Reposted from
DailyFix:
Arguments before the Supreme Court regarding the Guantanamo Bay prisoners took place today, and Attorney John Gibbons referred to the camp as a "lawless enclave". The White House is arguing that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over the camp, and that these are not American citizens, and therefore not protected by the same rules we are.
Via the AP:
In the Guantanamo case, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer argued in court filings that allowing the prisoners to go to court would "place the federal courts in the unprecedented position of micromanaging the executive's handling of captured enemy combatants from a distant zone."
The Bush administration asserts the right to hold and interrogate the men as long as necessary, without formal charges or the guarantee of a trial or access to a lawyer. The administration also asserts the men are not traditional prisoners of war, who would have guaranteed rights under the Geneva Convention.
The lawsuit before the high court was brought by lawyers who had not met their clients. Since then, a few Guantanamo detainees have been granted access to attorneys.
The lawyers say the men are in a nightmarish legal limbo. Furthermore, they say their clients had nothing to do with Sept. 11 and have never harmed Americans.
Quite a few briefs have been filed regarding this case, most notably in my mind that of Fred Korematsu.
via the Chicago Tribune:
Among those supporting the detainees are human-rights groups, 175 members of the British Parliament and Fred Korematsu, an 84-year-old Japanese American who challenged the constitutionality of his internment during World War II.
...
A friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of Korematsu invokes a string of abuses justified in the name of national security dating almost to 1798, including his own internment during World War II with more than 100,000 other Japanese, most of whom were U.S. citizens.
While it acknowledges the issues today are different, his brief says, "The extreme nature of the government's position is all too familiar."
It is sad that the White House views judicial review as, "micromanaging the executive's handling of captured enemy combatants." It is even more sad that Republicans can legitimately argue that the Supreme Court has no business telling the President, (of all people), what is constitutional. This is simply a matter of having some entity to hold the President accountable for the actions he takes. But Republicans are not content with the system of checks and balances that has been in use for over 200 years.
via the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
In what could be the worst proposal to come down the pike in quite some time -- and when you're talking about the federal government, that's saying something -- a Kentucky representative wants to give Congress the power to overrule U.S. Supreme Court decisions it doesn't like.
Rep. Ron Lewis, a Republican elected in 1994 who once promised his constituents he'd serve only four terms -- oops! -- has come forth with "The Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act." Under the measure, two-thirds of both the Senate and the House would have to agree to the override.
Under this law, the Constitution would essentially be interpreted to reflect popular opinion -- a scary thought, given that many Americans confronted with an unlabeled copy of the Bill of Rights would likely consider many of the scribblings dangerous and subversive.
While I have doubts that any court would uphold this bill as anything remotely close to constitutional, it is scary that the concept has made its way to paper.
What do you folks think?