Bush Disagrees with SCOTUS, Calls for “additional legislation”

So George W. Bush says, somewhat tentatively, that he will abide by the Supreme Court decision yesterday.

Does that mean he will close the national disgrace, Guantanamo, which will remain a blot and stain on the history of our nation as long as it endures?

No. It means he will try to ram yet more legislation through a Congress filled with compliant lackies in the Republican party, and cowardly Democrats, caving as usual and passing legislation that is unconstitutional on its face.

Any member of Congress who falls for this at this point should resign in disgrace. They clearly have absolutely no idea what their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law means.

    ROME - President Bush on Thursday strongly disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that clears foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Bush suggested new legislation may now be needed to keep the American people safe.
   ADVERTISEMENT"We’ll abide by the court’s decision," Bush said during a news conference in Rome. "That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it." The court’s decision was sure to be popular in Europe, where many leaders have called for the closing of Guantanamo.

   In its third rebuke of the Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court’s liberal justices were in the majority.

   "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented," Bush said. "And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."

   Bush said his administration will study the ruling. "We’ll do this with this in mind — to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, ‘We’re doing everything we can to protect you.’"

Bush disagrees with court's Guantanamo ruling

•  Tips for Return to Rule of Law under Constitution

  by HeartlandLiberal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:31:04 AM PDT

  •  didn't bother him when they helped him steal the

    presidency.....

    by TexMex on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:36:55 AM PDT

    •  by that same thin margin 5:4

      by Mosquito Pilot on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:20:40 AM PDT

•  Congress will get on it Monday morning, HEH!

  It would never get on the floor in either the House or Senate.
  They have already planned the schedule for the little time they plan to be in session before the election.

  by manwithnoname on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:35:38 AM PDT

  •  I'm confused...

    SCOTUS ruled that Habeas is a Constitutional Right - correct?  Doesn't that mean Congress could legislate anything the want, but it will still be unconstitutional?  

    by RichM on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:43:31 AM PDT

    •  Of course.

      But when did that bother this administration??

      by HeartlandLiberal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:47:33 AM PDT

    •  Habeas corpus is in the Constitution

      Article I Section 9, which addresses limits on the powers of the Congress, states:

      The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

      Habeas corpus has been around since King John signed the Magna Carta at Runnymede on June 15, 1215.  It is the cornerstone of western jurisprudence.

      by NonnyO on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:53:25 AM PDT

    •  you're not confused

      Bush is.

      by elmo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:00:48 AM PDT

•  Yeah, I winced when I heard him say that.

  Then I thought, who's going to pass a law bypassing Habeas Corpus for you?  Asshat.
    What he was really thinking, I believe, was twofold.  First, you can't get any rights for the detainees you don't even know about, and second, "Signing Statement."  Go ahead, pass a bill making July National Watermelon Seed Spitting Month.  Somehow GW will pen a missive to pin on it whilst signing clarifying that in honor of this month when we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence, those who we capture in the 'War on Terra' are declared "Person-less" and thus not covered by habeas.
    Better stop before I give him any ideas.

  by jhop7 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:42:16 AM PDT

•  There already was additional legislation

  to make what is clearly unConstitutional somehow legal.  

  in Rasul v. Bush, the United States Supreme Court ruled that our clients’ habeas cases could go forward under the federal habeas statute, but Congress attempted to overturn the decision with a series of laws, the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act (MCA) in 2006

  Yesterday's decision strikes these down and would likely strike down similar legislative efforts.

  The quote above comes from some great analysis of the decision:
  http://ccrjustice.org/...

  by Mosquito Pilot on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:19:43 AM PDT

•  Bush doesn't disagree with SCOTUS

  Bush disagrees with the Constitution...

  and he isn't the kind of guy to be forced to do anything by some piece of paper. That's for people who "read" and people who got so-called "b's" and "a's" in school. Not for Bush.

  by Big Time Patriot on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:14:12 AM PDT