US postpones first Guantanamo war crimes trial

A military judge on Friday postponed the first war crimes tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, saying he wants to wait until the Supreme Court makes its highly anticipated ruling on the right of detainees to challenge their confinement in civil courts.

Navy Capt. Keith Allred ruled the trial for Osama bin Laden’s former driver should be delayed seven weeks, until July 21, in case the Supreme Court ruling affects his case. He scheduled pretrial hearings to begin a week earlier.

A Supreme Court ruling is expected by June 30.”AP

And of course it’s only a mere coincidence that after witnesses attested the timing of the trials was political in nature, they will now postponed and occur even closer to the US election in November. Mere coincidence, I tell you.

Law to outlaw most abortions passes South Dakota senate

Roe v. Wade is crumbling. This just in from South Dakota:

After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the senators rejected pleas to add exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of the pregnant woman and instead voted, 23 to 12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save the woman’s life.

(…) To be enacted, the bill, the most sweeping ban approved in any state in more than a decade, requires the signature of Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican, who opposes abortion.

(…) Mr. Rounds has said he will not comment on whether he will sign the measure until it reaches his desk. It is likely to arrive there by next week. He has 15 days to make a decision. New York Times

in other news: The US Supreme Court will hear a case on partial birth abortions later this month.

Bush Picks Alito for Supreme Court

AP wire 3 minutes ago:

President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, nominated conservative judge Samuel Alito on Monday to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in a bid to reshape the Supreme Court and mollify his political base.

(…) So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed “Scalito” or “Scalia-lite” by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice

Antonin Scalia. But while Scalia is outspoken and is known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered.AP

Bush it attempting to replace a moderate woman with a far-right, male candidate. This is going to get ugly.

Mier’s withdraws nomination to Supreme Court

Just in case you’ve been living under a rock: Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court this morning.

Of course her withdrawal doesn’t mean the next nomination will be any better. In fact it’s going to be even more tricky now for Bush to to nominate someone who can be confirmed by both far right conservatives, moderate Republicans (I am told there are some) and Democrats without them losing face. It’s going to be a tough stunt to pull off after this debacle.

But the real question is why the White House waited 24 days of criticized and ridiculed only for the nomination to be withdrawn. It certainly did not help Bush’s approval ratings and only got more embarrassing as time went on.

Mier’s letter of withdrawal here.

Torturing international relations

You’d think a self-proclaimed fan of freedom such as President George W. Bush would be onboard when it came to banning torture. But his recent threat to veto a bill that would effectively ban U.S. personnel from engaging in torture is proof that the president is trying to keep doors open that should never have been opened in the first place.

Prisoners released from the internment camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have repeatedly alleged they were mistreated. Most of the inmates of Guantanamo Bay have been held for several years without access to a lawyer and even without formally being charged. This flies in the face of the U.S. Bill of Rights, but since the camp is conveniently located away from American soil, the Bush administration argues it does not apply.

Amnesty International, the Red Cross and other human rights groups have been largely stonewalled in their attempt to corroborate reports of torture. Access to the facility is so limited that even the total number of inmates remains disputed. As of June, the number is said to be around 520.

In conjunction with the well-known pictures of inmates being mistreated in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, reports of cruel conditions or full-blown torture gain in credibility. The death of at least one “ghost,” a prisoner without documentation held by U.S. intelligence, further backs up the claim that the United States may be involved in torturing inmates in locations such as Guantanamo Bay and secret prisons in other locations.

The existence of such secret prisons and the method of handing over prisoners to foreign governments, which then do the “dirty work” on our government’s behalf, are also becoming more and more credible. One case of such “torture tourism” is Maher Arar, a 35-year-old Canadian engineer who claims to have been “apprehended” while switching planes in New York. He was then deported to Syria where he was held for 10 months and tortured. The New York Times has corroborated most of his claims, which begs the question of whether this was an isolated case.

Up to now, the Bush administration has been successful at keeping its hesitation to ban torture out of the public view. But Bush is threatening to veto a bill solely because an amendment attached to the bill would ban U.S. personnel from engaging in practices deemed “cruel, inhumane or degrading.”

The bill’s amendment was authored under the leadership of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, and was passed by an impressive 90-9 vote in the Senate despite Bush’s veto threat.
Read entire entry

The story so far

Today’s New York Times boils it down for us:

The conservative uproar over Ms. Miers underscores how difficult it has been for Mr. Bush to pull his own party together as he faces a variety of problems on other fronts: his administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina; a leak investigation involving his chief political adviser, Karl Rove; the indictment of Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, who was the House majority leader; and, most recently, the decision by a top Justice Department nominee to withdraw amid questions over his ties to a Republican lobbyist accused of fraud.

