Senators move to reverse SCOTUS decision against Guantanamo Commissions

[kpete]

Senators move to reverse effects of Supreme Court decision against Guantanamo commissions

Michael Roston
Published: Thursday June 29, 2006

Senators on Capitol Hill are already moving to undercut yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that military tribunals being held at Guantanamo Bay are illegal, RAW STORY has learned.

...................

But in a concurring opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer noted, “Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.”

During a mid-day press conference with visiting Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, President Bush observed that, “certain senators have already been out, expressing their desire to address what the Supreme Court found, and we will work with the Congress.”

In a joint statement, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona, noting Breyer’s opinion, declared their intention to “pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions.”

more at:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Supreme_Court_decision_against_Guantanamo_military_0629.html

[E-Z-B]

1. Dubya's motto: "If you don't like the game, then change the rules"

[liberal N proud]

2. Time to disband the Supreme Court

The bu$h regime doesn't need them any longer.

[The Brethren]

3. he'll discard them

like anything else that is in his way: smear, threaten or ignore. And it looks like members of Congress have become his back-up singers. What a lovely chorus of wimps and traitors.

[ewagner]

4. Can you say....

F-I-L-I-B-U-S-T-E-R?

[NI4NI]

8. It may be the ONLY recourse

in as much as Shrub found out that he still does not yet have the majority of SCOTUS justices in his favor as he probably thought. So now, he wants (and needs) the same ass 'Lican controlled Congress which he has subverted so many times before to get his way now on Gitmo after SCOTUS shot him down.

[Justitia]

5. Senators: How Eager They Are To Become Slaves -eom

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Question: Is it "Constitutional" for Congress to pass a law

that removes/excludes oversight from another branch (specifically, the Courts)? Can Congress really do that where they make a law stating the Appellate court cannot review XYZ, which in effect would also remove any jurisdiction by SCOTUS?

I think the majority of SCOTUS sees what's underlying this, that the Republican majority in Congress is seeking to remove their branch of the three legged stool.

Thomas, Alito, and Scalia are cheering Congress on in the hopes they'll have a lighter workload. :sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

10. This is what SCOTUS instructed

Raw Story is WAY off base with this interpretation. Congress is doing exactly what they're supposed to, implementing laws that meet with the Geneva Convention and USMJ.

[Norquist Nemesis]

15. Yes, but that doesn't answer my question

If Congress passes a law that does not allow review by an Appellate Court, it is a catch-22. Supreme Court review is cut off at the Appellate level. Congress is effectively taking away the authority of the Supreme Court to review, which in and of itself is Unconstitutional is it not?

I listened to the oral arguments of the case last night on CSPAN. Ginzberg was asking questions related to this (as was Breyer, IIRC). Honestly, the lawyers talk so fast with so much legalspeak it's hard to grasp just on listening (for me at least).

[sandnsea]

16. I don't think they can

They've passed laws that defines appeals, like with the death penalty. But they can't pass a law that eliminates all appellate court review, that just doesn't even make sense.

[grasswire]

13. That was what Bork wanted

He proposed that SCOTUS rulings be alterable by a vote of the House of Representatives.

[Roland99]

7. Wouldn't it mean the US would have to extract itself as a signee of Geneva

Conventions?

[otherlander]

11. Didn't they already do something like that?

I think it was on the same day that Bush was talking about banning gay marriage or some such shiny object, and it was all that anyone was talking about, and meanwhile they were removing certain articles from U.S. law.

[Roland99]

12. Well, I know Gonzo, Chertoff, Bybee, Miers, Yoo, etc. made some legal

manoeuvers to "justfiy" torture and prisoner abuse but I'm not aware of the US formally pulling out as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

[sandnsea]

9. Wow, what a wild interpretation

No, the Supreme Court specifically said Congress needed to implement a process for trying those at Guantanamo that met with the Geneva Conventions and the UMCJ. They didn't say all the detainees should be released because they're illegal.

Congress is doing what they're supposed to do. We either step into the realm of reality and make sure what they propose actually meets all the necessary standards - or we stand back like idiots and say no no no again, and wonder why we're ignored.

[novalib]

14. The FUCKERS!!!

Don't those fuckwads in the Senate GET IT?

We, the PEOPLE, do NOT want ANYONE in the Bush Cabal Thugocracy Regime to get ANY MORE power!!!

We want people treated as PEOPLE -- NOT as animals in cages!!

I'm so fucking mad I could just SPIT!

[Unbowed]

17. WTF?

Farking joiks.

Kyl and Graham doing the nasty on the senate floor.

When do they introduce legislation to allow Bush to be crowned as emperor?