Category Archives: Supreme Court

Court’s Ruling Gives Support To Our Enemy

By HORACE COOPER | Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 4:30 PM PT

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the so-called military tribunals law not only runs contrary to precedent and the U.S. Constitution. It is yet another dangerous example of the judiciary usurping the constitutional authority of the political branches of government and stands sharply at odds with the national security reality that Americans face.

We are in a global war with terrorists who seek to destroy our country and our way of life. This threat is real and actualized: They’ve attacked us at sea and on land, away and abroad.

While we didn’t initially recognize what they were doing, the body count revealed the truth: nearly 3,500 dead in the 21st century.

Unfortunately, this ruling, by denying the seriousness of the threat, will hinder our efforts to keep this number from rising.

While the errors in the case are numerous, several obvious ones must be addressed.

First, this decision marks the first-ever application of a constitutional right of habeas corpus in the entirety of American history for alien combatants held abroad in the course of an ongoing war.

The opinion completely ignores the reality that the “writ of habeas corpus” was always understood constitutionally and in common law as a matter exclusively for dealing with domestic detention — that is, detention inside the U.S. Other than the results of a major power grab by a judicial majority, there is no reason for discarding nearly 200 years of precedence in this regard.

Second, the court engages in a radical manifestation of judicial supremacy when it claims that the Detainee Act of 2005 was some kind of a means for Congress and the president to “govern without legal constraint” outside the U.S.

To ensure that it gets the final say, the court leaps past a basic and time-tested constitutional question of whether the litigants in question even have standing to raise a complaint in U.S. federal courts. As a result, there is no logical reason why the court couldn’t use this same argument as a justification for interfering and overseeing detentions in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere the U.S. is at war.

Third, this activist decision strikes down perhaps the most generous set of procedural safeguards ever afforded military detainees. Congress and the president worked carefully to craft a set of rules — having access to specialists and after careful review and debate.

The court sets aside these findings and doesn’t even list a set of replacements, observing instead that lower courts will develop them subject to their review. This time-consuming process of discovering and navel-gazing is precisely what the framers did not intend, especially with regard to national security matters.

Finally, the liberal majority takes great pleasure in noting that there is no recorded case in American history of denying jurisdiction outside the U.S. This logic is exactly backwards.

It has been so overwhelmingly accepted that the “writ of habeas corpus” applies only inside the U.S., should we be surprised that no one but the attorneys for desperate and dangerous terrorists and their liberal activists on the Supreme Court would make such an argument?

This decision also puts the servicemen and women who actually captured these rogue warriors on the battlefield on an equal playing field in our courts of law. Not unlike America’s failed “catch and release” immigration policy, the court’s actions envision a world where our men and women in uniform risk their lives capturing and detaining some of the most deadly terrorists on the globe only to find them eligible for release after a hearing before some liberal activist judge.

This is unconscionable, and it will mean more Americans are at risk of dying. This is not what our framers intended.

While reported as a loss for the Bush administration, the court’s ruling represents a major setback for our country’s national security. Emboldened terrorists will be less likely to surrender and end their plans for another attack. They will in some sense feel justified.

This ruling not only shackles America’s efforts to prevail in this worldwide clash of civilizations. It also gives energy and succor to an evil and restless enemy at a time when they should be given no sanctuary or encouragement.

Boumediene v. Bush makes it all too clear that courts simply are not the appropriate agents for directing the sophisticated and complicated policy prescriptions of statecraft and national security.

They are ill-equipped to assess the risks and benefits and they are immune from the accountability instrumental in ensuring that policymakers act in a manner consistent with the interests and needs of the American people in matters of national security.

Cooper is a national security and constitutional expert and a senior fellow at the American Civil Rights Union.

 

Advertisements

Oddly Enough: Retired U.S. justice O’Connor unveils video game (Reuters)

By Claudia Parsons

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) – America’s first female Supreme Court justice unveiled a videogame project on Wednesday to teach children how courts work, saying she wanted to counter partisan criticism that judges are “godless” activists…

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN0438944120080606?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews&rpc=69

Virginia Abortion Ban Struck Down

Note:

The ‘peace’ activists want to run away from armed men and turn on helpless infants. These people (leftist antiwar protesters supporting abortion) are nothing but dastards.

 

Article:

 

A federal appeals court panel in Richmond, Va., on Tuesday struck down a Virginia law that made it a crime for doctors to perform what the law called “partial birth infanticide.”

