De facto suspension of the Constitution - Bush pronounces a detainee "an unlawful enemy combatant" and the person loses all human rights

robert parry posting on consortium news via alternet...

Under the Bush-Yoo theories, all Bush has to do is pronounce a detainee "an unlawful enemy combatant" -- whether a U.S. citizen or not, whether there is any credible evidence or not -- and the person loses all human rights.

As radical -- and as shocking -- as these theories may seem to many Americans, Bush is within one vote on the U.S. Supreme Court of having his vision enshrined as

If one more vacancy occurs among the five "non-imperial" justices -- and the replacement is in line with Roberts-Scalia-Thomas-and-Alito -- the U.S. Constitution could be effectively altered to eliminate key individual liberties -- from habeas corpus and other fair-trial rights to bans on "cruel and unusual" punishment to protections against self-incrimination and "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Though civics books tell us that the Constitution can only be amended by two-thirds votes of the House and Senate and approval by three-quarters of the states, the reality is that five ideologues on the U.S. Supreme Court can alter the nation's founding document by simply voting as a bloc.

And since the "war on terror" is unlike other wars -- in that the enemy is vaguely defined, the duration could be forever and the war's location can be anywhere -- the Bush-Yoo logic suggests that the de facto suspension of the American constitutional Republic is not just a short-term emergency measure.

Instead, the shift from a Republic, with legal protections of individual rights, to an Empire, led by an Executive who can operate without any constraints, would be permanent. As long as the President says some danger lurks out there, he or she could assert "plenary" -- or total -- powers as commander in chief.

[...]

Though Bush may not get another chance to further shape the Supreme Court with the appointment of another Roberts or Alito, his successor likely will. For some Americans angered by Bush's assault on the Constitution, John McCain's past support for Bush's judicial appointments may represent one of the strongest reasons to vote against him.

The future of the American Republic may be at stake.

"may" be at stake is a serious understatement... the future of the american republic HAS BEEN AT STAKE for a number of years now and WILL CONTINUE TO BE AT STAKE even after the inauguration of a (presumably) democratic president on 20 january 2009, if the current mechanisms of unfettered executive power are not both ROLLED BACK and FORMALLY REPUDIATED prior to that time... i don't want those mechanisms in the hands of ANY president... not mccain, not hillary, not obama...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

So, NOW the WaPo regrets supporting Alito and Roberts

WTF...?!?!?! what exactly did they THINK was going to happen when these two right-wing nutjobs began to make their views felt via supreme court decisions...? did they really believe all that nonsense about appointing "NON-ACTIVIST," "STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST" judges...? what the hell is the matter with these people...? they were appointed PRECISELY because they WOULD be activist, acting swiftly and decisively to roll back years of judicial progress, and, in effect, overturning previous court decisions...

from today's wapo editorialist roundup...

WaPo ... labels the Supreme Court's most recent term "unsurprising and disappointing," and suggests that the editors regret supporting the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Court. "Most disappointing," they write, "are several actions by the new justices that seem inconsistent with what we, in supporting their confirmation, had hoped would be a respect for precedent and a modest conception of the judicial role." They add: "These were not the decisions of a restrained court committed to cautious, incremental change."

from the op-ed, a chronicle of the dive into the right side of the pool...

• [T]his term made clear that one set of four conservative umpires sees one strike zone; one set of four more-liberal justices sees another; and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy mostly, but not invariably, calls pitches the same way as the conservatives.

• "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in announcing his dissent in the school desegregation case.

• [I]n the partial-birth abortion case, ... the new conservative majority essentially overruled a decision of seven years earlier and for the first time allowed an abortion restriction with no exception for maternal health.

• [In] the school case, ... the court reached out to take a pair of cases and then limited how local school systems could try to maintain integrated schools.

• The court junked a 96-year-old antitrust precedent and dramatically curtailed a three-year-old campaign finance ruling.

the wapo's conclusion...?

These were not the decisions of a restrained court committed to cautious, incremental change.

well, my dear friends at the washington post, YOU threw your weight behind the appointment of these bastards, and it's YOU that's been supporting the bastard and his criminal cronies who nominated them... when are YOU going to wake up, smell the coffee, and start working with the rest of us to throw those white house bastards OUT...? unfortunately, we're now stuck with the scotus bastards...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments