The Supreme Court may very well strike down this bill.

[pinto]

Just an aside to the issue, but SCOTUS is already on record and has a history of upholding previous rulings unless there's a clear legal challenge. They may very well see this legislative end run around their judicial authority as just that and strike it down. Again.

One would hope, at least. Habeas corpus is pretty basic to our rule of law.

[MrCoffee]

1. Which does not change the basic fact that the Senate Dems caved

They caved. In exchange for 5 amendments, NONE OF WHICH PASSED, they caved.

[pinto]

6. No it doesn't change today's votes. It may reinstate habeas corpus though.

[The Magistrate]

9. Put Bluntly, Sir, That Is Nonesense

Twelve Democratic Senators voted for the measure: the total voting for it was sixty-three. That makes those twelve votes meaningless, as the measure had a majority without them. Whether the calculation of those Senators that this throw-away vote would be of assistance to them politically in their states is or is not a sound one is uncertain, but that calculation is far from "caving in", and most of the denunciations being aimed at them here tonight are quite over-stated and un-called for.

[cynatnite]

11. Exactly! n/t

[ddeclue]

17. I disagree..it gives Bush "bi-partisan" cover for this evil.

This is one time that we should have voted with one voice - NO.

"Evil is still evil in anybody's name" - If Dirt Were Dollars, End of the Innocence, Don Henley.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[The Magistrate]

20. My Preference Would Have Been, Sir, A Straight Party-Line Vote

But it remains the case that the twelve votes were meaningless in terms of passing the measure, and the level of outcry denouncing them as treason and worse quite misplaced.

The enemy remains the Republican majority. they are responsible for the measure's passing in the Senate: no one else is.

[ddeclue]

21. Of course the Republicans are the Dark Side but..

the fact remains that the Republican spin meisters will spin this as having "bi-partisan" support which makes it appear even more legitimate to the world.


It's EVIL.

We shouldn't be sleeping with the Devil because it's politically expedient.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[The Magistrate]

27. And The Line Some Here Are Pressing, Sir

Plays into that effort, should it be in fact made, by indulging in the pretence that Semocrats are in some way in some degree responsible for the measures conceivedm promoted, opressed, and passed by the Republicans.

"Focus on a single enemy is necessary for success in any campaign of mass agitation."

[ddeclue]

32. Except you can't make your case because of the dirty dozen..

Sorry, it's out of your hands now because it will be spun just as I have said as "bi-partisan".


Doug D.

[The Magistrate]

35. Not Really, Sir

The "bi=partisan" line will have little heft, driven only from the other side: it looks weak, as if they are seeking cover for something they are ashamed of, and in any case, the mass of the people see more clearly than many activists apparently do what the real relations of power are in the Capitol. They know this is Administration, Republican policy, and if they do not like it, that is who they will punish for it at the polls.

[ddeclue]

37. Except that THEY not WE have the megaphones...

It's pretty clear that the media has been in the Republicans pockets in recent times.

Doug D.

[Art_from_Ark]

23. I disagree

Those 12 votes could have been used to start a filibuster, and stop this Frankenstein monster while it was still on the gurney.

[The Magistrate]

30. We Will Never Know, Sir, For Certain

Who indicated a disinclination to fillibuster, and why.

[peacetalksforall]

26. Arithmetic aside, Dems were morally wrong. Our heritages -

wiped out. For now or forever?

[The Magistrate]

31. Arithmetic, Sir, Cannot Be Put Aside In Politics

Simple arithmetic is the essence of politics; everything translates into it, and it decides all.

[silverojo]

22. Oh, then, let's pat them on the back for this!

My God, they voted for TORTURE. If you can't grasp that this is the single most evil thing a human being can do....

[The Magistrate]

28. Humans Can Do Lots Worse Than That, Sir

And very frequently do....

"Once you have gilded it, it no longer is a lily."

[Malikshah]

38. It's called right and wrong. It's a principle.

Hardly nonsense.

This whole "chess game" mentality is what has gotten us into this mess among other things.

People need to stand up for what they believe in and be counted.

It appears that many in congress stand for ignoring the founding documents of our country and piddling away any moral standing we might have in the world.

Regardless of what the SCOTUS does or does not do, regardless of whether folks were trying to protect themselves-- it's called standing up for a principle and would be a courageous and effective tool in any campaign.

[The Magistrate]

40. A Principle, Sir?

"Is there still such a thing as that running about on its own out of doors?"

[Malikshah]

45. Yup. They exist. We just cannot move too quickly when they are

spotted. We may spook them.

They are actually quite refreshing. If they were introduced to voters in a clear, strong language-- voters would instantly fall in love with them, waking from their hundred-year slumber.

[TahitiNut]

43. Under that 'logic' any twelve of the Republican Senators who voted 'Yea'

... should be given a pass for exactly the same reason: their votes were meaningless once the other 51 voted 'yea.' Just how can anyone equitably and ethically hold one 'Yea' vote blameless and another guilty?? That, sir, is a corruption of partisanship, imho.

Insofar as the political calculus of their electorate, Sen. Stabenow has an 8-19 point lead over Bouchard. There's no way in hell anyone can convince me she needed to vote 'Yea' to hold some narrow margin over her challenger. She sure as hell lost my vote.

If anything, those who accept campaign funds from the DSCC and Democratic partisans where those funds were given with certain expectations that those receiving them would act in certain ways to defend individual liberties and human rights bear a greater guilt, not a lesser guilt.

Setting lower standards on one's own party than upon the other is a GOP game. How can anyone call for clean houses with ignored filth in their own living room?

