Get Your Personal
On-Air Report Here
 
  What's Hot | Search |  
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Posted by: Tom DeLay at 11:25 AM

The Supreme Court’s decision last week in Boumediene v. Bush has justifiably called down the exasperation, incredulity, and anger of people who have actually read the United States Constitution. In case you missed it, the 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by the Court’s four avowed liberals extended for the first time in history habeas corpus rights to captured military combatants.

In doing so, the Court struck down a 2006 law passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, which specified the procedures by which captured terrorists held in military prisons could receive due process. The 2006 law, the Military Commissions Act, was only written, passed, and enacted because the Supreme Court in 2004 demanded that Congress do so. Put another way, as of last week, the Supreme Court – and more specifically, Justice Kennedy – has declared itself the final authority on making war, incarcerating enemy combatants, and, indeed, on the American people’s right to self-government.

This is not judicial activism. It is judicial tyranny.

Neither the United States military, its elected commanders in the executive branch, nor its representatives in Congress are now in control of America’s prosecution of the war on terror. Justice Kennedy is, or he seems to think.

Until he is disabused of this notion by a Congress with the guts to assert itself, the following not only may happen, but will, and very quickly:

- Captured terrorists will refuse to answer any questions without access to a lawyer;

- Captured terrorists will demand the public disclosure of the military’s evidence against them, thus exposing the means and methods employed by our intelligence community to gather such evidence;

- Captured terrorists will demand to confront their accusers, who will be soldiers on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, in open court back here in the states; and,

- Captured terrorists will go venue shopping, filing their habeas claims in dozens of courts in hopes of getting the most liberal activist judge they can find.

The question isn’t how bad this decision is – it’s an outrage. The question is, what are conservative legislators going to do about it. Beginning in 1996 and continuing throughout the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, we had an aggressive, concrete agenda to combat judicial activism and supremacy.

Because Congress creates lower federal courts, Congress can also set its jurisdiction. Thus, except for the narrow field of cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction – cases involving individual states, ambassadors, and the like – Congress can simply remove the Supreme Court from the picture. A “court stripping” strategy would reassert the legislative and executive branches’ co-equal status as interpreters of the Constitution. Much of the groundwork has already been set.

In September, 2004, the House passed the “Pledge Protection Act,” which removed the jurisdiction of lower federal courts and the Supreme Court to review any controversies surrounding the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

In 2004 and 2005, House conservatives introduced and vocally promoted similar legislation stripping from federal courts jurisdiction over any question stemming from a public official’s acknowledgement of God as the basis for our laws and government. The House also passed similar court-stripping legislation pertaining to homosexual marriage in 2004.

And all the while, Republican Houses of Representatives passed resolution condemning judicial activism, including judicial mischief such basing decisions on foreign law. Finally, in November, 2005, the House of Representatives passed a bill to break up the consistently radical 9th Circuit Court of Appeals so to introduce some degree of rational jurisprudence to its jurisdiction.

The principles of that agenda can and should be revived and made a major issue in this year’s general election. Resolutions can be introduced condemning the decision, and these superficial actions are a good start. But Congress has far greater authority to end judicial activism than most people realize.

Contrary to the Court’s liberal majority, the United States is our government and our country, not just theirs.Congress has the power to take it back, and Republicans looking for a clear-cut issue that differentiates us from the Democrats should start taking it back.



View in ascending order View in descending order
dskerman writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 11:58 AM
Liberal Majority?
Umm... last time I checked there were two justices on the supreme court who were picked by Clinton.

Every other justice was appointed by a Republican president.
dskerman writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 12:05 PM
Now on the merits
I'm really getting sick of these broad assertions that now the supreme court is "running the war on terror"

Habeas corpus is specifically set up as the method prisoners held by the executive branch have to challenge their detention.

Since the military commissions are a part of the executive branch, military tribunals are not an effective replacement for habeas review, as essentially you have the executive branch reviewing itself, which as any rational person would agree, is not true oversight.

