Big Dogs Weblog

SCOTUS Ignores History in Decision

by Big Dog on Jun 14, 2008 at 22:36 General, Terrorism

The Supreme Court ruled this past week that terrorists at Gitmo had the same rights as American citizens even though they are not in our country and they are not citizens. In so deciding, the majority, comprised of the liberals on the court, and the new Sandra O’Connor, Anthony “Swing Vote” Kennedy decided that they would ignore centuries of legal precedent. Amazingly, Democrats like Chuck Schumer are not jumping up and down and screaming at the court.

You see, Schumer was one of the libs who grilled John Roberts in his confirmation hearing on the subject of abortion. The concept of stare decisis came up and Roberts agreed that it was important. Stare decisis is a doctrine that says courts will follow previous judicial decisions unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. Schumer wanted to make sure Roberts understood that the Democrats viewed the issue of abortion settled law and they wanted Roberts to affirm his belief in the settled law, the principle of stare decisis.

With regard to Boumediene v Bush, the court ignored centuries of legal precedent and they ignored the Constitution. They cite article I Section 9 which states the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in time of rebellion or invasion. This is all well and good but it means with regard to whom the Constitution applies. The terrorists at Gitmo are not citizens and they are not even in our country. Not only did the majority ignore history but they admitted they have no basis upon which to justify the ruling:

The court majority did so acknowledging that they could find no precedent to confer such a right to alien enemies not within sovereign U.S.

They could find no precedent to confer such a right on aliens but they certainly had plenty of precedent to deny the right. They ignored the precedent and though only they know absolutely why, their actions make it appear as if they support the enemy and want to see America weakened.

Americans who are bothered by this decision and the blatant disregard for our Constitution should remember this. The next president will likely get to appoint two or three justices. Do we really want two or three more of the kind of people who gave us this ruling? As an aside, these are the people who ruled that it was OK for the government to take your property and give it to private entities.

Do we really want more people like this on the court or do we want justices who use the Constitution and the rule of law to make decisions?

Sources:
Townhall
US Constitution

Tags: liberal majority, poor ruling, precedent, stare decisis, supreme court