Jun 29, 2006 
John O’Neill and Scott Shane report for the New York Times:
The Supreme Court today delivered a sweeping rebuke to the Bush administration, ruling that the military tribunals it created to try terror suspects violate both American military law and the Geneva Convention.
In a 5-to-3 ruling, the justices also rejected an effort by Congress to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
And the court found that the plaintiff in the case, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden, could not be tried on the conspiracy charge lodged against him because international military law requires that prosecutions focus on specific acts, not broad conspiracy charges.
Naturally, the three dissenters were Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Roberts didn’t vote because he had ruled (in favor of the government) on the case as an appeals court judge last year.
“Noone ever elected Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter or Kennedy, nor should we want to let some number of aging inside the beltway lawyers assume the role of CIC,” says this rightie, in a fervent declaration of support for totalitarian rule. Another calls it “a huge political gift for President Bush” and predicts Bush and Congress will “override” the decision. I’m sure Republican operatives are cranking out “judicial activism” talking points even as I keyboard.
Other rightie reactions: “A victory for terrorists!“; “Can’t Try Them, So Fry Them!“; “Instrument of Surrender Signed by SCOTUS.”
And that’s without looking at Malkin, the nice doggie or the LGFers. I understand Malkin’s head spins around and vomits blood when these things happen.
For a more sober analysis, see Glenn Greenwald.
This decision illustrates just how critical is the current composition of the Supreme Court. The decision was really 5-4 (because Roberts already ruled in favor of the administration in the lower court). The Justice who wrote the majority opinion, John Paul Stevens, is 86 years old, and as Justice Blackmun once famously warned, he “cannot remain on this Court forever.” If the Bush administration is permitted to replace Stevens with yet another worshipper of executive power, the next challenge to the Bush administration’s theories of unchecked power could very easily result, by a 5-4 vote, in the opposite outcome.
Our nation hangs by a thread, and that thread is John Paul Stevens.
Further,
Congress can reverse almost every aspect of the decision as it specifically pertains to these military commissions. It could abrogate any treaties it wants. It could amend the UCMJ to allow military commissions with the rules established by the President. It has already stripped the Court of jurisdiction to hear future habeas corpus challenges by Guantanamo detainees, and could act to further strip the Court of jurisdiction in these areas. We will undoubtedly hear calls by Pat Roberts, John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions, Tom Coburn (and perhaps Joe Lieberman?) et al. for legislation which would accomplish exactly that.
Have I mentioned that it would be extremely beneficial to the nation if the Dems took back Congress this November?
Update: Just so you don’t have to click on the Nice Doggie’s site to see what he wrote, you can click here to see a screen capture.
Update update: See also Scott Lemieux on Hamdan and on the Myth of Conservative Judicial Restraint.
14 Comments 
