Friday, June 13, 2008

Guest Post by Odin


The Supremes decided to give our Guantanamo guests the right to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Good guys: Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, bad guys: Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (source)

Since the vote was split 5:4 there must be some controversy over hugely ambiguous language in the constitution or else some one never bothered to read it. How could 9 intelligent grown ups not agree on what was written long ago in Philadelphia? It seems to me that someone is making things up. It is true that the Supreme Court judicial power shall extend to all cases between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. That phrase mentions foreign citizens, but not explicitly people waging war on the US with out the sponsorship of a foreign government. True it is also that the Constitution does not explicitly mention disputes between the US military and foreign enemy combatants. Well, I take it back perhaps there is some ambiguity there. So the Supreme Court should not consider such a case as the constitution does not say any thing about such a case, let congress make any laws it do desires and let the administration apply any rules it sees fit under those laws. But do not try to rewrite the constitution!

Who are those 5 people that have taken upon themselves to invent history: Stevens appointed by Ford is very liberal and surprisingly did not attend Harvard as the other bad guys did but did work for the government on anti-trust. Kennedy, appointed by Reagan, is a swing voter but sat on the 9th circuit so probably got his brain fried there. Souter was a surrender option by Bush 41 after Bork got borked, which should be a reminder to do a good job even if you are sick of the job. Breyer: Clinton, Harvard, San Francisco and yet another antitrust lawyer -- need I say more? Ruth (buzzy) Ginsburg has a resume which must of impressed Clinton, but not me: fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, was instrumental in launching the Women¢s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU¢s General Counsel and on the National Board of Directors.

Given that we abide in the rule of law, most, and I predict, all Americans shall abide by this decision. To contest it by force of arms would be foolish. Places were rules are decided by force are really bad places to live. Consider Afganistan. I did not choose it for any political reasons, it just happened to be the first country at the bottom of the list that was not in Africa and I did not want to be accused of racism. It has a gross domestic production per capita of $1000. The US as one of $45,000. For a very crude comparison the rule of law is worth $44,000 per year per person to us.

~Odin

No comments: