SCOTUS says Americans have right to guns

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

LaShawn Barber will start bearing.

La Shawn also has the full text of the decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday that a District of Columbia ban on handgun ownership is unconstitutional appears to be solidly in step with public opinion.

Share on Facebook

The end of Congo

My latest on the dog that made the news, and the law, at the Star Ledger's NJ Voices.

Sue Opec?

"Sue Opec", says Thomas Evans in today's NYT.

Oh, please.

Let's waste time in court instead of aggresively developing the reserves that we know already exist, building nuclear plants and developing oil shale? Should we push for a symbollic propaganda move (which will generate even more anti-American press), or focus on America becoming independent of foreign oil?

By the time any such lawsuit would make it to court, the American consumer will be purchasing oil pumped from ANWR. We're talking decades-long lawsuit here. And forget about collecting damages of any kind in the unlikely event the US wins.

Aggresively exploiting the reserves that we know already exist, building nuclear plants, developing oil shale, and exploring new reserves will do far more for America's security and independence from foreign oil, and it will destabilize Opec (and their terror-sponsoring dictatorships) more effectively than any lawsuit.

Never mind the question of whether OPEC is telling the truth about their reserves.

Sue Opec? No, thanks.

'nuff said.



Share on Facebook

McCain Slams The Supreme Court's Habeas Decision

McCain Slams The Supreme Court's Habeas Decision (emphasis added):

The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. Sen. Graham and Sen. Lieberman and I had worked very hard to make sure that we didn't torture any prisoners, that we didn't mistreat them, that we abided by the Geneva Conventions, which applies to all prisoners. But we also made it perfectly clear, and I won't go through all the legislation we passed, and the prohibition against torture, but we made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have. And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate, because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases. By the way, 30 of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again, one of them just a couple weeks ago, a suicide bomber in Iraq. Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation, and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that.

As Ace pointed out yesterday,

The Court holds that not only do the terrorists have a habeas right, but they have a Super Special Celebrity Killer Habeas Right, entitling them to judicial "review" -- pre-review, actually, as there's nothing yet to review -- of the entire scheme of the once-upcoming process before it actually unfolds.

Flopping Aces quotes Justice Roberts,

Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law's operation.

This is probably the worst decision the Supreme Court has made in my lifetime.



Share on Facebook

Court gives detainees habeas rights

UPDATED
As background info, habeas corpus means,

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

Wikipedia:

Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody.

I just got home and haven't had the chance to read the actual (lengthy) Supreme Court decision, but, according to SCOTUS blog,
Court gives detainees habeas rights

In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.

That is, the government cannot deny the Gitmo prisoners habeas corpus rights unless it suspends them under the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

From the sound of it, the Court has granted citizens' rights to terrorists who are not citizens of the USA, who are not on US soil and therefore are not subject to US laws.

Another part of the decision appears to apply only to American citizens,

In a second ruling on habeas, the Court decided unanimously that U.S. citizens held by U.S. military forces in Iraq have a right to file habeas cases, because it does extend to them, but it went on to rule that federal judges do not have any authority to bar the transfer of those individuals to Iraqi authorites to face prosecution or punishment for crimes committed in that country in violation of Iraqi laws.

My question is, in either case, are they considered criminals, or are they prisoners of war? If they are POWs, why grant them rights under criminal law?

James Joyner has a great roundup on the decision, and I agree with Lean Left:

If these people are prisoners of war, then treat them as such. If they are not, then they are criminals and should be treated the same as every other criminal in the care of the federal government.

And if the death penalty applies, then indeed, go ahead.

UPDATE
Taranto:

It's possible that Scalia is wrong when he predicts more Americans will die as a result of this ruling. It may be that al Qaeda is a weak enough enemy that America can vanquish it even with the Supreme Court tying one hand behind our back. Anyway, keeping future detainees away from Guantanamo should prevent them from coming within the reach of the justices' pettifogging.

Perhaps decades from now we will learn that detainees ended up being abused in some far-off place because the government closed Guantanamo in response to judicial meddling. Even those who support what the court did today may live to regret it.

Five Justices in air-conditioned roomsin DC may think troops will be mindful of habeas corpus and all that in the heat of battle. They are wrong.

UPDATE
Ace:

The Court holds that not only do the terrorists have a habeas right, but they have a Super Special Celebrity Killer Habeas Right, entitling them to judicial "review" -- pre-review, actually, as there's nothing yet to review -- of the entire scheme of the once-upcoming process before it actually unfolds. This despite the fact that the DTA actually granted a right to challenge the procedures, with later Article III court review (that is, a real judicial court defined by Article III under the constitution, and not a quasi-court as are established by Congress and run by the Executive), a right to challenge the terrorists never bothered availing themselves of.

The Court could easily have found the terrorists do have habeas rights, but that filing is premature, as they would with any other citizen criminal in the country. For reasons clear only to themselves, they didn't.

Guessing at a non-retarded opinion, I figured maybe there might be some initial habeas review to determine if these guys are being lawfully held in the first place (which, of course, they are, the same as it was lawful to hold all those Nazi prisoners we took), and that a habeas review of their criminal incarceration would only be ripe once they were actually convicted.

Nope. They went the full-on retard route. The prisoners get to challenge their trial in advance of actually having the trial.

And the majority laughingly posits that part of their reason for demanding this is to prevent delay in their claims being heard. Uh-huh.

What a disgrace.



Share on Facebook

Where does "freedom of expression" end?

Western culture is based on a fundamental respect for the right of the individual to express his or her opinion. This respect is in turn based on the respect for the right of individual's ideas, as ideas are what make democracy flourish.

As any middle school kid can probably tell you, the American Constitution's First Amendment reads (emphasis added),

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since here in the USA (and in Puerto Rico where I grew up) we are so accustomed to these words and so committed to the concept that Congress can pass no law limiting freedom of speech, we naturally assume that the rest of the Western world enjoys the same basic freedom.

However, that is not the case.

As you can see in today's posts, there are countries in our hemisphere where the individual has no rights at all, and countries where the government is revising the school curriculum to create a "new man" who will think only certain ideas.

In Europe, today French judges justly decided that the French government's own TV station was wrong to have sued for libel a French citizen that exposed the TV station's dowright lies - lies which ignited an intifada in Israel. Few Americans - used as we are to view news as entertainment - realize how important this is.

The French judges' decision in the Al Dura trial is vitally important because it exposes a most destructive libel against Israel. Freedom of expression, which Karsenty had to fight for in court, twice, is what allowed the libel to be shown for what it is.

At the same time, radical Islamists have rioted and killed over the Mohammed cartoons. They believe that we non-Muslims are inferior to them, and as such do not have the right to freely express any ideas that might offend Islam. The demonstrations took place in countries around the world, including some protests here in the US.

Freedom of expression is a dangerous concept to the totalitarian mind. It is inimical to any totalitarian state.

Therefore it is disquieting to read this Bruseels Journal article: Brussels Court Convicts Cartoonist (h/t Siggy)

The court ruled that freedom of the press, as protected by article 25 of the Belgian Constitution, does not apply to cartoons because article 25, which dates from 1831, applies to "writers" but not to illustrators.
...
Judges Valvekens, De Ridder and Morel of the 20th Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Brussels ruled that “The cover illustration cannot be considered to be a direct expression of a thought or opinion” protected by the freedom of the press because

"Article 25 explicitly refers to 'the writer.' The illustration used on the cover is merely a depiction of a person, and not a writing, to which the exceptional status that applies to offences relating to the printing press has no effect."

According to the Brussels court, the freedom of the press is an "exceptional status" in Belgium. It only applies for writers, not illustrators, and only for written thoughts or opinions disseminated by means of a printing press.

While you, gentle reader, are probably thinking that this will never apply to you because after all, you're not about to move to Belgium, you should also be aware that activist judges in the USA can go against the will of the people and can attempt to rewrite the "living Constitutions" of the states or of the nation.

What if an activist judge in someone's pocket decided that rights are to be accorded exceptional status here, in our country, because (for instance) the internet is not meeting their definition of "speech" or "press"? Can we afford to be complacent about our freedoms?

We can not take our freedom for granted. Because the moment we do, it can all be lost.



Share on Facebook

Lawyer keys Marine's car, tries to get away with it

Via Kat, Anti-Military Lawyer Damages Marine's Car on Eve of Deployment

While saying goodbye, at about 11am, he noticed a man leaning up against his car. Mike left his friend's apartment and caught the man keying his car on multiple sides.

After caught in the process, the man told Mike, "you think you can do whatever you want with Department of Defense license plates and tags". (In Illinois you can purchase veteran, Marine, or medal plates. Mike has Illinois Marine Corps license plates.) During the exchange, he made additional anti-military comments.

Mike called the Chicago police and had the man arrested. A citation against the man was issued for misdemeanor criminal damage to private property.
...
As it turns out, the man is Chicago lawyer Jay R. Grodner, who owns a law firm in the city and has offices in the suburbs.

A vandal in the legal profession, no less.

Volokh asks:

BlackFive carries a report of an alleged anti-military hate crime (vandalism). I can't speak to the facts, having seen just this one account; but I am curious about one legal question: When a complainant in a criminal case — or some other kind of witness, in a criminal or civil case — is about to become unavailable because he is being recalled to active duty, how does the legal system treat the matter?
...
Note, incidentally, that I label this incident an alleged hate crime because, if the facts are as alleged, it is a hate crime, and because that's a clear quick way of describing the matter. I am not urging any specially heightened penalties for such crimes, nor to my knowledge is the complainant.

It is a hate crime.

The question remains, what can the Marine legally do?



Share on Facebook