Only a week ago, Republicans were saying they looked forward to a new Supreme Court nominee because it would give them something to rally around, providing a welcome distraction from the Bush administration’s problems. But the nomination of Ms. Miers only served to roil a party that is already divided over domestic matters like Social Security and how to pay to rebuild the Gulf Coast.
New York Times

Bush’s last chance to represent ‘all’ Americans

Months ago, after a grueling night of uncertainty, George W. Bush emerged as winner of the 2004 presidential election and vowed to be a president for “all Americans,” not merely those who cast their vote for him. The statement was almost immediately criticized by Democrats, who pointed out that Bush’s past actions did not indicate that this promise would be kept. The passing of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist Saturday, gives the president an important chance to stand by his word. Bush has the opportunity to ensure that not only those who voted for him but also those Americans who did not are going to be represented by the Court.

With Rehnquist’s passing and Sandra Day O’Connor’s resignation from the Court earlier this year, a historic two-seat vacancy must be filled. The upcoming nomination and confirmation proceedings have the power to affect Supreme Court rulings — and thus, the law of the land — for years to come. The nation’s most influential court’s political makeup is about to be redefined, and all past efforts to establish a well-balanced court may be swept away if Bush nominates two conservatives to the court.
Read entire entry

Roberts indicated he would overturn Roe v. Wade, make abortion illegal

Pro-choice activist group indicates that Roberts, if confirmed as Supreme Court justice, would likely overturn Roe. v. Wade, the landmark case that established abortion as a right.

As Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court (gratuitously, since the case did not implicate Roe v. Wade) that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled…. [T]he Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”

Link to the full statement as PDF here.

Go have some gay sex or have an abortion. It may be your last chance to legally do so.

Roberts offcially nominated to Supreme Court

It’s officially official:

President Bush tonight nominated John G. Roberts Jr., a conservative federal appellate judge from Washington, D.C., to the first vacancy on the Supreme Court in 11 years. New York Times

Court Judge nominee leaked

The New York Times:

Judge Roberts, 50, once clerked for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. He has been on the Court of Appeals since May 2003. That court has often been a springboard for the Supreme Court; indeed, three current members of the high court were once on the D.C. Circuit. New York Times

Washington Post has the same name, so I guess it’s official.

Bush to Introduce Court Nominee Tonight

In case you haven’t heard:

President Bush settled on a nominee for the Supreme Court on Tuesday and the White House made arrangements for a nationally televised prime time announcement. “I’ll let you know when I’m ready,” he said at a midday news conference where he declined to tip his hand.

That only intensified speculation on his choice for the first opening on the court in more than a decade and a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

The announcement was set for 9 p.m. EDT from the East Room of the White House. The nominee’s family was expected to be with Bush and the candidate. AP

Supreme Racism

I find this quote amusing:

Other possibilities mentioned in past weeks include Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is Hispanic, and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, who is black.
Reuters

So both are qualified?

In the same story:

Sources said the timing of an announcement had been moved up in part to deflect attention away from a CIA leak controversy that has engulfed Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove.

“It helps take Rove off the front pages for a week,” one Republican strategist said.

Bush on Supreme Court nomination

In Sunday’s Radio Address President Bush laid out what he expects the nomination and confirmation process for his Supreme Court candidate to be like:

I will be guided by clear principles as I make my decision. My nominee will be a fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values. The nominee will meet the highest standards of intellect, character, and ability, and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country. Our nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of.

Aiming high, aren’t we? Excuse me for being cynical, but I’ll believe it when I see it. While the White House is “talking” with “60 Senators” he may still do what he has done in the past and completely ignore their input and nominate a far-rigth candidate instead.

The American people also expect a Senate confirmation process that rises above partisanship. When I met with Senate leaders, we discussed our shared goal of making sure that the confirmation process is dignified. The nominee deserves fair treatment, a fair hearing, and a fair vote. I will make my nomination in a timely manner so the nominee can be confirmed before the start of the Court’s new term in October.

The experiences of the two justices nominated by President Clinton provide useful examples of fair treatment and a reasonable timetable for Senate action. In 1993, the Senate voted on and confirmed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court 42 days after President Clinton submitted her nomination. And despite the significant philosophical differences many senators had with Justice Ginsburg, she received 96 votes in favor of confirmation.

The following year, Justice Stephen Breyer was confirmed 73 days after his nomination was submitted, with 87 votes in his favor. Again, Republican senators in large numbers voted for confirmation of Justice Breyer despite significant philosophical differences. These examples show that the thorough consideration of a nominee does not require months of delay. White House

In other words: filibuster my nominee(s) and I’ll make you pay.

I also love this passage: “The nominee deserves fair treatment, a fair hearing, and a fair vote.” I guess the American public doesn’t does it? Or how would you explain the “problems” in the last two presidential elections?

Gonzales to be nominated to Supreme Court?

When Alberto Gonzales was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General a lot was said about his eventual nomination to the Supreme Court. Now that at least one seat is opening up, this is a distinct possibility.

There is also this in today’s Hill:

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee, plans to meet this week with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee.

Asked whether Gonzales would be a good nominee, Brownback replied, “I need to talk with him about his view of the Constitution to tell. That’s what I hope to do this week.”The Hill

Oh, so it’s just a meeting about the Constitution? Well, those happen daily, don’t they? Nothing to see here, move along.

Administration pressuring media into submission

New York Times journalist Judith Miller was jailed Wednesday for doing her job. Miller, as well as Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, had been under investigation by the federal government for covering the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative by nationally syndicated Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak.

Novak revealed the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. This action was a clear warning shot to those who would dare to openly criticize the Bush administration’s plans. In this case it was to silence Wilson; yet, Novak remains one of the few journalists who reported on the case but have not been beset upon by the administration, despite committing a major crime by publishing the name of an active CIA operative.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Plame case is not only intended to scare politicians critical of the White House into submission, it is also intended to do the same to the press.

The source of the information that was leaked to Novak has been narrowed down to someone within the White House, and is now rumored to be Karl Rove, one of the president’s closest advisers, and a man that has been referred to by the president as the “architect” of Bush’s campaigns and his administrations political battle plans.
Read entire entry

U.S. Supreme Court Judge Sandra Day O’Connor announces retirement

Here’s one thing I learned about the Bush administration over the last five years: Never let your guard down and always expect the craziest and most daring move possible. This is one of those times.

The news of one of the Supreme Court Justices retiring had been expected, but it was widely assumed to be coming, but it was expected to be Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist since he has thyroid cancer. (link)

The BBC nailed it when they said her retirement “opens a battle for the legal soul of the nation.” (link) Her vote used to be the crucial swing vote from many topics, including abortion. President Bush now has the chance to offset the carefully established equilibrium between conservative and liberal views held by judges on the Court. Which way do you think Bush’s new guy/gal will swing? (Swing may be the wrong word. He/she will likely be bolted down somewhere to the right of Justice Antonin Scalia)

The good news here that President Bush has essentially been a lame duck president in his second term, at least so far. He has not been able to win support for his plan to privatize Social Security ? heck even the discussion about it is pretty much dead ? and the nomination of John Bolton as as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has also been stuck in Congress for months now with the chance to never pass.

This is the time for Democrats to stand their ground. The Supreme Court is literally the last legislative/judicial body left that the Republican Party did not manage to stack in its favor yet. Should O’Connor, and possibly Rehnquist as well, be replaced with a far-right justice, landmark cases such as Roe v. Wade, which established that abortion is a right that cannot be infringed upon, have the chance to be overturned. (Not to mention school prayer, gay rights, Guantanamo Bay, etc)

In the long term everything that the Bush administration is doing can be reversed through legislation or a ruling from the Supreme Court. But if Bush manages to stack the highest court in the country in his favor it would have terrible consequences for years to come, possibly decades.

Update: The AP has an article detailing O’Connors voted in the past here.

Exploitation of Schiavo for political gains must be stopped

Terri Schiavo?s case has been discussed at length. One either agrees with her husband or her parents. But personal opinion had little to do with the most recent developments. It has become an attempt to cash in on an individual?s personal distress to further a political agenda.

Last weekend?s ?emergency session? by Congress was little more than excessive chest-thumping. Individuals such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) went on oratory crusades, abusing Schiavo?s plight for their own political gains.

DeLay took this despicable art form to new heights when he spoke in front of a conservative Christian group. ?One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help us elevate the visibility of what is going on in America,? he said to the crowd. ?This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and many others. A huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in.?

DeLay himself made the news due to being cited for numerous ethics violations by the House of Representatives. To keep him from having to step down, as House rules would have required, the Republican majority voted to simply change the rules. For politicians such as DeLay to trample over personal rights to put themselves into the political limelight is as troubling as it is repulsive, and his insinuation that God intentionally made Schiavo suffer just to convince people of DeLay?s own beliefs defies description.

Similarly other politicians are ready to exploit the case. A talking-points outline circulated in Congress by an anonymous Republican made this abundantly clear.

Supreme Court ruling compromises civil rights

When state troopers found 32 kilos of marijuana during a routine traffic stop in Illinois last November, they most likely did not foresee the waves the case would make. But since a drug-sniffing dog was brought onto the scene and was used without a warrant or apparent signs that drugs were present, the case ended up before the federal Supreme Court. The final ruling, passed in January, determined that the use of the drug-sniffing dog had been permissible.

