Saturday, July 01, 2006

Who checks the Supreme Court?

On wednesday, the Liberals on the Supreme court "ganged up" against the conservatives and issued their political opinion against President Bush. As has been widely reported, in 2005 the Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act. That act says UNAMBIGUASLY in section 1005(e):

Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider - an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who is currently in military custody; or has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant...

Now the ruling by the Supreme Court says the President overstepped his authority as commander and chief to setup this military tribunals. It seems clear to me that the U.S. Supreme Court overstepped its authority in even hearing the case which resulted in this illegal opinion.

The majority opinion tried to sidestep this law by saying that the Detainee Treatment Act was not clear as to whether it applied to the Hamdan case since that case was already in the legal process when the Detainee Treatment Act was passed. That excuse is reminiscent of the history of excuses the Court's Liberals historically used to uphold segregation in this nation. We a can always depend on "moderate" Republicans and Liberal Democrats to circumscribe the law in order to find legal advancements for the lawless.

I am formally beginning, with this posting, the discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court being subjected to any check and balances that is so often said applies to the legislative and executive branches of government. In this system of government, the executive and legislative branches continually check and balance each others power. Both seem to be checked by the Judiciary. However there does not seem to be any check on the judiciary.

Why does the judiciary think that it can decide details of the Commander-In-Chief? Why does the federal judiciary find it okay to use foreign law in rendering its opinions? Is the Supreme Court in violation if it hears and decides cases that it is statutorily prohibited from doing so. If that is the case then what are the sanctions against the Supreme Court? If those who defend the Supreme Court's "independence" against criticisms of the executive branch, legislative branch, and/or the U.S. Citizenry, shouldn't those defenders realize that our criticisms are protected by the 1st amendment AND that the Supreme Court must respect the co-equal independence of the other branches of our federal government? The Supreme Court's "Supremacy" is only supreme in the judicial branch, not the executive and legislative branches.

I do not believe that the Supreme Court had any jurisdiction in deciding details of the Commander-In-Chief. The President in his capacity as Commander-In-Chief is limited by the constitution and review by the legislative branch...only! Military jurisprudence is specifically designed to keep the civilian judiciary out of military affairs - especially during wartime. The Supreme Court must begin respecting the rule of law and end this riotous behavior of simply ignoring law that it does not agree with while trying to direct the nation to conform to its opinion - garden variety hypocrisy!!

We, the citizens of the United States of America are entitled to a government - including the judiciary - that is responsive to "We The People", and not to the terrorists of the world. I have begun this debate and I hope that it will continue with some civility.

Mali D. Currington

No comments: