SCOTUS: Bush overstepped authority at Gitmo

I will be interested to see what the Administration does. It has several options to work with to get the result it wants. If it sets up a "competent tribunal" under Geneva, that tribunal can determine that the detainees do not qualify for Geneva protections. Bush can go to Congress to set up the tribunals and my guess is that in an election year, he could get the GOP to push it through. The fact that Congress already passed the Detainee Treatment Act will help Bush...the only reason that it didn't end Hamdan's case is because Hamdan had already filed before it went through. Did this decision hurt the Bush Administration's policies? Undoubtedly. At the same time, Stevens left a multitude of doors open for Bush to get around the decision and get his tribunals. My guess is that Bush will follow them -- he would be more likely to ignore it if he had no options remaining.

 

That, Ragu, is a hell of a post.

And I never thought I'd say this, but I'm disappointed in Scalia, too.

I usually disagree with him, but he's usually consistent.

 

He doesn't ask questions because he only asks questions if he...has a question. Unlike Scalia, who asks questions as ways to set up softballs for the side he likes or to needle other members of the court or to generally be a pain in the ass, Thomas only asks questions if he needs something cleared up. After reading the briefs, Thomas generally has a pretty good idea of how he is going to rule (just like every other Justice) and is honest about it. And I wish the Justices would write fewer concurring/dissenting opinions. It would clear up the court's rulings....there is nothing more frustrating than reading this:

STEVENS writes an opinion, which KENNEDY joins, except for Part IX, where STEVENS wistfully remembers his high school girlfriend. GINSBURG writes a concurring opinion, in which SOUTER, BREYER and KENNEDY join, except for Parts VI(A) and VI(C), in which SOUTER writes a concurring opinion and BREYER agrees, except for the part when GINSBURG says the 1927 Yankees were better than the 1975 Reds. ROBERTS writes an opinion concurring in the judgment, but dissenting on the reasoning, claiming that a Big Mac does taste better than a Whopper. SCALIA writes a dissent in which ALITO and THOMAS join. THOMAS writes a dissent in which SCALIA and ALITO join. ALITO writes an opinion in which SCALIA and THOMAS join.

If you agree with the opinion written by another member of the court, sign your name to it and be done with it. It makes it much easier for lower courts to apply SCOTUS precedents when the Justices give a clear opinion and they aren't worrying about how to apply the Kennedy concurrance.

 

Interesting, then, that your boy Thomas is the most frequent dissenter.

But a crack legal mind like yourself already knew that.

 

It hardly started with the Warren Court.
After all, Mr. Dooley warned us that, "th' Supreme Court follows th' illection returns" back at the turn of the century.
And PDB -- the decision does not leave the definition of "competent tribunals" up to the administration. It leaves the definition up to the people who monitor compliance with the accords.

 

My defense of Thomas is simple. I don't agree with all or even many of his views (the only Justice I really like is Roberts). But I despise it when it is implied that he is Scalia's lapdog or that he's just keeping the bench warm or that he is making up the law out of whole cloth. He takes being an orginalist and a minimalist to its logical extreme. You claimed that his opinions have nothing to do with the law. I asked you to back up that claim and you punted, proving that you're just talking out of your ass. You also claimed that he is a moron, another claim that I look forward to hearing you prove.

EDIT: Yes, Thomas is the most frequent dissenter and he, like every other Justice, writes too many concurring/dissenting opinions. For example, I wish Alito/Thomas/Scalia had worked together as one to write a single dissent. But the real target of my ire is Kennedy (and was O'Connor when she was on there), who would would routinely join the majority in the result, but the not the legal analysis, turning the decision into a 4-1-4 ruling and making it extremely hard to determine exactly how to apply that precedent. Look no further than Kennedy's concurrance in the Vermont campaign finance case, which really leaves the entire case up in the air and only guarantees that the issue is coming back to the court in some form.

 

Ragu, that's been happening since the midnight appointments in 1801. Old hat.

And Marshall tried to do away with some of the silliness Pope alluded to by assigning a single jurist to write for the majority, allowing the Court to speak with one voice even when its members disagreed.

 

Ragu--
I think that people think the Warren Court "ramped it up" -- your phase, although not necessarily what you meant - because, for the first time, the momentum of the law began to get behind those people against whom it had ground away for the previous 200 years. Miranda was good for law enforcement, not bad. Brown v. Board was good for the country, not bad. Gideon was good for the judiciary, not bad. Griswold was good for us all, not bad.

 

Thank you for the legitimate response.

If Thomas really wanted to carry originalism to its logical conclusion, wouldn't he resign?

Originaliism, like its academic counterpart authorial intent, is a fool's paradise. Sounds good, doesn't work.