Law for years.

          My diary, however, was not about law.  It was about politics.  It's not clear why some have failed to understand that.

          I do want to comment, however, on one point of law, because others might be interested in this.  You wrote, "While "the logic" of the case may strike at the core of the Bush presidency, "logic" doesn't decide court cases.  Any law professor would know that." and also, "Cases are decided one at a time, based on the issues presented to the court.  Domestic spying is a separate case, as is any other issue."

          Although cases are decided one at a time, in the common law world the whole notion of precedent is that legal principles are built up from one case to another -- and that cases "stand for" principles beyond their facts.  

          This is the entire concept of "holdings" (which are broader than "decisions").

          This is the only way that law can become predictable for the future.  Without the notion of holdings and generalization of legal principles, each case would be a crap shoot, and people in society would not be able to organize their behavior unless there had been a case on exactly their issue, in precisely identical terms.

          There have been commentators all over the networks and the web pointing out that the logic of the Hamdan case is inconsistent with the logic that President Bush's cabinet (including Attorney General Gonzalez) has used to defend domestic spying (inherent Presidential authority in the fact of prohibitory legislation; AUMF as overruling prohibitory legilation).

          My diary's point was that Bush will not accept the logic of Hamdan as applying to anything else his Administratoin is doing, even though the rule of law dictates that he should.  He will evade.  In doing so, he will be ignoring the Supreme Court and the role that precedent should play.  This political decision becomes a legal and constitutional one.

          •  Be cause they read it (0+ / 0-)

            You want to edit your diary, by all means do so. This comment of yours is simply dishonest.

            Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

            by Armando on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 12:06:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You fundamentally and (0+ / 0-)

            incorrectly conflate "what the result will be when the future cases get heard" with "what the party is required to do now."  You did it in your diary and you do it here.  At a minimum, it's very sloppy.

            The rule of law dictates no such thing as Bush "accept[ing] the logic of Hamdan as applying to anything else".  It doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't, and you HAVE to know that.

            As a lawyer, I often advise clients that their position is not a winning one.  The case law is stacked against them, or the facts are bad, or both.  As a lawyer, I would give this advice to Bush if I were his lawyer.  No politics, just law.  He's going to lose when these future cases come to court.

            Now, if one of my criminal or divorce or personal injury clients decides not to take my advice and proceeds with their case in court (either with me as counsel or someone else), does that mean the client is ignoring the rule of law?

            Of course not -- parties are entitled to their day in court.  Maybe the judge can find some way to distinguish the bad law, or the facts will not come out the way we thought they would, or whatever.

            Surely, as a purely legal matter, you would agree that the Bush Administration is entitled to the same rights as a private litigant?  Whatever the merits or wisdom of the legal position, the government is entitled to have its views heard, to attempt to distinguish Hamdan on whatever basis it might find to argue in a different context, etc., etc.

            And part of his decisional calculus has nothing whatsoever to do with law -- it's all about politics.  If Bush wants to play a losing hand because it will play well politically with conservatives, are you saying that the rule of law bars him from doing so?  That's a really novel interpretation that I have never heard in over two decades in the legal profession and 15 years litigating cases in state and federal courts.  You may not like what Bush is doing, and I agree with you, but that doesn't mean it's ILLEGAL -- and by comparing him to Andrew Jackson, that's just what you argued.  Taking a political argument and trying to make it into illegal behavior by suggesting a legal duty that just doesn't exist is intellectually dishonest, IMHO.

            The rule of law and the role of precedent have no bearing and no impact whatsoever on the right of a party to fight an ultimately losing battle for personal, political or other reasons.  Stare decisis, the common law system and the rule of law -- these principles do not require parties to throw in the towel before the case begins.  Please, please tell me you know that.

            Jamie Raskin for State Senate -- Progressive leadership for a progressive Maryland

            by jsmdlawyer on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 06:59:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  One more point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando

        Parties are not required to act in accordance with the "broad implications" of a court ruling.  They are required to abide by the holding of the case -- nothing more.  Surely you know that.

