Please tell me I misunderstood Justice Scalia and that he, as well as those he emblemizes, would not believe this.
At work today, I listened to the arguments before the Supreme Court for Boumediene v. Bush (the Gitmo case) and the Justice said something which I hope I took out of context.
I believe he was addressing the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus when he said to Mr. Waxman, representing the detainees,
you are appealing to a common law right that somehow found its way into our constitution
Did he just allude to the fact he does not support habeas corpus? If so, shouldn't a strict constructionist be among the staunchest defenders of the rights explicitly laid forth? If not, why defend them?
As a rule I grant the nine Justices, whomever sits on the bench, a wide berth and a tremendous amount of respect.
No matter if I agree with philosophies or not (We'll call the Harriet Miers near-debacle the exception that proved the rule), the Justices are extremely well-versed, thoughtful, and intelligent legal minds.
More often than not I trust their decisions to be based on philosophy and interpretation as opposed to influence or interest, exempting Gore v. Bush and the ridiculous for both sides Roe litmus test.
But I was stopped in my proverbial tracks this morning when I heard the honorable Justice Scalia, during arguments in Boumediene v. Bush declare that habeas corpus sneaked into our Constitution. Here is the Justice most commonly vilified or glorified as the ultimate strict constructionists saying that he does not support on of the most basic rights written into the document he holds so dear.
No one can call enforcing habeas corpus judicial activism by any means.
I just hope I misunderstood him and I enclosed the entire comment from his exchange today and emphasized what struck me as most poignant:
Also, I would like to preface this by asserting my ignorance toward Rasul.
And the cases were decided background image under a statute that applied in India, not under -- under the common law. And the writ did not come from England; the writ came from English courts in India under a statute. And we decided that in Rasul. I mean, you want to do that in Rasul, that's fine. But you are appealing to a common law right that somehow found its way into our constitution without, as far as I can discern, a single case in which the writ ever to a non-citizen.
I listened live to the comment and read the comments before this excerpt and it seems to me the "common law right" can only be habeas corpus and that the term somehow implies that he does not believe it should be there or cannot see why the Framers inserted it. That is how I use somehow, as a term of derision.
I know its fun to mock the Justices with whom we do not agree but to me this is fundamental and that's why I posted my first diary to see if I got this right.
I would like to go further about understanding the thought processes of those with whom we disagree and how it's too bad that a person whose arguments for that I opposed could be so unfounded, but if you read this far I commend you already.