BIG NEWS FROM LBN: Justice Department bracing for Supreme Court defeat

[frank frankly]

thanks, Gothmog!!!

any speculation on what this means?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x613192

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5175105/site/newsweek/site/newsweek /

June 9 - Justice Department lawyers, fearing a crushing defeat before the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few weeks, are scrambling to develop a conventional criminal case against “enemy combatant” Jose Padilla that would charge him with providing “material support” to Al Qaeda, NEWSWEEK has learned.
....
The reassessments of Padilla come amid a growing sense of gloom within Justice that the Supreme Court is likely to rule decisively against the Bush administration not just in the Padilla case but in two other pivotal cases in the war on terror: one involving the detention of another “enemy combatant,” Yasir Hamden, and another involving the treatment of Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the Padilla and Hambdi cases, the administration is arguing it has the right to hold the two U.S. citizens indefinitely without trial. In the Guantanamo case, the administration argues that foreign nationals being interrogated there there do not have the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.

Lawyers within the Justice Department are now bracing for defeat in both the enemy-combatant and Guantanamo cases, both of which are expected to be decided before the Supreme Court ends its term at the end of the month, according to one conservative and politically well-connected lawyer. “They are 99 percent certain they are going to lose,” said the lawyer, who asked not to be identified. “It’s a very sobering realization.”

[Walt Starr]

1. Bang!

Step one in the China Syndrome meltdown of the Bush administration.

The smart political watcher will be looking for Powell to resign very soon. It will also be a shocking move coming at the last minute much like the Tenet resignation.

[frank frankly]

2. yes, that could be next

verrrrrrrrrry interesting...

[aquart]

3. At what point did they think this would NOT happen?

When did they think they could trash the constitution and the Supreme Court would cheer them on?

Oh, right. Since Florida.

[Beam Me Up]

30. Yes, and if people like us hadn't being SPREADING THE WORD

and waking people up to what the hell is going on in this country, I believe the SCOTUS might have ruled quite differently. It's ABOUT TIME they began to TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY for having INSTALLED that IMBECILE!

[David Dunham]

4. These decisions will be bad news for Bush.

[AlCzervik]

5. Glad to see that press conference

by the doj did nothing to sway tham and who knows, maybe it pissed of the judges, pretty lame attempt to buoy their case.

[charlyvi]

22. I think it pissed them off...

when the asst atty said that if Padilla had been given his constitutional rights (he actually used these words) he would have lawyered up and not said anything. HUH? The Constitution is a nuisance? Was he aware of what he was saying? Oh the stupidity and arrogance!


edit: for spelling

[frank frankly]

6. more from the article:

<snip>

While Supreme Court forecasts are hazardous at best, the conventional wisdom among former Supreme Court clerks is that recent disclosures about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and internal administration memos disavowing compliance with international treaties involving treatment of prisoners has badly hurt the government’s arguments before the court and turned two key “swing” justices—Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy—against it, the lawyer said.

Insider thinking within Justice has the Supreme Court voting six to three against the administration on Guantanamo and by a perhaps even larger margin in the Padilla and Hamdi cases.

A newly declassified Pentagon report on Padilla—released by Deputy Attorney General James Comey—was in part intended to influence public thinking about his case and establish more clearly that Padilla was a dangerous Al Qaeda operative who intended to inflict harm on innocent civilians.

[xray s]

17. Six to three against the Reich

and those three would be (drum roll please)......

Rehnquist
Scalia
Thomas

aka The Moe, Larry and Curly of the BFEE

Woo woo woo!

[pinto]

7. Yo! SCOTUS is being watched by the world on this one.....

Fixing an election on a shoestring argument, with an electoral system most folks don't understand, is one thing. Not a good thing, but obviously it was doable.

Abrogating an individual's rights, which are seared in the original complaints of the United States against the British monarchy is another matter. Everybody understands the right to counsel, the right to be charged if held, and the right to trial.

Ha.......

[charlyvi]

13. The right to SPEEDY trial...

But what do you expect from a group of assholes who think the President is above the law! ABOVE THE LAW!!! Is this pre-revolutionary France? Russia? Prussia?

[pinto]

23. kick.