        Jamie Raskin for State Senate -- Progressive leadership for a progressive Maryland

        by jsmdlawyer on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 05:55:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bush never said he needs corgressional authority (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Annalize5

      You say Bush lost because Bush claimed he did not need congressional authorization but the SCOTUS said he did.

      But show me where Bush, legally or politically, has said he needs Congress. Paraphraisng, I think he comments ths far were someting like "to the extent there's lattitude to work woth congress" or some BS. On the other hand, in those same remarks, Bush exerted and repeated his presidential authority on terorism.

      Legally, how the hell do we know what opinions the next John Yoo has teed up?

      Speculation, legal and political.

      No way this Snow adn Bush's remarks were off the cuff and unprepared.

      The Diarist does a great job of crafting the lines in politics and law.

      •  See what you want to see (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando, jorndorff

        the diarist claims to be a law professor.  I have my doubts.

        Regardless of what he said, the fact that Cornyn, Specter and Graham are all out there today with bills to give Bush the authority to do what the Supreme Court says he didn't have authority to do before is tanamount to (a) admitting defeat, and (b) acknowledging and following the law.

        The diarist wants you to believe that Bush is required to accept the "logic" and the "broad implications" of the Supreme Court's ruling, or else he is lawless.  He wants you to believe that Bush must now shut down all of the controversial programs undertaken in the name of national security.

        I hate Bush as much or more than the next guy, but that is simply not how the law works.  Until the courts rule on the specific question of each individual program, there is no legal requirement that Bush do anything or recognize anything.  Period.  The law deals with the precise issues before the court, not the logic or the implications or anything else.  It makes me wonder, again, what kind of law professor the diarist is -- if he is.  He sure as hell ain't no litigator.

        Jamie Raskin for State Senate -- Progressive leadership for a progressive Maryland

        by jsmdlawyer on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:30:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  did the opinion have an 'all deliberate speed' (0+ / 0-)

          implementation mechanisim escape hatch like Brown v. Board?

          I haven't read the decision yet (please provide link), but I do have a good non-layers grasp of how the law works.

          Just what exactly did the opinion say about implementation, scope and applicability?

          Do you agree with the Diarists prior comments about the legal breadth of the "holding" and Bush's obligation to comply with decision in more than just the narrowest sense of this particular case and controversy?

          I think Graham (and others in the senate) will run into real problems, because Graham is a military institutionlist as mcuh as he's a lawyer - in the sense that I assume many powerful interests within the military will object to carving out legislative loopholes in the Geneva conventions that protect them.

  •  What do we do? (0+ / 0-)

    Do we appeal to the SCOTUS to activate US Marshals to seize the prisoners at Gitmo?

    I'm serious.

    Can we do that?

    •  Oh for crissakes (0+ / 0-)

      This diary is bullshit.

      Dont pay attention to this erroneous diary please.

      Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

      by Armando on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:59:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not Bullshit - Just supposing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Annalize5

        some one Diaried, in 2001, that Bush had acted upon legal theories about presidential power that would authorize torture, detention, rendition, domestic spying et al in explict violation of federal statute, judicial precent, and duly adopted treaty, under claims of unilaterla plenary unreviewable inherent CIC power in an alleged time of war.

        You would have said such a diary was bullshit, no?

  •  Kudos (0+ / 0-)

    for the Jackson quote.

    It sucks living next door to Richard Nixon.

    by jkfp2004 on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:32:11 AM PDT

  •  Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor so far (0+ / 0-)

    seems strangely silent on this Supreme Court decision. She has spoken out when it seemed to suit her purpose, on issues of somewhat less importance that illegal torture and the Geneva Convention.

  •  How did he get there? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie

    Dubya is only in the White House due to a five-to-four Supreme Court decision. Now, he wants to ignore the Court.

  •  Good luck. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie

    As a sociopath with borderline intelligence, and with his record, why would Bush be expected to pay any attention to this decision?

