Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 2, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed


sign up to get updates

Satellite Mapping Shows Ice Caps’ Faster Melt Rate

Truthdig Bazaar


By Lawrence Lessig

more items

A/V Booth

‘Left, Right & Center’: Supreme Court Rules, McCain Rails

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 13, 2008
Left, Right & Center

How did the two presumptive presidential nominees react to Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo Bay prisoners have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in court? Find out on “Left Right & Center,” KCRW’s weekly radio show on current events and politics, featuring Matt Miller, Arianna Huffington, Robert Scheer and guest host Amity Shlaes filling in this week for right-leaning regular Tony Blankley.

Listen to the show:



Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

skulz fontaine's avatar

By skulz fontaine, June 15, 2008 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

Did you know that the clown prince of judicial fascism, Tony ‘the gavel’ Scalia, is mad as heck at Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Well, Tony ‘the gavel’ certainly is. From deep within the recesses of America’s Supreme Star Chamber comes this juicy little nugget of gossip. Seems that ‘the gavel’ misplaced a brand new whip and then “accused” Justice Ginsburg of “deliberately” hiding his new toy. Ginsburg “allegedly” told Tony ‘the gavel’ to “grow up and get a room.” Scalia was so incensed at Ginsburg, ‘the gavel’ spit all over a brand new set of robes that he’d just purchased for a “commencement exercise” and stomped off to his office and slammed the door so hard that a portrait of Earl Warren was dislodged from the hallway wall. Justice Ginsburg was quoted as saying, “serves the temperamental little flagellant right. Pitch a fit with me and I’ll slap his opus dei into tomorrow morning!”
Poise and decorum Supremes, poise and decorum!

Report this

By mimi, June 14, 2008 at 9:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

your comment about michelle obama provided great comic relief to a not so comical day.  thank you!

Report this

By mpkirby, June 14, 2008 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

I’m sorry—I meant to say that in 1990, CHINA imported none of their oil.  Not the U.S.


Report this

By mpkirby, June 14, 2008 at 8:47 pm Link to this comment

I’m disappointed in Bob Scheer’s analysis that Hummer’s didn’t rise 5x, so therefore a 5x increase in price is due to Bush’s “mess in the middle east”.

In fact, oil production and consumption trends are quite well documented.

A quick browse at the U.S. demand (black line in the graph), and you will see an increase of about 3 million barrels per day from the last recession to now. (from about 17mbpd to just over 20mbpd)

By contrast China went from 3mbpd to over 7 mbpd.

I believe that much of the demand in china is a consequence of the outsourcing of our own manufacturing base.

Thus you could argue that the profligate American lifestyle went from 1990 - (17+3=20mbpd) to 2007 (20+7=27mbpd).  That’s an increase of 25%

On the supply side, in 1990, the U.S. imported none of their oil in 1990.  By 2007, they are importing about 50% of their oil (4mbpd).

The U.S. went from importing 7mbpd to about 13mbpd.

In net the U.S. and China went from importing 7mbpd to importing 17mbpd.

In other words, out of the entire world’s 85mbpd production quota, 10mbpd (or 12%) can be traced directly to increased energy use between the U.S and it’s major outsourcing partner.

Finally, add in the increase in production between 1990 and now. oil production.png

We go from producing 65mbpd to 85mbpd.  The U.S.‘s increase in consumption (as defined as U.S. plus china) is responsible for consuming 50% of that growth!

Bob—I appreciate the hard work you do on that show, and your other new endeavors.  But this issue is much more complicated then either the simplistic analysis I just did, or the simplistic analysis you did on your show.

I think it deserves some detailed investigation, and I would love to see your next book or truthdig investigations into it.


Report this

By GrammaConcept, June 14, 2008 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment

But your commentary is Never worthless…
Thank you, once again, Professor Canning.
We strive on.

Report this

By cann4ing, June 14, 2008 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment

This session is truly disappointing.  The fact that Boumediene v Bush was not a “close case” or a “bombshell” simply because it was a 5-4 decision.  The fact that the vote on the court was close is attributable solely to the fact that there are now four members of the Supreme Court who are affiliated with the Robert Bork-founded, Richard Mellon Scaife-funded Federalist Society.  All four subscribe to a concept known as “Unitary Executive” theory.  Unitary Executive theory was not covered in my Constitutional law classes when I attended law school in the mid-70s.  That’s because Alito did not invent it until he served in the Reagan administration Justice Department in the early 80s.

“Unitary Executive” is not merely a radical but subversive theory that would extend unchecked powers to an American president that are even greater than those held by the Crown at the time of the American Revolution when individuals indeed had a right to habeas corpus—the right to have an independent judicial body review the lawfulness of executive detention.

As Justice Kennedy observed, quote The Federalist No. 85:  “The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”  Kennedy recognized that, by seeking to eliminate the right of habeas corpus, the Republican-controlled Congress and Bush administration had made a direct assault not only on individual rights but on the very concept of a separation of powers.  He carefully analyzed the Suspension Clause, which provides a very limited means for which habeas corpus can be suspended, and soundly demonstrated that its requirements cannot be met to deprive the Guantanamo detainees of that right.

It is absurd that the commentators did not invite either someone from the Center for Constitutional Rights or a law professor to discuss the significance of this decision.  Ignorant commentary, irrespective of whether it comes from left, right or center, is worthless.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.