If you find yourself enjoying a well deserved, false sense of well being this evening, I’d like to yank you out of it for just a moment. I do this because I’m a bastard. I do this because I care. When the Supreme Court refused to review the Padilla case, it confirmed the president’s power to detain an American citizen, arrested on American soil, for three years without any rights. Just slap an “unlawful combatant” label on any American, regardless of where they were arrested or what they were up to, and that American no longer has the rights guaranteed them by the constitution. Shining city on a hill, indeed. Upyernoz has a very nice summary, if you care to read it.
…And just to be clear, anybody who wants to, can cry me a river about how Padilla is a real evil dude. Let the tears flow darling, because I’m here for you. Look, I may have been asleep in civics class the day it was covered, but I can’t recall ever hearing about a “real evil dude” exemption anywhere in the constitution. I’m wrong about a lot of stuff, but I’m pretty sure that exemption isn’t in there.
The internets are the next battlefield declared and each of us will be considered a potential EC. Secret surveillance, secret proceedings-evidence, indefinite detention, they got it all.
to the WaPo story. I’m more pessimistic than the reporter, after having read it. The Supreme Court seems to be finding excuses to avoid challenging the Executive. What’s everyone’s take on this?
oh, that was for each member of the court, not you.
It’s ok. You can call me a bastard whenever you feel like it.
And…
instead of having police officers arrest protestors… they’re having Homeland Security do it. Whole nuther ball game.
“national emergencies?”
out there, what more proof does anyone need? This lack of SC intervention in so obvious a due process violation is the largest enabler of a fascist takeover that I could possible envision. If you asked me if this could have happened anytime in my 57 years before the year 2000, I would have said a definitive no. Now, anything <B>bad</B> must be possible even in America.
I am no fan of Padilla, but there is no reason why he could no have been arrested and given his due process rights. None!
Most of the controversial nonanswers from Alito in the confirmation hearings were on matters of presidential power. He has a history from earlier admins that made him suspect for the appointment. It’s no accident why he was chosen and he will guard the executive power successfully.
All in favour of encouraging the next Democratic President to declare Alito and Roberts “enemy combatants”?
First of all, as you know, the Supreme Court didn’t confirm the power to detain; it just took no stance on this case at this time. Yes, that’s bad, and an abdication of duty in my eyes, but it’s not determining the law. You could still see challenges arising from other circuits besides the Fourth, with other (and perhaps more favorable) facts. They’ve foreclosed nothing.
The real question as to why cert wasn’t granted was that Stevens voted no. (And one almost can imagine that the four lib-mods drew straws to be the one not to take the case and he got the short one.) Stevens could have voted no because the thinking was that there were five votes on the other side. Or he could have voted no because a better case is coming up to address the issue.
I don’t know enough about what’s going on in the deliberations over Hamdan, but if, for example, leaving this case lie is the price of Anthony Kennedy’s fifth favorable vote in that case, and especially if the opinion coming out of Hamdan knocks the pegs out from under the Presidential power theories that the Bushbots have come up with since Hamdi, then it will have been worth it.
Stevens is a smart and canny guy — the closest thing we have to Brennan on the bench right now — and I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as to his actions here. The Fourth Circuit precedent of Padilla may be short-lived.