  •  Historical view on presidential dissing of law (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie, Cat Whisperer

    Bush has repeatedly broken the law and flaunted his inpudence.  The question periodally comes up, what historical precedent is there for the combination of arrogance and singlemindedness demonstrated by Bush?  What president has acted most like Bush does?

    I've had two in mind, Jackson and Polk.  Not just with respect to the Trail of Tears, but also the Bank of the United States, Jackson just simply went about getting his way without any regard to anyone that disagreed with him, the courts, congress, whomever.  And, that did lead to a movement to impeach Jackson.

    Polk's march to the Mexican war is eerily similar to the march to war in Iraq.  His impudence and ignorance of dissent was unparalled at the time

    One distinction between Bush and these guys is that Bush is a chickenhawk, while those guys served.

  •  Moot Issue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie

    The whole case is pointless anyway. The pRetzeldint has signed apx 750 "signing statements" in the past 6 yrs alone, basically giving himself permission to cherry pick which laws he thinks apply to the executive branch versus not.  What makes anyone think the Supreme Farce's opinions in Hamdan mean squat?  Both the legislative and judicial branches of government only get a say so when bushler tells them they can have one.  All else is just posturing.  Face it, AmeriKKKa is fucked b/c its sheep have fallen asleep at the wheel and allowed the reichwing irrevocably hijack our system of government.  

    Pain is temporary and sorrow is fleeting, but hope, determination and courage in the face of adversity are forever.

    by Zen Warrior on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:04:51 PM PDT

  •  In 2000 SCOTUS Bush v Gore was OK to abide by.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie

    Why not this decision!

    This notion of the rule of law has to apply to the resident too!

    Why are the Dems not rushing to the microphones and letting Bush have it.

  •  'John Roberts has made his decision; now let him (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie
    enforce it."

    If Roe v. Wade gets overturned by the Roberts Court and it happens after 2008 when we control the White House, our President should say that quote in response it Roberts and Alito. He should also sign an executive order freezing their decision. Lincoln ignored slave-owning Justice Roger Taney during the Civil War, why can't a President Warner/Feingold/Gore/Edwards/Clark do the same?

  •  <b>Update and little correction</b> (0+ / 0-)

    Some in the comments have argued that Wikipedia disagrees with Justice Breyer on whether Pres. Jackson ever said the words attributed to him.  A better source would be an actual history book.  Authors such as 1 Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, 1789-1835, at 759 (2d ed. 1926), do, indeed, question the quote.  Norman Rosenberg, in The United States Supreme Court: The Pursuit of Justice, has written:  

    These particular words are apocryphal, but what Jackson actually said on the occasion conveyed the same meaning, albeit in less pithy language: “The decision of the supreme court has fell stillborn, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.”

    Tough to make a diary title out of that, however.

  •  Fear (0+ / 0-)

    It seems reasonable to fear Bush's seeming desire for unlimited executive power and his expectation that we trust in his infinite wisdom and good intentions.  I fear it.  This supreme court decision, however, should be seen for what it is.  A clear indication that the US government's Judicial branch is acting independently from and providing a check to the President's power.  This is something we should be celebrating, not letting add more fear unjustly.  These "theories" and "possibilities" about Bush's imagined defiance of the Supreme Court decision have not happened.  Let's hope that won't happen.

    In the meantime we can focus our efforts on the next battleground:  the congress has an important decision to make regarding these tribunals.  This is where the future presently lies.

    There's enough really happening to give us fear.  There is no need to use our imaginations to add to it.

    I respect all beliefs... and I am willing to consider anyone's opinion.

    by Krexent on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 05:35:24 PM PDT

  •  Panel Discussion Now on CSPAN1 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie

    Georgetown law school. Legal experts are saying that if Congress wants to repudiate the Court's decision by disregarding the Geneva Convention, it's going to really piss off the military

  •  Now, let's see if the Pres. drops domestic spying (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Annalize5, civil society

    because if he plans to recognize the deep implications of the Hamdan decision, he would have to do so.

