Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!
The lights will soon be on at the US Supreme Court as the new term opens. As usual, the Court has a full calendar, having accepted cases on voter identification requirements, shareholder rights, the death penalty, employment discrimination, and, once again, the rights of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. All of the cases are significant, of course, but the last one mentioned is of particular interest because once again it brings into focus whether the President or the Congress can deny certain basic rights by fiat or legislation. Today's Los Angeles Times provides a nice background to the issue.
The court will also consider -- again -- whether the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a right to plead their innocence before a judge.
Three years ago, the justices ruled that the right to habeas corpus written into American law extended to the terrorism prisoners at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba. This seemed to open the door to hearings before an independent judge.
But the Bush administration balked, and last year's Republican-controlled Congress changed the law to say that foreign-born "enemy combatants" did not have a right to habeas corpus. Now the high court faces a historic decision on whether to overrule both the president and Congress on a war-related matter.
The dispute turns on the Constitution, which says "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended" except during times of "rebellion or invasion." Civil libertarians have urged the court to say that Congress violated this provision when it took away from the Guantanamo prisoners the right to go to court. [Emphasis added]
The right of habeus corpus is an old one, older than this nation by several centuries. It was considered so essential to a democracy that the founders of the country included it in the US Constitution. Since the country is neither in the midst of a rebellion nor has been invaded, the outcome should be a slam-dunk. Should be, but in the Court as currently constituted, that is hardly the case.
Once again, Justice Kennedy looks to be the key vote in the deeply divided Court. May he live long and prosper.
The court will also consider -- again -- whether the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a right to plead their innocence before a judge.
Three years ago, the justices ruled that the right to habeas corpus written into American law extended to the terrorism prisoners at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba. This seemed to open the door to hearings before an independent judge.
But the Bush administration balked, and last year's Republican-controlled Congress changed the law to say that foreign-born "enemy combatants" did not have a right to habeas corpus. Now the high court faces a historic decision on whether to overrule both the president and Congress on a war-related matter.
The dispute turns on the Constitution, which says "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended" except during times of "rebellion or invasion." Civil libertarians have urged the court to say that Congress violated this provision when it took away from the Guantanamo prisoners the right to go to court. [Emphasis added]
The right of habeus corpus is an old one, older than this nation by several centuries. It was considered so essential to a democracy that the founders of the country included it in the US Constitution. Since the country is neither in the midst of a rebellion nor has been invaded, the outcome should be a slam-dunk. Should be, but in the Court as currently constituted, that is hardly the case.
Once again, Justice Kennedy looks to be the key vote in the deeply divided Court. May he live long and prosper.
Labels: habeas corpus, Supreme Court
posted by Diane at 4:02 AM
1 Comments:
I can hear it now: "9/11, 9/11, 9/11..."
The usual suspects will proclaim that we have indeed been invaded.
These courtsters are fully capable of just tossing out the whole thing, handing the keys to Georgie, gassing up the car for him, and giving him a bottle of JD to go with it all.
Enablers. That's what they do.
Post a Comment
<< Home