Court rules on Guantanamo, Bush pouts & whines

The SCOTUS ruled today in favor of Gitmo detainees, stating that they have the right to challenge their cases in US courts. President Bush, on his “Farewell tour” in Europe, reacted rather predictably:

“We’ll abide by the court’s decision,” Bush said during a news conference in Rome. “That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.”

“It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented,” Bush said. “And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security.”

As usual, what Mr. Bush failed to grasp was that the SCOTUS isn’t there to uphold his personal opinions about national security. The SCOTUS is there to interpret the Constitution, and whether or not the cases brought before it reflect the Constitution, or are in violation of it. In this case….well, duh. It is not lawful to detain people without charging them. It is not lawful to withhold due process, or a trial in front of a jury of one’s peers.

This is no longer about national security, if it ever was. It’s about an insistence of the unitary executive; a concept so deeply flawed that it has divided and fractured our country’s political landscape to the extent that it will take decades to mend. Last time I checked, the entire reason this country exists is because we decided a “unitary execuitve” doesn’t work.

Since Reagan, the SCOTUS has been used as a political football (possibly even earlier, but it became more evident during the Reagan administration). It seems the term “activist judges” is only applicable when decisions are made with which one disagrees. But the fact remains, our President is under the impression that congress and the Supreme Court exist only to make and interpret laws of which he approves.

November can’t come fast enough.

Advertisements

2 responses to “Court rules on Guantanamo, Bush pouts & whines

  1. “But the fact remains, our President is under the impression that congress and the Supreme Court exist only to make and interpret laws of which he approves.”

    And you think this usurper has more nobel ideals… there are several points of view on how this branch should protect and interpret the constitution…but by no stretch does BHO have the respect for the constitution that would even bother with these 2 branches… he’ll just add footnotes.

  2. So, more of what we’ve had for the past 8 years, then? That’s a depressing thought.

    Can you still call someone a “usurper” when they win by that large a margin? I mean….if it were as close as it was in 2000 or even 2004, sure, but… this was a pretty decisive election.

    I’m more concerned right now in seeing what he’s going to do about the Patriot Act and restoring the rights we’re supposed to have than I am about how he “interprets” the Constitution. Mainly because it isn’t his job to interpret it. It’s the court’s job.

    If you’re so concerned about the other two branches, let me ask…doesn’t it frighten you that our current POTUS relaxed the checks and balances system that was in place specifically so the President could NOT become so powerful? And did you support it or decry it when it happened?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s