    Just published by AP:  Ruling weakens Bush spying plan

    I wait expectantly for those who think that Bush will abide by the Hamdan decision to report back as Bush dismantles his domestic spying program -- or asks Congress to endorse it.

    But I don't plan on holding my breath.

    (Note: the rule of law is based on broad respect for the principles stated in the few decisions that reach the Supreme Court -- only about 200 per year -- and not simply on implementing the decisions that show up there.  "Precedent" in our legal system is not about implementing the specific decisions.  It is about implementing the logic -- the "holdings."  

    In the case of Hamdan, the broad holding is that when Congress has restricted Presidential power, even in time of war, those restrictions must often be complied with.  And that the AUMF does not constitute a blank check that overrides such restrictions.  Apply this to FISA and the domestic spying is illegal.

    •  Oh, I'm not sure I'd agree with (0+ / 0-)

      "must often." That might be overstating the case. To my mind, we're not quite to "must often" yet.

      "Sometimes" seems a lot closer to what the decision says. It seemed to me that the Court was VERY carefully working from only one boundary (i.e., authority for military commissions). How far that extends into other military affairs, I don't think we know yet, and I don't think we even have good hints (except to say that there is a definite tension).

      '"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection ... is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.'

      by DSmith on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:54:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unlikely (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando

      I wait expectantly for those who think that Bush will abide by the Hamdan decision to report back as Bush dismantles his domestic spying program -- or asks Congress to endorse it.

      Come again? You're saying that if Bush doesn't change his practices in relation to NSA spying that, by extension, he is not "abiding by Hamdan"? By extension, then, Hamdan explicitly makes NSA spying illegal? (Note that the article says 'weakens' and not 'voids.')

      Hamdan affirms the structure put forth in the Steel Seizure case but doesn't simply obliterate any executive perogative contrary to (or in the absence of) Congress. Each instance of conflict must be examined in its given context.

      'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

      by jorndorff on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:32:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Jorndorff is half right. (0+ / 0-)

        Yes, not every instance of Presidential prerogative is invalidated by Hamdan.

        But the particular logic underlying the NSA domestic spying program is eviscerated by Hamdan, as I have explained in another comment.

        •  Well (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Armando

          The logic underlying the NSA domestic spying program was eviscerated long before now, imo.

          If you're using the template set out in Steel Seizure, then the executive has been on very, very shaky legal ground ever since the program was made public. The AUMF and inherent authority arguments are very suspect in light of not crafting legislation along with Congress when the executive clearly has had ample time to do so. This is a situation it expressly avoided, even in the face of Congressional willingness to work with the executive on all related matters.

          The NSA program might have had constitutional merit for a few weeks following the 9/11 attacks, but not almost five years later.

          'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

          by jorndorff on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:21:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hamdan is the new Youngstown (0+ / 0-)

            opinion, in my view.  Furthermore, it goes beyond merely noting that Jackson's concurrent in Youngstown sets out three categories, but by saying that the AUMF doesn't rescue any Presidential action that is already covered by prohibitory legislation.  The prohibitory legislation in Hamdan is the Uniform Code of Military Justice;  the logic applies equally to FISA and its prohibitions.  

            Hamdan is important to domestic spying precisely because the Supreme Court has now put its imprimatur on arguments that many of us have been making about Youngstown and the AUMF not trumping FISA.

  •  Patience, the system will triumph here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oregondem, Jimbob

    Of course Bush, Gonzales, Addington, et al, will do all they can to ignore, trample over or bypass this ruling, and the GOP congress will do all that it can to enable this, either by looking the other way or by actively passing legislation that attempts to render it moot. They might even succeed (or appear to succeed) at first. This is all but inevitable, and no one should be surprised when it happens. It will happen. The question is what will happen THEN.

    It's my belief that they will ultimately not succeed. I don't know how it'll unfold, but any attempts they make to override this ruling are going to fail, sooner or later, and at this point there's probably nothing they can do about it. It won't happen overnight. That's why we need to be patient. But it will happen. The conditions that allowed BushCo to get away with their contempt for the constitution no longer exist.

