Roberts is right about one thing: the need for this decision creates a whole new world of questions that the Court may have to answer.  That isn’t to say that it should avoid answering this one.  It is a shame that it had to, but too many years of lawlessness under the claim that the rule of law didn’t reach that far required the court to extend the reach of the law where it previously didn’t have to extend.  It is always excess and lack of common sense that impose upon themselves unwanted supervision. Bush and Cheney should have learned that lesson in childhood, not in power.

“By scottk, June 14 at 4:58 am #

“JN, I guess we will just have to wait and see how acurate my statements.”

Nme ONE “progressive” candidate who has been ELECTED president since FDR.  JUST ONE.

“. . . .  As democratic corruption I cited you two very books which begin to detail, all the democratic corruption, . . . .”

According to you—and which anti-Democratic authors?

“. . . . yes I ramble I am more accustomed to discussions with people in person, . . . .”

Try rewriting—which _forces_ one to actually _think_ instead of simply repeating second-hand fake-progressive rhetoric.  A true progressive gets his candidates elected so they can make change.  One doesn’t do that by writing off the majority, which is not across-the-board progressive.

“. . . .  Anyway the fact remains we live in corporate duopoly . . . .”

The facts are these:

1.  You BELIEVE we live in a “corporate duopoly”;

2.  You insist that prevents progressive candidates from being elected; and,

3.  Your solution to that apparent dilemma is to either vote third-party, being utterly ineffectual, or “only” “progressive,” in order not to see “progressive” candidates elected.

“. . . . and I refuse to partake in voting the lesser of two evilism, . . . .”

You refuse to act responsibly based upon the non-new and non-progressive cliche of “voting the less or two evilism”.”

“. . . and will instead support a third party, its as simple as that.”

You have three choicse: (1) be disengaged from the system, thus unable to effect it; (2) engage it fully, with the mainstream, or (3) engage in ir half-assedly by attempting both to reject it and effect it at the same time.  Your approach sums up in one word: impotent.

“No I don’t believe democratic voters are corrupt, only lazy and ignorant of the facts and issues, as evidenced in their massive support for centrist Obama and Clinton.”

Yes: you’ve INTERVIEWED that mass of Democratic voters, so KNOW the realities about them—OR you rely on second-hand cliches from others who ALSO HAVEN’T verified any of those cliches.  Your “political” foundation consists entirely of fantasies of exactly that nature: you IMAGINE those “realities” are true, then treat that IMAGINED FANTASY as “reality”. 

“. . . .  Off topic, I suggest you read Gerry Spence’s “give me liberty” . . . .”

I’ve read it.  Spence has an image/agenda.  And I have an eductaion in law.

“. . . . great book, . . . .”

If one wants to confuse self-serving image-polemics for reality it is.  How much wealth has Spence accumulated by means of his approach?  Can one be both wealthy and “radical”—and, push come to shove—have the “radicalism” be genuine?  What happens when his espoused “radicalism” begins to take hold and threaten his wealth?

“. . . .  Dale Carnegie says ain’t no man ever been wrong, so why try to demonstrate he is.”

Dale Carnegie, master of the propaganda of superficiality.  And a conservative/right-winger to boot.  Want “radical”?  Try Mark Twain.

“I guess I can just be thankful that because of the electoral college my vote in small, very imporant swing states proably counts a hell of a lot more than yours.”

You might actually get to know something about the Founders/Framers and their intents, instead of lazily being satisfied to be drunk on the smell of someone else’s cork.

“By scottk, June 14 at 5:26 am #

“JN, YOU HAVE CONVINCED ME OF THE ERRORS OF VOTING FOR A THIRD PARTY, I WILL GO A HEAD AND JUST VOTE FOR MCCAIN.”

That’s the outcome of your entire rationale: better to have McCain of the massive wealth, 8 homes, and lobbyists-as-campaign-staff than someone not white.  So either vote McCain, against your own instersts, or throw your vote away in the effort to drain votes from the Democratic ticket.

Not-so-by-the-way: Ron Paul, in addition to being a RIGHT-winger, also blocked Kucinich’s effort to impeach Cheney.

“That way hopefully St. Obama of Wall Street loses and we get a chance in 4 years to get a true progressive as our presidential candidate.”

Who was the last “progressive” candidate to actually be elected president?  Name just one.  Then compare that reality with your fantasy that a “progressive” candidate can be elected president _without running to the CENTER_.

Your rationalizations were not new—or “progressive”—in 2000 when they helped Bushit steal the election.

It clearly makes no difference how short or long your rationalization, it remains specious—and incoherent—

“By scottk, June 13 at 5:29 pm #

“JN, first all third parties have been a very important part of our collective history, . . . .”