[Just Me]

8. I can only HOPE it means that the constitution will stay intact!!!

These greedy, stingy, power-grabbing assholes behaved way beyond the limits of their authority,...and obviously KNEW that they were acting in contradiction of existing law. Worse, they freakin' conspired to find ways to violate the laws of this land.

Ewwww,...I just get so,...:argh:

Justice is so damned slow and entirely too late in the most abusive and violent of circumstances,...it seems. We really need to invest a helluva lot more money into reviving justice than building WMDs.

[charlyvi]

24. After all, it's a....

..."new world" after 9-11 (I'M SO TIRED OF HEARING THIS!!) The Constitution does not reflect this reality (extreme sarcasm)

[Leilani]

9. Very interesting & hope it is true.

We will see if the Court is protecting our Constitution or the criminal.

Also, I am waiting for the Cheney Energy papers decision.

[gristy]

10. Cheney energy papers.

I profess ignorance... Are they to hear a case regarding those? What is the case? Somebody vs. Cheney, of course, but who is Somebody?

[Spazito]

11. Judicial Watch is one of the parties wanting the list of attendees

at Cheney's Energy Policy meetings. Cheney has claimed Executive Privilege and the USSC has heard the case but has not rendered a decision yet.

[Zynx]

14. Cheney Case not very good

The arguments by the Sierra Club et al are not particulary good from a legal point of view. Cheney is probably going to win, and not because of Scalia being in the case. Could easily be 6-3 in favor of the veep, I'm sorry to say.

[Spazito]

21. It is interesting because, if Cheney wins, it will set precedence...

giving the Vice President the power to assert Executive Privilege which has not been the case previously.

"The Constitution vests the Executive Power in the President. So long as the President remains healthy, the Vice President has no constitutionally assigned executive function. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the Vice President's role is legislative in nature: to preside over and break ties in the Senate."

The above snip was taken from a Findlaw article on Executive Privilege. It is an interesting article because it goes on to discuss whether, because it goes back to the Clinton era where the discussion of who can assert Executive Privilege over meetings between
Executive officials and persons outside the government and how the previous legal debate might affect the outcome of the current case re Cheney.

The link to this article:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html

[charlyvi]

19. Sierra Club

is one of the parties suing as well, I think.

[Just Me]

16. A decision is supposed to be rendered this month!!!

I'm trying to find a linky,...

,...oh, this one will do, I guess,... http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/15/scotus.cheney/

Anyone wanna guess WHY Cheney is fighting the release with a vengeance?

Can you imagine yet another "war crime"? Oh, yeah,...I know you can.

These documents could pull together the ultimate criminal conspiracy.

[Elidor]

12. Conventional Criminal Case?!

HA! They've shot that foot off already. No lawyer, no rights. These bunglers have all but ensured that he'll be out of prison in a very short time.

INCOMPETENT.

The supreme irony was their own confession that if they accored him any rights whatsoever, he would walk away a free man. Rather than seeing a problem with their approach, they decided it was the human rights that had to go.

IDIOTS.

[qanda]

15. Is this why General Myers came out today saying

Something about not being comfortable calling it the "war on terror"? I'm not sure about the details, but I remember reading something like that today.

[Armstead]

18. Gosh they might have to treat an accused criminal as a criminal.

What a blow. They might actually have to go through the criminal justice system to deal with an alleged criminal. What a novel concept. What a blow to actually have to follow the damn Constitution.

Bush fascistas...@#$%^$#%$#@!

[DemoTex]

20. Meanwhile, Kerry lurks in the wings to balance the court.

Pray for the day. Even if you are not the prayerful type (like me).

[frank frankly]

25. kick

:kick:

[frank frankly]

26. kick

:kick:

[Gothmog]

27. Important cases due by end of month

The three "enemy combatant" cases and the Cheney case. In addition, there is the pledge case.

I hope that all of the cases go against Bush but could live if the Supreme Court finesse the pledge of allegiance case. Since Scalia refused to recuse himself from the Cheney case, I am afraid that this is the case that could go in Bush's favor or is sent back for a procedural reason.

The next couple of weeks could be fun to watch.

[Ms. Clio]

28. kick for the Bill of Rights

I hope this turns out to be true.

[DaveSZ]

29. We'll get to find out which of the justices are true fascists

who don't believe in our Constitution.

My guess:

Scalia
Thomas
Rehnquist