    E.g. a united GOP congress, no meaningful Democratic opposition, an entirely useless and often admiring press, an approving and apathetic public, the post-9/11 halo effect, and, until yesterday, no firm SCOTUS ruling on this and related matters. These are all gone, to some extent at least, and they have attrited BushCo's ability to steamroll the constitution unabated. The system will now kick in and put a stop to its excesses. Just wait and see. It'll happen.

    This is not 1832. 170+ years of significant political evolution and not a few major crises (which we've all survived) have made this a far stronger country and political system than existed in Jackson's time. BushCo is just the latest challenge to it, and arguably the most serious in in modern times. But it too has now come upon the limits that this system places on those who seek to challenge it, and it will not prove able to surmount them. I am convinced of that.

    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

    by kovie on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:37:19 PM PDT

  •  behavioral precedent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie

    may have led to what Armando sees as erroneous in the diary. When so many in power have done so many illegalities without being caught, or have shaded the law to their benefit, we want to remove them from power.

    Unfortunately, wishful thinking and leaning on the suppositions in this case won't yield that benefit. Only engaged voters or some horrible alternative will bring change about.

    Republicans are not smart enough to protect America. Howard Dean

    by 4Freedom on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:41:58 PM PDT

  •  Sounds like a throwaway line (0+ / 0-)

    What's the propaganda minister supposed to say?  "Yes, this ruling from the Supreme Court creates a major problem for the president and calls into question the legal foundation of a major facet of his foreign policy agenda."  Much easier to pretend it didn't hurt and then scurry away to reconfigure.

    The president can ignore this in the short term by, for instance, not having any trials at all, or coming up with some other form of trial that also violates the Geneva Convention and/or the Constitution.  And then that will be challenged and rejected.  The best Bush can hope for is that the whole process is stalled so that the tough decisions fall on his successor.

    The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. - John Adams

    by tipsymcstagger on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:42:34 PM PDT

  •  This would be (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie

    an unquestionably constitutional offense, it would also put Bush in the political grave yard and give Democrats both houses of congress. It would erradicate whatever upward swing Bush is going through.

  •  Charlie Rose tonight (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie

    Charlie Rose will discuss this with that facist John Yoo-gddle dooo since he is the author of the "unitary president" (small p) along with  Laurence Tribe, should make for an lively discussion. I'm hoping he says that the Busy should ignore the courts ruling... and they order the military out of iraq and into the White House! Anyone know how this ruling affects signing statements, would be intrested to know????

  •  Obviously, an outlaw is (0+ / 0-)
    not going to be concerned about what a court decides.

    Forget "GOD, GUNS, GAYS, GIRLS & GETS"

    by hannah on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 04:49:18 AM PDT