In a 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the law was more restrictive than the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which the United States Supreme Court upheld last year in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Both laws prohibited the procedure known medically as intact dilation and extraction. It involves removing an intact fetus and, typically, piercing or crushing its skull. The more common second-trimester abortion procedure, dilation and evacuation, involves dismembering the fetus in the uterus.

The key difference between the two laws, Judge M. Blane Michael wrote for the majority, was that the federal law imposes criminal charges only when doctors intend at the outset to perform the procedure, while Virginia law also made it a crime for doctors to perform the prohibited procedure by mistake.

“Unlike the federal act,” Judge Michael wrote, “the Virginia act subjects all doctors who perform” the more common procedure “to potential criminal liability, thereby imposing an unconstitutional burden on a woman’s right to choose.”

The Virginia law, Judge Michael wrote, imposes criminal liability on doctors who set out to perform the more common procedure “but who nonetheless accidentally deliver the fetus to an anatomical landmark and who must perform a deliberate act that causes fetal demise in order to complete removal.” The landmarks in question are passed, in the law’s words, when “the infant’s entire head” or “trunk past the navel” is “outside the body of the mother.”

Judge Michael was joined by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz. Both were appointed by President Bill Clinton.

Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, who was appointed by the first President Bush, issued a fierce dissent. “With a troubling opinion,” he wrote, “the majority now seeks to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart.”

“The majority’s selective use of statutory language and its rationalizations,” Judge Niemeyer wrote, “represent nothing less than a strong judicial will to overturn what the Virginia Legislature has enacted for the benefit of Virginia’s citizens and what, in materially undistinguishable terms, the Supreme Court has upheld as constitutional.”

Tuesday’s decision was the appeals court’s second encounter with the law, which it struck down on different grounds in 2005. The Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to reconsider its decision in light of Gonzales v. Carhart.

A spokesman for the state attorney general, Bob McDonnell, issued a statement suggesting that the state may seek a review of the decision from the full appeals court, which is generally conservative, or from the Supreme Court.

“We are extremely disappointed with the divided decision,” said the spokesman, J. Tucker Martin. “We are reviewing the panel opinion at this time and considering all possible courses of action.”

Stephanie Toti, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the plaintiffs in the case, a doctor and a medical center, said in a statement that the Virginia ban was extreme.

“The only way for doctors to obey this law would be to stop performing the most common second-trimester abortion methods,” Ms. Toti said.

 

The Dreaded Reaching Hand of Legal Oppression – Extortionist Racism Charges

It is a crime to be racist. Therefore when racist charges are the subject, prison terms or worse are the predicate. Therefore, charges of racism are a menace to society, extortion to intimidate rivals into silence and compliance analogous to threats of blackballing from society, lynching or some other such thing. The only difference between despised minorities screaming racism and common people carrying pitchforks and torches is that the former have the entire state apparatus at their disposal to legitimize and carry out their vicious attacks. Any comments?

Obama’s Black Ambition

If Barack Obama is running on the platform of being black, then he should lose unless the electorate cows in fear meanwhile justifying their own capitulation by hypocritical accusations (e.g., against conservatives for resisting miscegenation). An economist article suggested that American whites are less racist than they used to be (like in the fifties) because whites have had a seven-fold increase in the proportion of interracial children. This argument infers that whites are racist if they don’t intermarry and that whites are therefore racist by virtue of their skin color. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a racist argument, it leads unambiguously to the conclusion that whites are criminal (because it is a crime to be racist).  Don’t you like how the devil turns things upside down? Very nice logic indeed.

A leftist on tv says that she thinks it’s mean that people won’t vote for a candidate because of his race. On the contrary, it’s mean to vote for a candidate because of his/her identity.

 

 