There is no way that could be true of ALL third parties as that would make for perfection, which is impossible.  There is little to no evidence that third parties have made the differences you hype them into being.  They simply are not sufficiently large or centrist—both of which go together, as the vast majority is moderate, left and right being minorities.

“. . . many surmise . . . .”

Many speculate.

“. . . not to mention woman’s suffrage, the populist movement and the end of slavery all began issues from third parties.”

Rather than use the meaningless phrase, “not to mention,” leave that out along with all the items that are “not to [be] mention[ed]”.  That will reduce clutter, irrationalities, and incoherence.

Otherwise you conflate wildy different and disparate issues.  Abolition did not begin with any “third parties”.  It began with private citizens, and remained with private citizens for decades.

“Second, being able to promise something, McCain and his judges and being able to deliver on those promises are two very distinct things.”

Speculatively, yes.  But the equal speculation goes the other way. 

“Third, I was responding to orther comments here that were pretending that world would end if McCain won, I don’t buy that, things will progressively get worse as they have been, but the world would not end unless these spineless corporate dems continue to roll over for the repugs and the corporations which they have being all these many years.”

And you go on to predict that all those things will happen, and then ignore your own prediction in order to plow ahead with your rationalized disregard for both history and reality.

“. . . .  which is both of these parties are corrupt . . . .”

And below your train of “logic” derails yet again and you show your smug, naive elitism.

“. . . and care far more about money and power then they do about real people . . . .”

Substantiate with more than cliched fake-progressive leftist anti-gum’mint BS.

“. . . I will not vote for Obama but will instead vote for a third party, not because I want McCain to win, . . . .”

Because you don’t care if McCain wins—as you go on to say.  Thus you are lying but expecting to get away with it.  And you fail to disguise your arrogant know-it-all elitism; your mistaking a BS pseudo-cynicism for maturity and wisdom. 

“. . . but because I want to send a message to all the Democratic voters . . . .”

So the two political parties are corrupt—that’s the problem—except that the Democratic VOTERS are corrupt—that’s the problem.  But you’re so all-important that those voters will “hear” your “message” and act as you require they act.

And you know better than the majority, for which you have contempt, even down to determining—without a shred of evidence—that they sit on couches, and not only that they watch TV while doing so, but also know the programs they watch.

Which only means that you mistake unexamined assumptions—yours—for fact and reality.  And that is the foundation of your comfortable, smug sense of superiority.  You rationalize whatever you want, without regard for whether the elements of the rationalization are fact or fantasy, and that is sufficient excuse—it isn’t more than that—for you to presume yourself superior to everyone else.

“By scottk, June 13 at 11:46 am #

“The only McCain would get to put anything like Roberts or Alito on the court is if the democratically controlled Senate rolls over for him, which they do then they have shown their true strips and you were correct in voting for a third party candidate for president, . . . .”

That makes no sense.  If one votes for a third party candidate, instead of Obama, one drains votes away from Obama.  If, howver, Obama is elected, it would be a Democrat nomiating judges for the SC, which means it won’t be a fruitloop.

Your scenario only allows for thse options: McCain, or third party candidate, plus Democratic Senate.

Wake up: the dustbin of history is piled high with third parties; and NO third-party candidate for president has EVER been elected.  So a vote for third party—except to drain votes from McCain—is blindly stupid.

“or they stand up to McCain and we get a moderate justice no further to the right then Beyer or Ginsburg to the left, . . . .”

That assumes the nonsensical: that McCain would nominate moderates.

“. . . . in which case if your third party vote were to cost Obama the election, which it probably wouldn’t,you need not fear the court much more than you do now, . . . .”

Why risk it?—especially in view of your nonsensical notion that if (1) McCain were elected, and (2) the Democratic Congress didn’t “roll over,” we’d (3) somehow automagically get moderate justices.

“by the way the only one who will likely retire is Justice Stevens who is a moderate repug, and may be Justice Souter who is also a moderate repug, so even if McCain wins the make up of the court will not fundamentally change, anymore than the make up of the court would likely fundamentally change if Obama where to win.”

Your “reasoning” is wholly specious.  McCain has promised to nominate extremists exactly like Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas: that won’t change simply bacause a Democratic Congress doesn’t “roll over”.

That means, OBVIOUSLY, regardless Congress, McCain wouldn’t be nominating moderates.  By contrast, Obama would, without question, be nominating moderates, in which case a Democratic Congress is (still) not a factor.

“By The Shepherd, June 12 at 2:46 pm #

“thought ,this was the SCOTUS ,that would do what ever Bush wanted, again you guys were wrong.”

