At Random, 3/29/06

I really need to be writing something besides blogs. It's just too compulsive.


Habeas Corpus:

Bush seems intent on forcing a constitutional crisis. His interpretation of "commander in chief" seems to be equivalent to Mussolini's interpretation of "Il Duce." From WaPo:

The Detainee Treatment Act, a measure passed by Congress and signed by Bush after the court had agreed to hear Hamdan's case, creates sufficient due process for Hamdan and others, including the opportunity to appeal after their trials, Clement argued. Meanwhile, he said, it rules out habeas corpus petitions, so "the courts no longer have jurisdiction over this case."

But that contention immediately landed him in trouble with several justices, who found the terms of the act, a bipartisan compromise engineered with administration support, too vague to warrant cutting back what they regard as a vital judicial check on unlawful executive detentions.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that it would be "an extraordinary act, I think, to withdraw jurisdiction over a pending case."

Souter was even more indignant, admonishing Clement that "given the significance of suspending the writ of habeas corpus, should we not have a pretty clear statement requirement?"

Some of the arguments advanced by the administration in this case left me scratching my head. From NYT:

For example, Justice Kennedy was questioning Mr. Clement on the government's position that even if the court had jurisdiction, it should abstain from ruling on the validity of the military commission until after Mr. Hamdan's trial.

Justice Kennedy said he found the argument troubling, pointing out that Mr. Hamdan was arguing that because the commissions lacked the procedures required by the Geneva Conventions, they were invalid. "The historic office of habeas corpus is to test whether or not you're being tried by a lawful tribunal," Justice Kennedy said. "And he says, under the Geneva Convention, as you know, that it isn't."

Mr. Clement replied that Mr. Hamdan could raise that argument later, before the military commission itself. He predicted that the argument would fail and said that in any event, there was no reason "why that claim has to be brought at this stage."

. . .

Mr. Clement argued that the detainee law would allow a detainee to argue in federal court, after a conviction by a military commission, that the commission's procedures were illegal or unconstitutional.

Justice Ginsburg then asked him to "straighten me out." She said, "I thought it was the government's position that these enemy combatants do not have any rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States."

"That is true, Justice Ginsburg," the solicitor general answered.

The bottom line, in this case, seems to me to be that Bush and his tame Congress are trying to strip the courts of their role in the government.


Truer Words. . . .

Ken Livingstone does it again:

"Good on him," said Ann Love, 29, who works in financial services and supported Livingstone's tough words. "I think he just blurted it out -- he's just too honest to be a politician."

'Nuff said?


Losing Steam:

Another defeat for the hate groups. From the Baltimore Sun:

An attempt to revive a constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage failed in the Maryland Senate today, apparently leaving no further options this year for opponents of gay marriage.

The interesting thing is that it is becoming a matter of parliamentary maneuvering -- it's boiling down to electoral politics, and in those states that have Democratic majorities, the Democrats do not want these things on the ballot.

And of course, the old "activist judge" chestnut:

"Polls show that a majority of people in this state support making a marriage between a man and a woman," Stoltzfus said. And Sen. Alex Mooney, R-Frederick, said the legislature should stand up to activist judges who make law instead of interpreting it.

This whole line is such a crock of shit -- repeat after me class: The people have limited sovereignty, and the laws passed by their elected representatives must satisfy constitutional requirements. In every case on SSM that I've seen, that's what the courts have done: compared the laws to the constitutions and passed judgment on whether they do, indeed, meet those requirements.

Can it be that the Republicans don't want anyone to have civil rights?


SSM Update:

Ran across this on Andrew Sullivan this morning, quoting Vaclav Havel on the Czech Republic's new registered partnership law. After yesterday's post on GayPatriot's misreading of the arguments in favor of SSM, this seemed like a nice pendant:

I was most intrigued in the debate by the absurd ideology advocated by the Christian Democrats and Klaus, who argue that family should have advantages since, unlike homosexual couples, it brings children to life. This is the concept of family as a sort of calf shed in which bulls can inseminate cows so that calves are born ... This is nothing spiritual, nothing intellectual. This is a purely material concept of family.

If you're going to condemn (unjustly) proponents of SSM for materialism, why not condemn opponents for the same thing? Where's the love and the covenenant with God in being breeding stock?