Thus because the constitution specifically forbids the removal of the habeas privilage except during rebellion or invasion, a habeas review must be allowed to these prisoners of the executive branch.

This is why 5 legal minds decided as they did.

And for one more point on the "liberal court" claim. The writer of the majority opinion Justice Kennedy was appointed by Reagan for crying out loud. The same man who appointed Scalia. So the idea that he is some sort of Liberal bent on imposing his bias on America is laughable.
Dread writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 12:24 PM
New hidden clause
Apparently there must have been a new secret clause in the Constitution stating that the Supreme Court really is a subordinate branch of government whose sole job is to rubber stamp every act of Congress and the Executive without regard for its Constitutionality.
Independent Thinker writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 12:44 PM
Ah, dskerman,
Such logic.

And Warren coud not have been a liberal because he was appointed by a Republican...???

Duh...
Independent Thinker writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 12:47 PM
And I say...
Just who decided that the SCOTUS was immune to the checks and balances of the US constitution?

They did, or course...

What the Bush administration should do is simple:
Like Jackson, they should say, "...now let them enforce it."
Pat writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 12:47 PM
Liberal Majority?
"dskerman":

So what if most of these liberal justices were appointed by a Republican president, they are still liberal, and are NOT interpreting the Constitution, they are MAKING NEW LAW!

These enemy combatants are NOT U.S. citizens. The Constitution applies to citizens of this country, not individuals picked up on the field of battle.

These 4 liberal justices and Kennedy are bound and determined to make OUR constitution apply to everyone in the world, because they believe we should live as those in Europe, etc. etc. live.
Libertarian Scum writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 12:49 PM
Good Lord...
Says Delay:
"Neither the United States military, its elected commanders in the executive branch, nor its representatives in Congress are now in control of America’s prosecution of the war on terror. Justice Kennedy is, or he seems to think."


Will the shrill hyperbole never cease?
Dread writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 1:00 PM
Court
[Just who decided that the SCOTUS was immune to the checks and balances of the US constitution?]

They cannot make law. They cannot declare war. They cannot make the budget. They cannot appoint Federal officials. They are appointed by the Executive with approval from one house of the Legistature.

Part of their job is to review matters of constitutionality as a preventative measure against Congress and the President from overstepping their bounds and passing laws that violate the Constitution.

That's what they did. It's not activism.
Moonkeeper writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 1:26 PM
Avenge Kelo
The biggest slap in the face the Supreme Court has given us is Kelo vs. New London. Boumediene vs. Bush pales in comparison in importance.
dskerman writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 1:28 PM
Liberal Judges?
So under what basis are you making your assertion that they are deciding cases based on a "liberal bias" rather than on the merits of the law?

Is it whether or not they agree with you?



Also the claim that the constitution only applies to citizens is simply not true.

The constitution is a set of rules governing the actions of the federal government. When our federal government acts it is bound by the constitution. It has nothing to do with who the federal government is acting upon.
ira writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 3:01 PM
Liberal Majority
since when did Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy become a liberal? He sure wasn't liberal when he was voting to strike down affirmative action in state and federal programs.

also, i agree with dskerman in that the constitution has nothing to do with whether or not you are a citizen of America. if that were the case, visitors, tourists, diplomats, ambassadors, etc would not have constitutional protections in this country, which clearly is not the case. it is to act as the legal guide for the three branches of the federal government, with the SCOTUS having the final say on what is or is not acceptable.
Brett writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 3:13 PM
dskerman did you even read the article
DeLay wrote "The 2006 law, the Military Commissions Act, was only written, passed, and enacted because the Supreme Court in 2004 demanded that Congress do so."

So a law was written and passed to handle enenmy combatants using military tribunals.

If US Citizens can be denied their habeas corpus rights during an insurrection/rebellion; where do you get the idea that enenmy combatants have any rights to habeas corpus?

