SCOTUS: Bush overstepped authority at Gitmo

I bet Sam Alito likes to get spanked.

 

Clarence Thomas' opinions rarely, if ever, have anything to do with the law.
He's a moron.

 

Please tell me the last Thomas opinion you read and give me your careful legal critique of his analysis. I eagerly await your response.

 

The last one I read was his dissent in this case and its legal reasoning can be fairly summed up by the phrase, "Yes, sir, Mr. President. Whatever you say."
Anyway, here's another take:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/hamdan_summary.html

 

I'll not make the claim that I'm sifting through Clarence Thomas's opinions, Pope, but I can claim that I read this one. And it has very little to do with the law or the Constitution.

Surely you're not arguing that.

As for this ruling, at what point can we fire Fredo's dumbass? Seriously. He works for us. If we're running a business and Fredo's an employee, he woulda long since been run. You only get to screw up a couple of times and you only get to scheme and lie and screw up once in a real job, even if you're the Board-appointed CEO. This guy schemes and lies and screws up on a weekly basis. And if the Constitution is his employee handbook, well ....

 

First of all, I can't even access the PDF at the Supreme Court website, so I can't tell you what I think of Thomas' opinion. I'm guessing that it is similiar to Hamdi -- Thomas has always had the most expansive view of Executive power. I don't agree with it, but to say that it has nothing to do with the law or the Constitution is wrong.

The most underreported part of Stevens opinion is this part (taken from the same website FB linked to):

The Court expressly declared that it was not questioning the government's power to hold Salim Ahmed Hamdan "for the duration of active hostilities" to prevent harm to innocent civilians. But, it said, "in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction."

What SCOTUS basically said today was, "You can hold Hamdan without charges until we are done fighting AQ. But if you decide to try him, you have to do it the right way." Look for the Bush Admin to seize on the first part.

 

PDB --
Yeah, but it also says, in no uncertain terms, that, if you're going to hold him in what is essentially POW status, which is the only status this decision has left the administration with, then the Geneva Conventions has to apply, which, as the link I posted argues, is the end for the blank-check on torture, among other things.
My previous favorite Clarence moment was his dissent in the Arkansas term-limits case a few years back -- sorry I can't find the cite -- in which he essentially channelled the spirit of John C. Calhoun. A historical irony, if nothing else.

 

So basically we can keep locking up terrorists. Sounds good to me.

 

Read the decision, please.

 

Off the top of my head, the last one I remember reading was the Miller-El death penalty case. He's had several other howlers as well, but I'll let you do your own research.

And Clarence Thomas can read a book, but you're a condescending prick, and that lasts forever.

 

I was going off of what you just posted. If we can still hold them as POWs that's fine by me.

 

But we have to hold them AS POW's and under Geneva. ALL of Geneva. This takes a big chunk out of what the administration perceives to be its virtuallly limitless power during wartime. No more water-boarding. No more hypothermia. Regular investigations by human-rights organizations. The works. Also "military tribunals" are dead.