Bush is in trouble with SCOTUS - Sparks flew as they shredded his case

[Rose Siding]

Oh, snap, reports the NYT-

At least five justices — Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens — appeared ready to reject the administration's argument that the Detainee Treatment Act, passed and signed into law after the court accepted the case in November, had stripped the court of jurisdiction.
....
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement was on the defensive throughout his argument. His stolid refusal to concede that any of the government's positions, on the jurisdictional as well as ultimate questions of the case, might present even theoretical problems provoked the normally soft-spoken Justice Souter into an outburst of anger...

..."Isn't there a pretty good argument that suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is just about the most stupendously significant act that the Congress of the United States can take," he asked, "and therefore we ought to be at least a little slow to accept your argument that it can be done from pure inadvertence?"

When Mr. Clement began to answer, Justice Souter persisted: "You are leaving us with the position of the United States that the Congress may validly suspend it inadvertently. Is that really your position?"

He said, flying around the room, robes trailing. Then Clement stupidly tried to draw a distinction about the writ as applied to enemy combatants outside US territory-

"Now wait a minute!" Justice Souter interrupted, waving a finger. "The writ is the writ. There are not two writs of habeas corpus, for some cases and for other cases. The rights that may be asserted, the rights that may be vindicated, will vary with the circumstances, but jurisdiction over habeas corpus is jurisdiction over habeas corpus."

Bless his heart! It's dizzing to hope that some sanity will be imposed on the bushbots. To think that these five could rule on the legality of suspending *giggle* habeas corpus, or *guffaw* the Geneva Conventions is too too delicious.

What I want to know is how did Justice Ginsberg keep a straight face?-

Mr. Clement argued that the detainee law would allow a detainee to argue in federal court, after a conviction by a military commission, that the commission's procedures were illegal or unconstitutional.

Justice Ginsburg then asked him to "straighten me out." She said, "I thought it was the government's position that these enemy combatants do not have any rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States."

"That is true, Justice Ginsburg," the solicitor general answered.

http://users.deltacomm.com.nyud.net:8090/rainbowz/laughter.JPG

[napi21]

1. The audio of this was on cspan tonight.

It really did seem to cause sparks to fly!

[land of the free]

2. wow. I can't wait to see the formal rulings.

And I wish I'd heard the audio on CSPAN!

[pacalo]

17. Go to www.c-span.org. It's first on the "video/audio" list.

[leftstreet]

3. Ginsburg = "straighten me out."

Why do I get the feeling some of these judges have just been WAITING for this opportunity?

:rofl:

[Rose Siding]

4. That's just the impression I had- that they'd RELISH the chance

to dance on his head for a little while. :rofl:

[radio4progressives]

6. that scalia is a scumbag that needs to be impeached from the bench

as soon as the dems take back the house.. before bush, it's easier to do than the president anyway..

[ClintonTyree]

23. Scalia and the new kid on the block, Alito....

bent over backward to side with the BFEE on this. No big surprise there I guess. Everyone knew that "Scalito" would do whatever backed up the bush administration's position. I'm SOOOO glad the Democrats "kept their powder dry" and didn't filibuster Alito. :sarcasm:
The man is a carbon copy of Scalia. Let's just hope longevity doesn't run in his family or Scalia's.

[mmonk]

27. Me too

"I'm SOOOO glad the Democrats "kept their powder dry" and didn't filibuster Alito"


We need more mainstream decisions such as allowing Alito to the bench. Only us "fringe" people would want to keep Mr. "unitary executive" off the bench.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

37. Precisely what I was thinking.

You know that the powder stored under the Maginot line was dry for years afterwards?

[radio4progressives]

5. this gets nominated from me... love the pic too! so perfect!

i listened to this morning on C-Span on line...

i'll have to listen to it again later, i rather enjoyed it.

by the way, i just absolutely loved this imagery:

He said, flying around the room, robes trailing. Then Clement stupidly tried to draw a distinction about the writ as applied to enemy combatants outside US territory-

[lindisfarne]

9. c=span has something you can watch

In the little box on the top the main c-span page, it has links to video/audio to recent highlights. If the hamden one isn't there, try clicking on the little arrow and see if it comes up for you.
They have a video, which is essentially the audio with some pictures c-span has provided.

Correction: FIRST click on Supreme Court in the left margin.

Also, I responded to the wrong post; mean to respond to the one that said "I wish I'd heard the audio."

[land of the free]

16. ooh, thanks for the tip on watching CSPAN online.

I want to see their faces, particularly the looks on the faces of the justices while Souter and Ginsberg were making their statements.

[Rose Siding]

12. That's what they get for only providing audio

:) Thanks (The pic is Judy Garland -that laugh is full of just the sort of release this court exchange made me feel)

Those Justices read the news, too. They could make a broad interpretation, and with Roberts off this case, my heart beats faster. We have to remember how nervous the admin has been over some of their flakier arguments.

snip>
One lawyer involved in the interagency debates over the Geneva Conventions issue recalled a meeting in early 2002 in which participants challenged Yoo, a primary architect of the administration's legal strategy, when he raised the possibility of Justice Department war crimes prosecutions unless there was a clear presidential direction proclaiming the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. The concern seemed misplaced, Yoo was told, given that loyal Bush appointees were in charge of the Justice Department.

"Well, the political climate could change," Yoo replied, according to the lawyer who attended the meeting. "The implication was that a new president would come into office and start potential prosecutions of a bunch of ex-Bush officials," the lawyer said. (Yoo declined comment.)

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=Convict_Memos

[NYC]

7. Recommended.

This is good news.