The SC minorty are doing what the extreme right-wing want; they’re doing it, however, in “stealth”: it requires a sense of subtlety, and an eye which doesn’t substitute your extremist ideological gibberish for the rule of law, as do such as Roberts and Scalia.  Scalia, while claiming to be a “strict constructionist”—one who doesn’t “read into” the Constitution words which aren’t in the Constititution—nonetheless does read into the Constitution words that aren’t in the Constitution when it suits his political/idiological—not legal—ends.  The same goes for Roberts, Alito, and Thomas.

In this instance you can see that for yourself: first, there are the actual terms of in the Constitution are as concerns suspension of habeas corpus—in times of rebellion, or invasion—as compared and contrasted with the additional general term “in times of war”.  Thus they are making every effort to do as Bushit wants, even though the 23 per cent of dead-enders who continue to support the Bushit criminal enterprise, of which percentage you are part, are too stupid to see that which is directly in front of their faces.

The question for you, at this point, is whether you are able to reason, or if you are permanently habituated to substituting triumphalist intellectual dishonesty, anti-intellectualism, and out-and-out lying and name-callings therefor.

“If it looks like a terrorist, smells like a terrorist, it must be a liberal.”

If you sound like an elementary school playground-level idiot, then you are an elementary school playground-level idiot.

Terrorists are those who deliberately instill and exploit fear in order to achieve their ends.  And such are the terrorists who comprise the Bushit criminal enterprise.

By still confused, June 13 at 4:59 am #

This alludes to conditions and circumstances requiring judgment, and thus people disagree, and hate ensues. This is our story. Agree/disagree?

“Conditions and judgment” are necessary only to the degree of effort it takes to understand the two speific instances during which habeas can be suspended:

1.  Rebellion.  Which does not exist.

2.  Invasion.  Which does not exist.

There are no other grounds on which habeas can Constitutionally be suspended, the anti-Constitutional views of anti-Americans, regardless their official positions, notwithstanding.

In my prior I questioned the credentials—the misrepresentation—of “KYJurisDoctor” based upon his agreement with Roberts’ misstatement of the actual langauge and scope of the habeas Suspension Clause.

I’ll underscore that questioning based upon the fact that “KYJurisDoctor” wants to rely on and thus advance the false view Roberts’ expressed in his dissent—even though it is the fact that a dissent is NOT LAW.

If one goes to his blog, one will first see his claim to be objective.  Currently, if one scrolls down a bit one will see him characterize the media as “Liberal”—a wingnut lie—concerning a story about ethics—which he clearly lacks—to which he objected.

I think it quite clear the “KYJurisDoctor” has no eductaion in even the basics of law—as I recall from reading his blog some moneths ago, he rejects the FACT of separation of church and state as not being the Framers’ original intent, even though that separation is expresssly stipulated in the body of the Constitution, and again in the First Amendment.

All of which to provide warning to those who might fall for his misreprentation as being a “Juris Doctor” in dishonest effort to hide the invalalidity of his “legal” position/s.

The bottom line is two-fold: Roberts’ falsely malrepresented the content and scope of the Suspension Clause, and dissents to a court holding are NOT LAW for the obvious reason that they are the LOSING argument.

But leave it to a “Christian” to constantly lie, and to so obviously do so as to make it impossible to overlook so long as one is attentive.

“By KYJurisDoctor, June 12 at 6:38 pm #

“While I AGREE with today’s majority opinion that “all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises ‘absolute and indefinite’ control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court,””

Well whoop-de-doo.  Otherwise your “JurisDoctor” claim is false—

“I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, . . . .”

Except that that is NOT what the Constitution stipulates as to the TWO reasons which allow suspension of habeas corpus—in times of rebellion, or in times of invasion.  There is no other Constitutional exception, and no general grant of the power to suspend “in time of war”.

“. . . and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, “as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield].””

Except that Congress hasn’t suspended habeas corpus in conformity with either the Constitution—no rebellion exists; no invasion has or does exist—or the facts concerning the non-declaration of aw.  Rather, Congress—- under REPUBLICAN control—suspended habeas corpus in effort to ensure the success of Bushit’s kangaroo court/show trials.

Everyone paying attention knew and know those facts.  Only some 23 per cent of the population, still Bushit criminal enterprise dead-enders, continue to lie about it.

Putting party/criminal enterprise befoe country is TREASON.  But let me quess: you own substantial stock in the Communist Chinese manufacturer of flag lapel-pins.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

This alludes to conditions and circumstances requiring judgment, and thus people disagree, and hate ensues. This is our story. Agree/disagree?

While I AGREE with today’s majority opinion that “all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises ‘absolute and indefinite’ control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court,” I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, “as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield].”

And it was 5 to 4. This should make it clear to everyone that it is absolutely critical that John McCain not be elected President this fall.