some of what the sleeze three had to say on the ruling

[cal04]

(snip)

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."

The court's willingness, Thomas said, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also filed dissents.

In his own opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check."'

Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/washington/29cnd-scotus.html?hp&ex=1151640000&en=1aa0983620edfa9b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I hate these people
:mad:

[lonestarnot]

1. K & R for the unitary executive factor. Let people see what has happened

to us!

[tabasco]

2. These three will support anything the republicans want to do.

They are not justices, they are lackeys.

They serve a politcal party, not the American People.

They are pond scum. They are traitors.

[ugarte]

4. Plus Roberts=4 Hard Core Right-Wing Votes...

The most we can count on (on a good day) are 5 votes, and Stevens, Souter and Ginsberg aren't getting any younger. A new Republican Prez in 2008 should finish off the Supreme Court.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kurth]

6. The three scumbags in black robes

And we're supposed to call them "Mr. JUSTICE"???

WTF.

[AllNamesHaveBeenUsed]

8. "Lawn Jockey"

What a racist thing to say. Disagreeing with the man's POV is one thing, but it is extremely hateful and petty to make race an issue.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tsiyu]

5. Their legacy is certain

Their names will go down in history as fascists. Their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be ridiculed and despised for their ancestors' guilt in trying to destroy this nation.


But hey, they're livin' high on the hawg now. Has Scalia been to any orgies lately? Do Roberts and Thomas join in?

[cal04]

7. Scotusblog's summary

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote separately, in an opinion partly joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter. Kennedy's opinion did not support all of Stevens' discussion of the Geneva Convention, but he did find that the commissions were not authorized by military law or that Convention. Kennedy expressed no view, for example, on whether Hamdan could be charged with conspiracy or whether the accused has a right under the Convention to be present in all commission proceedings.

(snip)
Thomas noted that it was the first time he had announced a dissent from the bench. The recitations continued for 32 minutes, and the Court recessed for the summer at 10:42 a.m.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/decisions_5.html

Hamdan Summary -- And HUGE News
More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/