Supreme Court rules against suspension of Habeas Corpus

[sleigh]

This is still coming through, but there are reports that the Supreme Court has ruled (5 to 4) that the people held at Gitmo have the right to challenge their detention. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority: ""The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law."

Justice Scalia, in his dissent, said that this ruling "warps our Constitution" and that the "nation will live to regret what the court has done today."

Give it a rest, Scalia. It's about time that the SCOTUS recognized that what was done was illegal and unconstitutional. It's time to close down Guantanamo and end this horrible blight on our nation's reputation and standing in the world. It should have happened years ago. No, scratch that. It should never have happened at all.

Comments

[ellameena.livejournal.com]

I don't think it needs to be closed down. It would be good to have due process restored.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

We'll have to disagree on that first statement, but I'm in full agreement on the second. :-)

[davidbcoe.livejournal.com]

Gitmo had been a blight on our nation's moral standing, and the Supreme Court has been way to slow to recognize this. The fact that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts fail to understand this merely underscores how utterly ideological they are. They're not jurists; they're partisan hacks.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Calling them "partisan hacks" is going too far, I think. Partisan hacks don't bother with logic or reasoning, nor do they have a philosophical outlook of their own. They just spout the current party line without consideration or thought. Well, maybe that describes Roberts and Thomas, but...

Ideologically, I'm nearly always in complete 180 degree disagreement with Scalia, for instance, but he does have an internally consistent worldview and he fits his interpretation of Constitutional issues to that worldview. I don't agree with him and I wish like hell that he weren't on the bench, but at least I have the sense that there's a logical consistency behind his decisions. Much as it is for me with someone who's a devout believer in God (or Gods) of any sort, I don't agree with what they're selling, but when the beliefs are sincere I can at least understand where they're coming from and appreciate their argument even if it's in opposition to my position. I even enjoy the debate as long as it stays civil... though Scalia can be rather, uh, brusque when he disagrees with others.

You can't argue with partisan hacks at all. They're entirely deaf to outside voices.

[davidbcoe.livejournal.com]

I understand your point, and I'll concede that there is a certain amount of ideological consistency to Scalia's opinions. But Gore v. Bush? That was partisan hackery at its worst.