Kansas Plans to Shake Up State Court Judges

May 14, 2008by Phyllis Schlafly
Kansas will have a proposition on the ballot in November that could send shock waves into the tenure of state court judges. The voters in Johnson County, Kansas (suburban Kansas City) will vote on the right to elect their 10th judicial district court judges instead of having them chosen by the lawyers.
We hear a lot in the media about bringing democracy to the world. Kansans are asking for more democracy in the middle of the United States.
How state judges get their jobs is a matter of state option, and there is a wide variety of rules.
Some state court judges are elected by the people, some in partisan elections, some in non-partisan elections. About half the states, including Kansas, use some variation of the so-called Missouri Plan, a process that originated only in the 1940s, which gives broad control to the licensed attorneys.
Missouri voters are unhappy with their Missouri Plan because the lawyers have successfully placed on the bench a succession of liberal judges, and it may be another six years before a Republican has a chance to be appointed to the state supreme court. In April, the lawyers successfully lobbied against the Missouri state legislature’s attempt to reform the process.
Kansas gives its licensed lawyers an unusually powerful role in the selection of state supreme court justices. Some voters are beginning to see a connection between that extraordinary control and the judges’ widely criticized decision to order the state legislature to appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars of additional taxpayers’ money to the public schools.
The appropriation of taxpayer funds, and the raising of taxes that this necessarily requires, should absolutely be legislative, not judicial functions. The grabbing of spending and taxing powers by the courts is a major reason why we call these judges supremacists.
Under the Kansas procedure, when there is a vacancy on the Kansas supreme court, a Nominating Commission (on which the attorneys enjoy a 5-to-4 majority) secretly chooses its three favorites, and the Governor must pick one of those three. That’s the whole process: no checking, no appeal, no oversight, no second opinion.
This plan is supposed to result in the “non-partisan” and “merit” selection of judges, but scholars who have studied the process have concluded that the commission selects judges based on the socio-economic interests of the attorneys and their clients.
Attorneys are a special-interest group just like any other group that aggressively lobbies for the interests of its members. In Kansas, the commission has had no shame about selecting judges who make political contributions to Democratic candidates.
Kansans are asking, why should the lawyers have such extraordinary control over the selection of judges who will then rule on cases brought by the lawyers who gave them their jobs? Nine other states allow their licensed attorneys to select some of the nominating commission members, but 41 states either give the lawyers no power in the initial selection of supreme court justices or balance the lawyers’ role with commissioners chosen by democratically elected public officials.
We hear a lot of talk today about the need for an “independent” judiciary. We do need a state judiciary that is independent of the attorneys and their special interests, especially the trial lawyers.
Kansans in Johnson County have discovered they have the right to change their procedure and elect their judges. To put this proposition on the ballot, they enthusiastically collected 14,000 signatures, twice the number required.
A judicial activist on the Wisconsin Supreme Court felt the wrath of voters in April when he became the first justice ousted by voters there in 41 years. Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, who had appointed him, called the negative campaign for that seat a “tragedy,” but the real tragedy is when the voters have no say-so in combating the tyranny of the judiciary.
Many important issues face state court judges in addition to school funding. Same-sex marriage was decided by only one vote in the highest court of five states. It’s unlikely that any judge elected by the people would declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, as some life-tenured federal judges have done and may do again.
We’ve got a better chance of sticking with the will of the American people if state judges are elected rather than appointed by lawyers who have an interest in winning big-verdict cases before those very judges.

 

Vote John McCain – And Donate Now!

My Friends,
We have a lot at stake in this presidential election. As a nation, we face many challenges that will require real leadership from our next president. I have said before that this election will be about the big things, not the small things, and I write to you today about one big issue in particular – the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. If one of my Democratic opponents is elected in November, you can rest assured that given the opportunity to appoint judges, they will appoint those who make law with disregard for the will of the people.
There may be at least two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court during the next presidential term. As president, I will ensure that only those judges who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States are appointed. I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their will through judicial fiat.
If you want judges who will clearly and completely adhere to the Constitution of the United States and who do not legislate from the bench to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, then I ask that you join my campaign for president today by making a financial contribution.
I am proud to have played a role in the appointment and confirmation of two great Supreme Court justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito I need your support now so that as your president I can nominate judges like Justices Roberts and Alito. Judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust. Judges who take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives. Judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.
My friends, the future of our country and of the Supreme Court is at stake in this election. If either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected – both voted against confirming Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito – they will appoint activist judges. They will appoint judges who legislate from the bench.
I’m sure I don’t have to remind you how important even one vote on the Supreme Court can be. Issues concerning states’ rights, abortion, affirmative action, the Second Amendment and religious freedom have all been decided by a very slim 5-4 margin.
America needs a leader who recognizes that the people and the states should decide what’s best, not the courts. In order to be that leader, I need your financial support immediately.
Please follow this link to make an immediate donation of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 – any amount up to the legal limit of $4,600.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
John McCain
P.S. To date, my Democrat opponents have raised almost $450 million in their efforts to win the White House. Both Senators Clinton and Obama voted against confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Both Senators Clinton and Obama will nominate liberal, activist judges. As your president, I will ensure that the Supreme Court protects our values. Please follow this link right away to make your donation of any amount, up to the legal limit of $4,600. Every contribution, no matter how big or small, is crucial to our efforts. Thank you.