[Talismom]

39. It's good news for as long as these guys stay alive and on the bench! n/t

[BuyingThyme]

8. kcik

[TahitiNut]

10. It's on CSPAN right now, and even Scalia is jabbing Clement.

The Justices' voices drip with sarcasm and cynicism. It sure as hell doesn't sound like they're buying any piece of the Bushoilini bafflegarb. Will their 'loyalty' to the Judicial Branch outweigh their cronyism? Time will tell.

[Pachamama]

22. I turned it on because I couldn't find anything worth watching and I was

listening closely and with excitement as I listened to the arguments. Neal Katyal is a law professor at G-Town University. He is fantastic and I have a relative who works with him at G-Town and have actually exchanged some emails with him. I was embarressed once because I wrote an email to my relative saying how I thought Neal Katyal rocked and she forwarded it to him...He actually responded....

Your absolutely right Tahitinut that the Justices' voices were dripping with sarcasm and cynicism...it couldn't have been more obvious from the questions (even from Scalia) that their disgust and disdain for the bullshit eminating from Clement the Solicitor General was that his arguments were a crock of shit.

I think even Scalia realized that the arguments were such a stretch that he couldn't side with it and keep any credibility...

Can't wait for the decision and opinions on this one....

[BR_Parkway]

34. Or Anthony's chance to get back at Shrub for passing him over

when he appointed Roberts as Chief.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Recommended.

I listened to the audio on Npr and loved every minute of it.

[flyarm]

13. well well......................now if that isn't just peachy!

little lord pissy pants i believe is going to be taken to task for breaking our laws..by the supreme court..without roberts and alito!!

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

finally!!!!!

and justice for all

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

fly

[pacalo]

14. Recommended!

[Rainscents]

15. I highly recommend this!!!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[pacalo]

18. Heee...

I saw the original adverb in your post & I thought you were mocking a new freeper misspelling find.

This story is HUGH!

[Rainscents]

19. LOL... I took some pain med, so I wasn't paying attention!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

20. This sounds good

I'm going to dare to be hopeful here.

Just like Justice Souter said, "The writ is the writ."

[Solly Mack]

21. I listened - it was great.

Here's The Witch's thread on the hearing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=774448&mesg_id=774448

[ClintonTyree]

24. Once again, Clarence "Slappy" Thomas asked no questions.....

remained silent during the entire dog and pony show. He was deep in thought, no doubt. :eyes: Scalia will tell him how to rule and that will be that. Thomas is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. His intellectual laziness and downright disregard for the rule of law make him the biggest buffoon to ever grace the chambers of the Supreme Court. The man is as dumb as a post and just sits there pretending to know what they're talking about. Like I said, Scalia will tell him how to rule, if he hasn't already and that will be the end of it.

[Skittles]

25. he doesn't ask questions because he feels he doesn't need to

he's a republican whore who votes with Scalia - they are both scum

[Disturbed]

28. The SC is still upholding The Constitution of the USA.

Next up: The Illegal Spying by NSA and the Neo Fascist Bush Regime?

[OzarkDem]

36. Clarence is a rubber stamp

He don't need no stinkin' questions..

[regnaD kciN]

26. It will be interesting to see the ruling on this...

If it's the 5-4 defeat I've been expecting, it means that Bush need only get one more pick on the Court for it to go his way in the future. :scared:

If one or more of the Four Horse's Asses of the Apocalypse (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) votes against the government, it will be a pretty strong signal to Bush that his claims of executive power are so extreme, they won't even be able to get past conservative Republican jurists.

[Rose Siding]

33. Roberts isn't hearing the case- He recused himself because

he decided on it in the appeals court when he was there. To hear it again here would put him in the position of ruling against (or for, duh) himself = conflict of interest.

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. I just hope those 5 STAY HEALTHY!

We all know what's waiting in the wings. I can't help think about
"Pelican Brief" every time I think of the SC's potitical make-up.:scared: I really want to hear this case on C-SPAN. I hope they replay it this weekend when I have the time to listen to it.

That last Ginsburg exchange is unbelievable! WTF? Does the Government know how stupid they sound/look talking out of both sides of their mouths? sheesh!

[cantstandbush]

30. Dems should be making it clear that this is what you get when Rethugs

name the judges. They do legislate from the bench in favor of the Republican Presidents and administration policies. But then, there is no opposition so why complain?

[lala_rawraw]

31. Can someone translate from

legal into english for me? i am listening and even Scalia seems skeptical, but i don't know why, lol.

[Rose Siding]

32. There's some good analysis here-

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014404.html

and here the ACLU defines the stakes-

http://blog.aclu.org/index.php?/archives/23-Whats-at-Stake-in-Hamdan-v.-Rumsfeld.html

Basically, the govt has put the court in the position of defending its jurisdiction. Scalia, Alito and Thomas may resent the hell out of it but it's unlikely that they'd ever find against their king.

[Nothing Without Hope]

35. May these good, sane justices (and they deserve the title) remain SAFE

from serious health issues and wingnut assassins, because their slim majority in the SCOTUS is all that stands between us and legalized theocratic fascism. THey are all being pressed hard to retire, and at least some of them have received death threats. The Bushies want the SCOTUS in their corrupt pocket and have made it very clear to their ravening hordes that the non-wingnut judges stand in their way of promoting their version of a "Christian" state.

The courage of these sane justices is inspiring. They know very well what they risk by standing up to the cabal and its lawless hordes.

[Roland99]

38. Why don't Scalito just get a room? Such a cute couple.