McCain's Supremes Defeated, Habeas Corpus Becomes Law Again

Asked about his model Supreme Court justices during one of the four dozen Republican debates held under a model of Ronald Reagan's plane suspended from the ceiling in Simi Valley's RonnieLand Park, Senator John McCain easily barked the names Roberts and Alito as ideals of the robed upper classes. Well, today McCain's models of right-wing judicial intervention bit the dust - along with the clownish knee-jerk automatics Scalia and Thomas - as the U.S. Supreme Court returned habeas corpus to precedence. In the matter of defendants held without charge or representation in Guantanamo Bay, the Court declared Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional.

Mark ye well those Democrats among us who would reach angrily for the McCain lever because of some all-too-real slights and trickery in the primary past by the DNC and others. Remember that John Paul Stevens is 88 and let spite not guide your voting hand. Hear Glenn Greenwald:

In upholding the right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, the Court found that the "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" process ("CSRT") offered to Guantanamo detainees -- mandated by the John-McCain-sponsored Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 -- does not constitute a constitutionally adequate substitute for habeas corpus. To the contrary, the Court found that such procedures -- which have long been criticized as sham hearings due to the fact that defendants cannot have a lawyer present, government evidence is presumptively valid, and defendants are prevented from challenging (and sometimes even knowing about) much of the evidence against them -- "fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review."

The stain of Gitmo has tainted our national colors long enough. Remember what's at stake in this election. Senator Clinton certainly does.

Comments

[BEW]

Tom,

Senator OBama wanted to vote to confirm Roberts until an aide talk him out of it because it might look bad to the Democratic base

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601446.html?nav=hcmodule

Senator Obama is quoted with crediting this aide with the ability to "...looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them,"

The fact that he would even consider voting for Roberts indicates that he has very poor judgement in these matters in my opinion.

[Palomino]

@ BEW: Agreed, although Senator Obama's statement today is certainly the right one. We can hope that he has changed his mind for good and won't tack right again with the shifting political winds.

[Susie]

Nice statement from Obama.

Obama has said he’d appoint justices such as Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter. How exciting. Even allowing for the fact that he doesn’t want to show all his cards right now, it doesn’t seem he has anything transformational in mind, which is what we can and should expect from him given all this pumped up rhetoric about change. Souter was appointed by Bush senior and although he seems like a decent fellow he could only be considered liberal in today’s environment.

Clinton didn’t choose anyone transformational, either, but given the political environment back then it would have been difficult for him even to try.

Both McCain and Obama have said they’d get rid of Gitmo. Who knows, after this Bush may do it himself and get the issue out of the way. They’ll send the prisoners elsewhere and I imagine it’ll be a lot worse wherever they’re going.

I'll decide what to do with my presidential vote when the time comes. We have a Democratic Congress with a working majority to look forward to.

And if I vote against Obama, spite will have nothing to do with it.

[Linkmeister]

Or, as I said over here: Supreme Court appointments matter.

[tina oiticica harris]

Tom:

What is a real shame is the lack of recognition of what went down in Latin America in the 60s to the 80s. Most countries had torture and juntas, with the exception of Venezuela, in South America, and Costa Rica, in Central America. The USA has blood in her hands in every single Latin American country where torture was practiced and taught, although humans don't need much to become cruel. There was one cover of TIME in the 70s, I beieve, with an illustration of a man hanging from a pole, a torture method used in Brazil, pau-de-arara. And Mrs. Carter came to free two friars in Pernambuco, Brazil. But today, even the leftist celebs who crowd Bill Maher's program are oblivious of our, the USA history, our shame in the quest of riches and pornographic wealth.
But I will vote for Obama. There is no question in my mind about that.

[zuzu]

Mark ye well those Democrats among us who would reach angrily for the McCain lever because of some all-too-real slights and trickery in the primary past by the DNC and others. Remember that John Paul Stevens is 88 and let spite not guide your voting hand.

Might be nice if, instead of telling us how tasty shit sandwiches are, the party served something else.

[Dan Leo]

If Senator Clinton had gotten the nomination I know there were Obama supporters who were going to refuse to vote for her, I would have said the same thng to them that I would say to Mrs. Clinton's supporters who are reluctant to vote for Obama; it's still a free country, and if you believe we'll be better off with McCain than with the Democratic candidate, then vote your belief.

[Dan Leo]

Sorry, replace the comma with a period or a semi-colon after "vote for her".

[Susie]

"vote your belief"

Everyone plans to do that, I'm sure.