Delay correctly points out the problems with giving enenmy combatants access to our Courts to use our legal system to go on fishing expeditions to gain access to military secrets.

Only fools would allow their enenmies access to their court system. Imagine if we captured 100,000 enenmy combatants who all sued in court for their freedom.

dskerman you are either a fool, a muslim sympathizer or a Democrat idiot.
mlund writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 4:16 PM
One more in a long string of abuses
I'm deeply amused at the comment about just how limited the Judiciary truly is. One person remarked that "they do not make the budget." This is truly how it was intended to be, but it no longer reflects reality. We live in an era where judges now impose fines and injunctions against states to control their budgetary process.

For example, a judge decides that it is a "civil rights violation" that the state or county does not spend a certain % or $ amount on Bilingual Education Instruction. He then assesses a fine amounting to tens of millions of dollars a month against the state or county in question. Worse, he may obstruct the distribution of Federal Funds to the state or county to get what he wants.

The idea that the Judiciary has no budgetary or executive powers has been discarded by the Neo-Communists like Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. It's been that way for decades. Did you ever notice that everyone turns a blind eye to the gross abuse of the separation of powers that took place during forcible school integration during the 60s? Admirable goals and compassionate feelings do not excuse deplorable methods.
Cat writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 4:40 PM
judicial tyranny.
" It is judicial tyranny" I couldn't agree more. We, the American citizens, have tolerated this tyranny way too long. We must have recourse from the liberal elitist, wearing black robes and thinking they have the right to rewrite the Constitution! Impeach. Remove. Get them out!
An Instinctive Gesture of Reciprocal Liking writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 4:51 PM
Mlund
You may have a point (btw, you don't), but when you use meaningless terms such as "neo-communists" you sound like Hannity-tuned windbag.

Maybe that's your intention?
orlandocajun writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 5:20 PM
There's a liberal pattern
dskerman writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 1:28 PM
"Liberal Judges?
So under what basis are you making your assertion that they are deciding cases based on a "liberal bias" rather than on the merits of the law?

Is it whether or not they agree with you?"

Example: The 5 liberal judges decided that "public use" really meant "public benefit". A second grader can interpret public use to mean the public gets to use it!

Example: The 5 liberal judges decided that unabridged speech only meant if it wasn't in the context of a political campaign. A second grader understands what unabridged means.

As to the recent terrorist friendly decision...there's Supreme Court precedent and law passed by Congress that authorized the military in this case. Only liberals would want to send terrorists to U.S. Courts to face more liberal judges that will just set them free, or worse give them a trial in a U.S. Court.

The liberal bias in obvious to anyone with an IQ of 50 unless you can believe that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are liberals.



planet gene writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 5:28 PM
First Causes
Calm DOWN, everyone. Maybe we need to step back and take a look at what's going on here. If you are a Christian and you value everyone's soul equally, you ought to see clearly that "There but for the grace of God go I." How would YOU like to be incarcerated for an indeterminate amount of time with no hope of having your status resolved. Would you like that, Bunkie? If these detainees are criminals, why can't we put them on trial? If the evidence is secret and we don't care to divulge it, that's like not having evidence, right? So Muhammed goes free. If he goes back to his old ways, perhaps some nice CIA agent could take him out. But at least our right to habeus corpus is absolutely preserved.

How long is an enemy combatant an enemy combatant? For as long as this war lasts? And which war is that? Is it fair to let him rot in a detention center, away from family and, well, his life for years and years? When does he get his life back?

So many subtle questions require nuanced answers, not the mindless pabulum I'm reading here.

But just remember, when you no longer care whether Muhammed is truly guilty or not, as determined in a court of law, congratulations, you have given up your humanity. In the end, that's what habeus corpus represents.

It's that simple.
orlandocajun writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 5:51 PM
Planet Gene
"So Muhammed goes free. If he goes back to his old ways, perhaps some nice CIA agent could take him out. But at least our right to habeus corpus is absolutely preserved."

