Correcting a Bad Supreme Court Decision
- If you are inclined to decipher legalese, Here is the Supreme Court decision, in PDF format for Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld.
- Senator's Kyl (R-AZ) and Graham (R-SC), both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the following statement regarding a legislative action to allow military tribunals.
- Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted terrorists from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing weighs in before the decision with concerns for our ability to deal effectively with terrorists. And if you want a good summation of the problem the decision creates, this is it.
The question is: will Congress now act to enable military tribunals in the way that they have been constructed by the Bush Administration prior to this ruling? Or, will Congress now open up the Pandora's box of permitting terrorists the full Constitutional rights of the same citizens they sought to kill?
The Supreme Court's 5-3 decision (Robert's had to recuse himself as he ruled AGAINST the suit in a lower court) reminds us all of the importance of appointing sound judicial nominees, as President Bush promised: "In the mold of Scalia or Thomas." Both Scalia and Thomas entered dissenting opinions in this case and were joined in much of their dissent by Justice Alito.
There can be few better motivations for conservatives this fall than winning the battle for Congress and assuring that future judicial nominees meet the Scalia/Thomas standard and act to protect the American people from the foolishness of those who do not realize what is at stake in the war in which we currently find ourselves.
Posted also at Mike's America.