AAR reported that the supreme court would overturn the torture bills

[gully]

BUT, that it would take a couple years and that in the end Bushco would be absolved of war crimes?

I guess the good news is this torture "shit" is likely temporary, the bad news - Bush and his ilk will not be tried in the courts for their deeds.

[rockymountaindem]

1. How long is that going to take?

Anything more specific than "a couple of years?"

[gully]

7. I think they speculate it will take a couple years to move up the chains?

eom

[annabanana]

2. how?

Someone would have to appeal.. Someone who had been harmed by the bill.. But the bill does not allow for appeal. There is no habeas corpus.. Just how is someone, declared an "enemy combatant" supposed to appeal with no right to a lawyer?

[gully]

9. It was explained here yesterday.

I think "harmed" is an iffy boundary perhaps?

[Cleita]

3. Not exactly. They said the Supreme Court COULD

overturn this. Speculation.

[gully]

6. They said it would happen.

*shrug*

I hope they're correct.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Maybe the habeas corpus aspect will be overturned.

Overturning the other provisions seems unlikey to me, though of course I'd like it if it happened.

[PoiBoy]

5. consider this...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/28/193836/545?detail=f

it makes a lot of sense, IMO..

:hi:

[gully]

12. Has this been posted in a thread of it's own?

We need a bit-o hope.

[mmonk]

13. When the Center for Constitutional Rights worries,

I worry.

[Julius Civitatus]

8. They came, they pillaged, they shat on our laws, and got away scott free

The Bush administration will be remembered as the biggest con ever played on the history of America. And they all will get away with their crimes, as they all will pardon each other and never have to account for their many crimes.

[jayctravis]

16. Just imagine what Mr. Bush will be like when he is no longer

President.

I sincerely doubt people will pay to hear him speak.

He will need a team of protectors and yes-men around him wherever he goes.

He will never have any freedom other than that giant compound of his in TX which will need to be guarded 24-7.

[havocmom]

10. The Court that is even more stacked with neocon enablers

that the one that anointed the puppet and allowed the junta to take over America through subverting a presidential election? That court is gonna overturn Cheney's get out of jail (in the Hague) card?

I doubt it. :grr:

[lastknowngood]

11. They can't they are explicitly excluded from having any authority over

this bill.

[gully]

14. Read this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/28/193836/545?detail=f

[VP505]

19. I wish I

had confidence in what I read there at KOS, but with the way the Democratic leadership keeps bending over for Bu$h it's very, very hard for me to believe that they have the will to change anything if they get control. If we can't count on they to oppose crap like this, how can we count on them having the will to fight for change???

[gully]

20. The leadership isn't bending over backwards, a handful of idiots

with a "d" after their name did so today.

I am angry, sad, stunned. But, I shall vote D in November, and deal with the garbage in the party when the next opportunity arises.

[Malikshah]

15. Uh...it's called the principle...

folks at AAR and elsewhere need to look into it.

[Rex]

17. And how are they going to do that without habeas corpus

pray tell? Me thinks the SCOTUS got a little more than it bargained for when they installed El Chimperor.

[gully]

18. See here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/28/193836/545?detail=f

??????

[Rex]

21. That didn't help.

I see hysterical people telling other hysterical people to 'calm the fuck down'. How will the SCOTUS review cases that don't apply to the Judicial Branch? What if Bush and Congress revoke SCOTUSs power of judicial review?

[gully]

22. "Revoking power of the judicial review"

they can't, fortunately.

[Rex]

25. Never say that.

'They can't' applies to people who follow the law.

[pinto]

23. I think the Supreme Court will overturn the bill as unconstitutional.

They are already on record and are usually adverse to let a dubious challenge to a recent ruling pass their muster. They could avoid the issue, I suppose, but as far as I know, the SCOTUS has always favored upholding a previous ruling without some clear legal challenge. I think it's feasible they will see this legislative end run as just that, and strike it down.

[gully]

24. I hope so, and I hope it is done soon.

nt