Maybe Mohammed blows up a shopping center with your family in it.

"Is it fair to let him rot in a detention center, away from family and, well, his life for years and years? When does he get his life back?"

If he's a terrorist...yes and never

"How long is an enemy combatant an enemy combatant? For as long as this war lasts? And which war is that?"

Yes, the war on terrorism

"But just remember, when you no longer care whether Muhammed is truly guilty or not, as determined in a court of law, congratulations, you have given up your humanity."

I just want the military to decide and not a bunch of bleeding heart liberals. If that surrenders my humanity, so be it. Maybe it'll save a few families.

Your hearts in the right place, but our survival trumps habeus corpus which isn't supposed to apply in war. Read the constitution.
Recovered Lib writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 6:11 PM
I've said many times before
This country is in DESPERATE need TODAY for conservative and courageous leaders who will grow a spine and take a stand FOR the United States!

If not, We The People have the right, nay the duty, to take back our country.

For the love of God and country, we MUST throw the cowards out and put in courageous, patriotic God-fearing Americans back in ALL branches of government.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Please sign this petition and forward it to everyone you know.


http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/PFROG/index.html
planet gene writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 6:18 PM
Someone We Can Both Live With
Anybody starting a "Draft Ron Paul" movement? A conservative with a brain -- AND some courage.
Dread writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 6:43 PM
Reply
[So Muhammed goes free. If he goes back to his old ways, perhaps some nice CIA agent could take him out. But at least our right to habeus corpus is absolutely preserved.]

Of course, there's nothing to say Muhammed is actually guilty beyond the word of our leader, as a fair number of detainees weren't picked up on the battlefield or engaged in acts against our troops.

[Your hearts in the right place, but our survival trumps habeus corpus.]

What a far cry from, "Give me liberty or give me death."

In the grand scheme of things, my survival or your survival isn't that important. We will all die eventually be it from a car accident, an act of violence, or heart disease.

But I'm not willing to throw away fundamental civil liberties and rights for the sake of a little promised security.
TopGun writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 7:35 PM
Don't Tread On Me

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Our founding fathers were wise men and the more a country veers from the sound principles and the moral cornerstone which it was established under, the more destructive it will become.

Our founding fathers where gifts from God almighty and our Constitution was created with the holy spirit holding the pen that wrote it. Any force, any person or any enemy over the course of eternity who dares to usurp it will have an ultimate price to pay when the people rise to defend it when if ever the need rises.

Dare not take what you cannot defend, for the human spirit of a free society will always usurp the power of all enemies.
observe1234 writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 10:21 PM
Agree with Ira,
since when is Justice Kennedy a liberal? The fact is, he is not a liberal.
HughOhio writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 11:04 PM
Recovered Lib
Anybody who thinks the current Republican Party is a Conservative Party cannot possibly be a "Recoverd Lib".

Making the transition from a liberal to a neocon is an easy one. At it is the neocons who currently run the foreign policy aparatus of the Republican Party.

They came from the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party. Apparently so did you. How they hijacked the Republcian Party I'll never know.

Recovered Lib writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 11:11 PM
No longer a Republican...
I do NOT think the current Republican Party is a Conservative party! I never said that in my post neither is it inferred.

Nowhere in my post do I declare that the GOP is conservative. That's PRECISELY the problem with the GOP party today. They have moved way too far to the left and have abandoned conversative principles.

Your response is typical of liberals. You "read" into things that just simply are not there and then reduce to name-calling. So very typical of liberals.

Next time READ what is written.
Sue writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 11:11 PM
Courts
If the judges take over, no shock to me.

I live in CA. We vote on various measures/bills and then someone takes them to court and they get overturned or thrown out.
HughOhio writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 11:26 PM
Recovered Lib
You call me liberal?...now that's just about priceless.