Leslie in CA, Deep Dark, Rebecca, Kimberley, Ottoe, davidb1224, ChicagoDem, selise, anna, Jett, Kestrel, Alumbrados, paradox, MichaelPH, GrandmaJ, David Waldman, buffalo soldier, Marek, Carl Nyberg, Nathan in MD, Phoenix Woman, Stevie, randompost, tundraman, debcoop, Rayne, SarahLee, teacherken, laurak, cedubose, Haus, Geenius at Wrok, lrhoke, Gooserock, Pandora, artr2, Robert Ullmann, Unstable Isotope, mem from somerville, melvynny, ScientistMom in NY, existenz, Reino, wytcld, odum, Sprinkles, wicked words, eph89, Titian, donna in evanston, billlaurelMD, Lipstick Liberal, Dillie Taunt, wintersnowman, Ralfast, djinniya, frsbdg, ZoBai, Duncan Idaho, HootieMcBoob, indigoskye, figdish, pseudomass, Luam, RFK Lives, PanzerMensch, bumblebums, Jerome a Paris, anotherJames, Cecrops Tangaroa, silence, madhaus, Plan9, RubDMC, Thistime, DJ Adequate, jpiterak, jackspace, km4, rickvonw, mlafleur, PaintyKat, Intellectually Curious, indybend, Dazy, elveta, Doc Allen, nyceve, Ti Jean, Loquatrix, demokath, snoopydog, stevetat, wanderindiana, Minerva, PBnJ, Glic, MoCrash, AllenB101, mrblifil, vmibran, Aquarius40, chimpy, roses, redlami, jeff06dem, Dana in MN, amberglow, Ignacio Magaloni, Molee, bincbom, Fe, MJB, Swordsmith, bwren, mollyd, chrisfreel, frightwig, Nate Roberts, erquirk, Jesterfox, Gonzophile, David Boyle, captainahab, Alna Dem, dksbook, Pachacutec, davidgmills, Janet Strange, worldwideellen, mayan, hopesprings, psnyder, rcvanoz, danthrax, marko, TexDem, MadLibrarian, DeadB0y, pat bunny, milton333, Virago, Lady Nutmegger, besieged by bush, hoolia, binky, wmtriallawyer, PaulVA, Penny Century, dwahzon, 42, attydave, ArcXIX, qushner, Ascendent, graciella, Mrcia, mrsnart, Eddie Haskell, sommervr, lcrp, Dood Abides, Democratic Hawk, dcookie, johne, parkslopper50, smartgo, schuylkill, nycdemocrat, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, bablhous, DrewDown, kd texan, wezelboy, snowbird42, Captain Doug, boran2, thereisnospoon, califdweller, pontechango, iliketodrum, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, Tirge Caps, weelzup, nehark, jonathan94002, trueblue illinois, Fabian, mediaprisoner, DCleviathan, Bluesee, farleftcoast, Harkov311, case, Alexander G Rubio, ichibon, Elise, Alegre, docangel, LarisaW, ignorant bystander, OpherGopher, Louise526, Heronymous Cowherd, PBen, JoMo DemKim, Ari Mistral, Webster, clammyc, Simplify, Valtin, RequestedUsername, barbwire, chicoTowner, Fire Dog Lake, ChemBob, juliesie, snacksandpop, TigerMom, miketocci, Ranting Roland, anonymousredvest18, Richard Carlucci, Bouwerie Boy, ofao, Sophie Blue, Monkey In Chief, boofdah, Annalize5, dansk47, marathon, majcmb1, civil society, mateosf, Pam from Calif, Frank Palmer, dunderhead, ladybug53, sofia, annefrank, docstymie, libbie, abbeysbooks, JellyPuddin, Jawis, Arturo52, babatunde, sunbro, Cecile, Yamara, Noah in NY, Arctor, Jonathan House, rofodem, el zilcho, HiBob, neroden, serrano, FindingMyVoice, sodalis, gpm, sleep deprived, Cory Bantic, nymosyn, Jimbob, hcc in VA, JanF, Land of Enchantment, hatdog, jay23, Sister Havana, Drocket, fhcec, noweasels, RoseRash, MagisterLudi, ThaliaR, Appalachian Annie, keefer55, The Liberal US Marine, trashablanca, Super G, BachFan, Thundergod, Nightprowlkitty, BobzCat, rcbowman, ej25, LittleRiceBird, Still Thinking, HoundDog, Ellicatt, Yellow Canary, compbear, Magnifico, Jordan LFW, mango, xopherma, Marcus Tullius, kck, greenearth, reid fan, campdurning, jlove1982, ormondotvos, MJ via Chicago, StrayCat, gatorcog, condoleaser, The Wife of Bath, NearlyNormal, el cid, RBG, bunk, ER Doc, BarbaraB, Turbonerd, ljt, siun, land of the free, ilyana, TeddySanFran, va dare, dhomyak, BB10, means are the ends, MarketTrustee, Dreaming of Better Days, jjellin, TransAmerican, slksfca, kml, lemonsieur, Callandor, AndrewOG, Bhishma, AmericanRiverCanyon, dov12348, dotsright, donnamarie, Fredly, Cat Whisperer, mouse that roared

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site