[The Magistrate]

44. Had There Been Twelve Republicans, Sir, Willing To Vote Against It

Not one Democratic Senator would have cast a vote for the measure. Those votes were all decided on once it was clear the measure would pass regardless of how they were cast. None of them had the slightest bearing on any actual defense of, or surrender of, individual liberties and human rights.

[TahitiNut]

46. Had there been twelve more Democrats, Sir, willing to vote against it

Then perhaps some (more?) Republicans would have cast a vote against the measure.

Again, you seem to miss the point I've made. When we surrender our control over our behavior to some codependent partisan calculus of the dysfunctional/corrupt behavior of others, we no longer have any valid ethical base, imho. When the 'logic' is that any vote for which the majority vote against the People should then be unanimous in order to deny the 'opposition' (which is unopposed) any basis for calling the opposition "The Opposition!" ... then there is no opposition and there is no choice.

The thief who steals less is still a thief.

If cows could fly, I'd be in the steel umbrella business.

[Pithy Cherub]

2. SCOTUS 2020 by the time it gets there...

That's a lot of torture...

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. It Will Take At Least 2 Years To Get There

Who knows what the court will look like by then? In the meantime, they can make it common enough, that it will be concrete by the time the court gets to it.

Oh, and in order for it to get there, someone has to be tortured. Nice stuff.

[chill_wind]

7. Yeah. Quite a game plan by our Dem "Leadership."

And if Bush gets to pick just one more Supreme in the meantime....?

[ddeclue]

4. Except that the Congress has carved out a non-judicial niche..

by excluding the Courts from ruling... how do they get around that?

Doug D.

[pinto]

10. I'd think that that very clause would be cause for Supreme Court review.

It remains a *legislative* action, and regardless what it says, and subject to SCOTUS review.

[ddeclue]

14. Read the Constitution...

I refer you to:

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

and

but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

from Article III...

Be afraid..be very afraid..

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[pinto]

29. But there's this from Section 2., same article:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;..."

The first citation you quote seems to refer to *original* and *appellate* jurisdiction, not the basic legal right under the Constitution to judicial review of a legislative action.

The second is pertinent, it seems, to where someone gets tried, but not the basic right to trial.

:shrug:

(aside) I'm not versed in the law by any means, so my take is purely "civilian".

[ddeclue]

34. Dammit Jim I'm an engineer not an attorney...

Likewise, no attorneys here but I think if the Congress can exclude the Courts from both original and appellate jurisdiction, then how does the court get to rule on the law? The court only rules on CASES which means there has to be jurisdiction first.

Never has the court just made a ruling on its own outside of the confines of an existing case.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[The Magistrate]

36. The Court, Sir

Also decides if it has jurisdiction. Judges tend to think they do have jurisdiction, if they want to take a case....

[ddeclue]

5. Except that the Congress has carved out a non-judicial niche..

by excluding the Courts from ruling... how do they get around that?

Doug D.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Catch 22:

No Supreme Court review unless there's an actual case.

No actual case without Habeas Corpus.

[pinto]

12. Yeah, there's got to be a case...

[mmonk]

13. Sure they will when they get the chance. But when will that

be? And how will it reach them with no judicial review?

[pinto]

15. I don't know. But I think the rule of law is worth a long term support.

[Rex]

16. I hope they find a way to do it.

It is their basic DUTY, probably above all others (okay IMO) to defend habeas corpus. Tho they did let posse comitatus fall by the wayside a few years go...so...I'm not holding my breath.

[brentspeak]

18. Not to mention the law can even be repealed by a Democratic Congress

Or, at the very least, weakened considerably to the point that it's a shell of what it is.

[savemefromdumbya]

19. all branches of government are corrupt

I think SCOTUS has a gun to its head

[mmonk]

24. Yes it has. And our future rests now with the judicial branch.

Think of all those rightwingers and the "unitary executive" theory that the gang of 14 let in because THEY WOULDN'T FILIBUSTER. Sound familiar? My fury can't be doused by any excuses people are giving. I'm going to need therapy.

[Tatiana]

25. Constitutional challenge is our only hope that I can see at this point.

I hope the ACLU or some firm specializing in constitutional law will file a legal challenge.

[DemoTex]

33. Pinto sez: Habeas corpus is pretty basic to our rule of law.

DemoTex sez: Habeas corpus is essential to our rule of law.

Habeas Corpus: Working well for civilized people since before 1215 (Magna Carta).

[pinto]

39. I'll kick that!

:thumbsup:

[DemoTex]

42. Knew you would, Bud!

Thanks!

Mac

[Davis_X_Machina]

41. Rescue via the courts not likely.

Jurisdiction stripping by Congress has been challenged before, and upheld.

And the mere passage of the legislation is tantamount to the declaration of an 'invasion' needed to suspend habeas corpus.

From Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money:

Given the power of statist conservatives on the Supreme Court and the fact that Congress' constitutional claims are very strong, and the general tendency of courts to defer to the executive when it makes "national security" claims, it is overwhelmingly likely that if it passes the legislation will be upheld.

[ProfessorGAC]

47. This Isn't Jurisdiction Stripping

You're comparing apples to oranges. This is created a retroactive judgment in direct conflict with the letter of the Constitution. It applies to nothing already done and nobody already in custody, although they are trying to make it so.

The stripping of jurisdiction after the fact, or applying laws to anybody ex post facto, is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution.
The Professor

[Exiled in America]

48. They said they wouldn't in the opinion given that prompted this.

The court said that Bush's current plan wasn't legal, but if Congress passed a law making it legal the court would have no problem with it.