No true Conservative can get terribly worked up over this Supreme Court decision -- as George Will ably shows.

It is only political hacks trying to score some points that hitting the roof.

It is very clear from your comments that you believe George Bush to be a conservative in matters of foreign affairs.

You believe that RINOs have taken over the party in domestic matters -- where you happen to be right.

But George Bush is anything but a conservative with this "war on terror" and I was stunned to see Scalia, who claims to be a Conservative, use the phrase "War on Terror" and "Islamic extremists" as the "enemy".

Not real conervative does. In fact, it is liberal who usually come up with unclear definitions.
knight_of_baawa writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 11:28 PM
Tom DeKGB
No Tom, we will NOT submit to a police state.

No Tom, we will NOT let you take away our rights.

No Tom, we will NOT go quietly to the death camps.
Recovered Lib writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 11:32 PM
No longer
Nope. You're wrong again. And yes there are many "true conservatives" who are justifiably outraged at the SC decision.

And with that I wish you a good evening.

HughOhio writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 11:43 PM
Recovered Lib
"there are many "true conservatives" who are justifiably outraged at the SC decision."

That's ridiculous. It is one thing to appreciate Justice Roberts concerns. Quite another to have cow over it. And no true conservative dismisses habeas corpus for anybody without profound reservations and misgiving -- which certainly do not show up in your posts.

Justice Kennedy is a Reagan appointee, and it is the Reagan Republican Party that the current Republican Party needs emulate.

bryce writes: Tuesday, June, 17, 2008 11:43 PM
Location, Location, Location
What the court has said is that territories under US control are subject to US law. The court has held that opinion since the establishment of Indian territories in the early 19th century.

Hence, detainments in these territories are subject to the ultimate US law, the Constitution, which insists that due process be integral to all detentions by the gov't.

Traditionally, treaty agreements like the Geneva Conventions have covered foriegn fighters, but since these enemy combatants are not POWs, military tribunals apply as in Qurin and Eistangler.

The problem is that the military tribunals created by Bush and the Legislature contain language which expressly suspend the writ, strictly unConstitutional, and allow hearsay and evidence obtained by coercion, violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

But all is not lost. Considering the court's repeated references to the UCMJ it seems to me that if the admin and legislature created tribunals strictly ahering to the UCMJ, the SCOTUS would find it a suitable substitute for habeus as it has in the past.

activated writes: Wednesday, June, 18, 2008 6:45 AM
Hmmm....
What would happen if instead of blowing themselves up, one million terrorists just decided to surrender and when they find themselves on U.S. soil, they all sue?
Libertarian Scum writes: Wednesday, June, 18, 2008 6:52 AM
Interesting article
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-06-16.asp
Libertarian Scum writes: Wednesday, June, 18, 2008 6:53 AM
activated
Your solution is to imprison them forever without judicial review?
Barbara writes: Wednesday, June, 18, 2008 10:07 AM
Supreme Court
I am outraged with what the Supreme Court (SC) has done to reverse the will and votes of the people. It is no surprise that the SC took on the big issue of gay marriage first. The SC knew that people would be too afraid to go after their ruling. Those who did yell about the ruling should have taken on the issue of the SC changing laws instead of gay marriage. We gave the SC an inch and now they have taken the mile - habeas corpus rights for terrorists! Lovely - not!
Libertarian Scum writes: Wednesday, June, 18, 2008 11:21 AM
Fixed it for you.
"habeas corpus rights for [accused] terrorists!"




badboy writes: Wednesday, June, 18, 2008 12:32 PM
dskerman, as George Will...
pointed out yesterday, our supreme court isn't infallible. Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson- do those ring a bell? What about the much more recent Kelo decision?

You act like there ought to be absolutely no controversy about this decision- that it's so openly obvious as set forth in the Constitution. That must be why 4 of the 9 justices disagreed with the majority.

