Friday, June 13, 2008


Yesterday's Supreme Court decision was not only an exercise of judicial activism but also symptomatic of liberal egocentrism and empire-building.

Liberals view this finding as a strike against Bush -- wrong. This finding was a strike against both the Executive and Legislative branches of government who wrote and enforced the laws regarding treatment of terrorist prisoners.
This decision now holds the Judiciary higher than the other two branches.
By reading the Opinion of the Court you see how this decision overrides multiple acts of Congressional law. Is this the egocentrism liberals applaud?

For those who do not understand habeus corpus, it simply means "the right to ensure your government does not imprison you illegally." U.S. prison and jail inmates file habeus corpus pleas continuously. Wartime combatants do not have this right since war is not a law enforcement/criminal justice function (though liberals think they can fight terrorism using law enforcement tools).

The building of Empire is evident in BOUMEDIENE et al. v. BUSH. By extending the US Constitution to non-United States territories, the liberal wing of the Supremes imposed US values in another country, on foreign soil...isn't that what the libs have accused Bush of doing?
What's next? Will the liberal wing of the Supremes impose US taxation laws on US territories (but not sovereign land) such as Guam? Perhaps they will require 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech rights by the governments of Sudan, Iran, or North Korea.

Citizens of other nations, nations that do not recognize the Great Writ (habeus corpus), have had our values imposed on them. Their combatants do not earn this protection. Combatants have never earned that protection.
- The Supreme Court, in 1942, suspended habeus corpus for unlawful combatant saboteurs ON U.S. SOIL.
- In 1950 the Supreme Court denied habeus corpus to lawful combatant German prisoners held in US administered prisons in Germany (Johnson v Eisentrager [1950]).

But it doesn't take war to remove the Great Writ. In 1861 Lincoln suspended habeus corpus on AMERICAN citizens when Maryland threatened to secede from the Union. When overturned by a US Circuit Court, Lincoln ignored the order.

Now, the Supreme Court has reached across a chasm, a gulf that separates U.S. soil from other countries and imposed our laws in an extra-territorial grab for power. EMPIRE!!!

One more point, in Ex Parte Quirin (1942), the Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY found that unlawful combatants could be held without habeus corpus and tried by military tribunals. Importantly, Quirin et al. were captured on U.S. soil. Terrorists are always unlawful combatants since they do not follow the Conventions and Laws of War established by international agreements (see Geneva Conventions of War, Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, et al.)

As cited above, this decision violates several prior judicial precedents.

If the libs are so keen to overrule judicial precedent, maybe Roe v Wade needs another look.


WomanHonorThyself said...

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision was not only an exercise of judicial activism but also symptomatic of liberal egocentrism and empire-building.
amen bro...when will this all end!!!:)

Rogue said...

When democrats turn conservative instead of self-centered.

Frederick said...

You are so lost in the weeds:

Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not "absolute and unlimited" but are subject "to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 44 (1885). Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another. The former position reflects this Court’s recognition that certain matters requiring political judgments are best left to the political branches. The latter would permit a striking anomaly in our tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the President, not this Court, say "what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). - Justice Kennedy's majority opinion

Rogue said...


You unwittingly made my point...
Kennedy is saying that the Constitution reaches outside of the United States....nooooooooooo.

The UNITED STATES Constitution applies solely to governance of the ...wait for it...wait for it...THE UNITED STATES! (Unless you are the Supreme Court and think you can impose it in other countries.)

The role of the Court is to interpret the UNITED STATES Constitution regarding laws -- a Constitution that applies solely to Americans, not the world...(which is why the Court has no say on treaties unless those treaties directly impact US Citizens.)

Thanks for pointing out the libtard Justices' collective arrogance.

More pertinent to this case, after a District Court ordered Lincoln to restore Habeus Corpus -- he ignored them. That case involved US citizens.