Civil rights groups continue to battle the controversial decision to this day, as it leads to an infringement of civil rights even for the average citizen who has no ambition to traffic drugs.
Read entire entry

Death sentence outdated, inhumane practice

A Supreme Court decision ruled Tuesday that executions of juveniles are unconstitutional. The decision effectively bars the United States from executing individuals who committed a crime at age 18 or below. It also re-opens the discussion of whether capital punishment is morally acceptable. The United States is one of only a few countries that still cling to executions as punishment, while most of the world finds the practice abhorrent. It is time the practice is abolished in the United States.

Capital punishment is often argued to be an effective deterrent. It is not. There are no signs that the death penalty is lowering the crime rate of homicides, rapes or drug-related crimes, the cases in which capital punishment is most often imposed.

Especially in drug-related cases, it is na�ve to expect a drug kingpin to be afraid of the death penalty, as such individuals routinely face mortal peril on a daily basis, be it from law enforcement or other drug cartels.

Other crimes in which the death penalty is enforced carry a sentence of life in prison as an alternative. If a life behind bars isn?t deterrent enough, a death sentence probably isn?t either.
Read entire entry

White House sources say Chief Justice Rehnquist will likely step down by June

The moment it became known U.S. Supreme Court William H. Rehnquist had thyroid cancer speculations about his replacement started. It now looks like his stepping down may come within the next months. The Court resumes it’s session today, but Justice Rehnquist remains absent due to illness. The New York Times also says this:

Top White House officials have discussed the situation, one of those people said, and have concluded that they will have to be ready for President Bush to make known his intentions for replacing the chief justice no later than June but possibly sooner. They have prepared ever-narrowing lists of candidates to be nominated for the court, one official said.

“The thinking, clearly, is that the chief will retire in June,” said a person who has participated in these discussions. “The question is, of course, is whether he will be able to endure until then.” The New York Times

Ashcroft resigned

I am cautiously ecstatic about Ashcroft resigning. Who knows that nut-case takes his place. And who knows where Ashcroft is heading now. It could be bad. (Would it be theoretically possible to assign Ashcroft to the Supreme Court? I honestly don’t know if that is even possible.)

But take a look at the reason he quoted for him resigning. Anybody who can say that with a straight face probably doesn’t belong in that job in the first place.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite of conservatives, and Commerce Secretary Don Evans, one of President Bush’s closest friends, resigned Tuesday, the first members of the Cabinet to leave as Bush heads from re-election into his second term.

Both Ashcroft and Evans have served in Bush’s Cabinet from the start of the administration.

Ashcroft, in a five-page, handwritten letter to Bush, said, “The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.” AP

Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist to undergo cancer treatment

AP. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80 and the second-oldest man to preside over the nation’s highest court, is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, officials announced Monday.

Rehnquist underwent a tracheotomy at Bethesda Naval Hospital in suburban Maryland on Saturday, the court’s announcement said. It added he expects to be back at work next week when the court will next be in session.

Even so, Rehnquist’s hospitalization little more than a week before the election gave new prominence to a campaign issue that has been overshadowed by the war on terrorism. The next president is likely to name several justices to a court that has been deeply divided in recent years on issues as varied as abortion and the 2000 election itself. link

I’d hate to say “told you so,” but I did. (link)

Supreme Court throws out Texas redistricting

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court turned down a key element of a Republican strategy to tighten the party’s control of the House of Representatives, possibly setting the stage for bitter litigation over the outcome of congressional elections on November 2.

The court refused Monday to uphold a Republican-engineered redistricting scheme in the state of Texas that is likely to win the party up to six additional House seats and sent back for review an earlier US federal court ruling that had found it legal.

“The judgment is vacated and the cases are remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for further consideration,” the court order stated without further comment.

Coming just two weeks before the US presidential election, the ruling will not be able to affect the November 2 vote.

But legal experts said it was likely to give rise to legal challenges to congressional election results in Texas, a state that sends to Washington a whopping 32 members of the House of Representatives. link (emphasis added)

As Drudge likes to say: developing.

The slogan for this election should not be Indecision 2004 as the Daily Show calls it but rather Legal Decision 2004. I’ll start a category accordingly.

Balance of Supreme Court at stake in election

On Nov. 2 the American public will cast their votes for who will be president. Similarly it will also elect or re-elect senators and could tip the balance of which party holds the majority in Congress. An outcome out of these elections that many do not consider, though, is the future composition of the Supreme Court, a change that could bring even more long-term repercussions to civil rights than the direct election of the president or senators.

Supreme Court judges are nominated by the president and need confirmation by the Senate. Both executive and legislative branches therefore factor heavily in the selection of who will represent the judicial branch.

Once a judge is appointed to the bench he or she is there for life or until he or she decides to retire. Historically, judges have waited to retire until a majority in the senate and/or a president reaches a composition they favor to strategically ensure that the judge replacing them will support their point of view.
Read entire entry