Judges are, contrary to what some believe, human beings who do not suddenly lose all their prejudices, personal beliefs, biases, and personal shortcomings the moment the don their black robe. All their foibles influence their subjective interpretation of "the law". They're not sprinkled with magic dust, and last time I checked, people have a right to crticize their rulings.

Just cuz you agree with the majority doesn't mean the majority is above reproach or that their decision was correct.
rockisback1@yahoo.com writes: Thursday, June, 19, 2008 8:54 AM
go get 'em felon
I really trust the judgement of this convicted felon. He speaks for us fellow felons. Go get em Tom. Give em one for us.
For long the voice of felons have being ignored. No longer.
planet gene writes: Thursday, June, 19, 2008 9:19 AM
Clarification
rockisback1, for the record, Tom DeLay is not a convicted felon.
bob writes: Thursday, June, 19, 2008 1:27 PM
Planet Gene
This argument becomes semantical with regards to Habeas Corpus. Here is why: if a president suspends that writ, then he can absoultely have you detained indefinitely without trial or public disclosure of evidence. The constitution has always granted the POTUS that ability.

The question then becomes, if the president were to officially suspend the W.H.C. would you support that? Ok, perhaps you do not recognize this conflict as a real war. If you did, would you THEN be ok with keeping suspects locked up indefinitely without trial?

The reason I do not "fear" the government's capture and imprisonment of these men is because I do not believe they are simply locking people away at random for no reason. There would be no point. I have been told that many such prisoners have been released, and as such we must assume they were innocent. No, what we must assume is that guilt could not be proven, and that tells me the system is working and that the government is seeking justice. Otherwise, why release them?

I will say this: if the government begins holding US citizens without trial then you and I will both be outraged. But as of now, I can not get excited about the detainment of non citizens captured in a war zone. And the reason is simple: I do not believe the government has any agenda other than finding and prosecuting bad guys.
bob writes: Thursday, June, 19, 2008 1:32 PM
Kennedy
People continue to remind us he is a Reagan justice, and as such, he could hardly be called liberal.

Really? It seems to me that Reagan could hardly have appointed a super conservative justice when the democrats in congress had to agree. Does anyone remember what happened to Bork?

Reagan had to appoint someone the dems would push through and thus, we got Kennedy. It was assumed he would fall more on the right of decisions than on the left. It was a bad assumption. A gamble that did not pay off. But please let us stop with the whole, "Justice Kennedy is a conservative" argument. It is just silly.
planet gene writes: Thursday, June, 19, 2008 4:47 PM
A Nation Without a Soul?
bob, I don't "fear the government's capture and imprisonment of these men" either. I really don't give a damn about them one way or the other, to be honest.

I'm just applying the Golden Rule: I would want a fair and speedy trial. I would want to be returned to my family and friends as soon as possible. While waiting for my trial, I would not want to be tortured or otherwise subjected to intensive questioning. Wutcha got on me, Copper? I don't have to say a word, ya know? Get that mutt away from me, and leave the tweezers on the table. Here's my name and serial number. I'm going back to my cell now. Talk to me again when you're ready to tell me why I'm here. I'll let you know if you need to assign me a lawyer. Heck, even the most gruesome Nazis had lawyers.
Sign Up to Post Your Comments Sign Up to Post Your Comments
Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered, click here.
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
 

ABOUT THE BLOG
The importance of the blogosphere in shaping and motivating the current conservative movement is unquestionable not only has it served as an important tool in breaking through the liberal MSM clutter but it has helped to keep our elected officials true to princicple.
This blog is meant to further the online discussion in the marketplace of ideas.
Young America
Young America's Foundation
Panel Discussion: Remembering Reagan
Listen Now Listen Now
Click to download Podcast Podcast
Daily Commentary
Daily Commentary
The First Press Conference
Listen Now Listen Now
Click to download Podcast Podcast
Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager
Open Lines
Listen Now Listen Now
Click to download Podcast Podcast
 
funnies
Archives
Blog Search: