Anything But Supreme
Posted by: Christian P. Milord | 06/30/2008 1:30 PM
Look up the definition of supreme in the dictionary, and it tells us that it means the final, or highest authority and power, the highest quality, and ultimate rank, or status.
Perhaps some justices of the Supreme Court have taken this meaning literally. Some members make decisions based on political philosophy, rather than constitutional law and the will of the people. They forget that their decrees must also represent the highest qualities of a free society.
Thankfully, this Court has taken a recess until October and it won't be rendering opinions and generating mischief till then. However, three recent decisions will create controversy and fierce debates in the lower courts. Moreover, Congress and the Executive can attempt to rein in and resist some of the arrogant judgments handed down by the justices.
In the case of the right to bear arms, the justices got it right, but barely (5-4). It should have been a near unanimous vote to uphold the 2nd amendment. Human beings have an inherent right to protect themselves, their property, and families from criminals. Law abiding citizens should have the right to own guns for hunting, target shooting, and self defense.
In another case, the Court struck down (5-4) the death penalty and lectured about excessive sentences for adults who commit savage crimes against children, short of murder. Criminals that perpetrate barbaric crimes against children should merit severe punishments.
Most Americans endorse the view that states should have the right to decide in these cases, instead of justices far removed from reality. The states ought to have the power to mete out the death penalty, or life sentences to criminals who fail to respect life, and the rule of law.
In the case of Gitmo, the justices again got it wrong (5-4). During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in order to protect our nation's capital. In 1942, FDR also suspended habeas corpus after the Japanese attacks on our fleet at Pearl Harbor. These actions were taken to protect Americans in the interest of national security. After 9/11, Pres. Bush suspended due process for stateless enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
If any of these combatants were fighting for a particular state, and wore a military uniform, than they would have had the legal rights of due process under the Geneva Convention POW guidelines.
Almost two thirds of the original detainees at Gitmo have been released to their countries of origin, but even those nations don't want the fanatics back. Some combatants were less hardened, or were at the wrong place at the wrong time, and so they were released.
Some of the freed detainees returned to their old ways, and some were recaptured, or killed. So why should the president shut down Gitmo, and transfer about 270 radical Islamists to prisons on our shores, when the war that the militant Islamists started is still ongoing?
Why should our government grant habeas corpus rights to folks that make a mockery of the rule of law, and who are trained to lie about their treatment at Gitmo? When terrorists capture civilians, they don't bother at all with due process. They usually torture innocent victims, decapitate them, or shoot them. So why should we afford them any rights at all? These extremists have forfeited their rights due to their own actions.
Some justices, and many liberals would argue that all juman beings, no matter how barbaric, deserve due process under a democratic legal system. They think that we should only use mild interrogation techniques to elicit vital intelligence that could save lives. Many liberals forgot to read the memo that most terrorists only respect firmness and force. Liberal idealists argue that we must maintain the high moral ground, no matter what behaviors our enemies are engaged in.
However, what good will the high moral ground do us when fanatic Islamists continue to slaughter the innocent as they attempt to annihilate the foundations of civilization? How will the high moral ground benefit humanity when terrorist strikes accelerate and there are no more cheeks to turn?
As it stands now, detainees at Club Med Gitmo have it really good. They probably have it better than the soldiers who are guarding them. The few rights that these detainees enjoy are more than they deserve. Free societies must not give in to the demands of those who wish to undermine the rule of law.
Unfortunately, some justices just don't get it. Perhaps they think that when terrorists and tyrants observe our system of due process under the law, they will somehow convert and develop moral values and productive character traits. This might occur in a few cases, but those cases are likely few and far between. We live in the real world, a fact that 4-5 justices can't seem to wrap their heads around.
Justices on our highest court are supposed to uphold the rule of law and abide by the Constitution. Although each judge is independent, all nine justices should represent the liberties of law abiding citizens, and not just the hysteria of a vocal minority. When the Supreme Court fails to fulfill its duty in two out of three cases, it illustrates that the rule of law is weakened because lawless individuals are rewarded, while law abiding folks are punished. Recent decisions by the Court are anything but Supreme.
Perhaps some justices of the Supreme Court have taken this meaning literally. Some members make decisions based on political philosophy, rather than constitutional law and the will of the people. They forget that their decrees must also represent the highest qualities of a free society.
Thankfully, this Court has taken a recess until October and it won't be rendering opinions and generating mischief till then. However, three recent decisions will create controversy and fierce debates in the lower courts. Moreover, Congress and the Executive can attempt to rein in and resist some of the arrogant judgments handed down by the justices.
In the case of the right to bear arms, the justices got it right, but barely (5-4). It should have been a near unanimous vote to uphold the 2nd amendment. Human beings have an inherent right to protect themselves, their property, and families from criminals. Law abiding citizens should have the right to own guns for hunting, target shooting, and self defense.
In another case, the Court struck down (5-4) the death penalty and lectured about excessive sentences for adults who commit savage crimes against children, short of murder. Criminals that perpetrate barbaric crimes against children should merit severe punishments.
Most Americans endorse the view that states should have the right to decide in these cases, instead of justices far removed from reality. The states ought to have the power to mete out the death penalty, or life sentences to criminals who fail to respect life, and the rule of law.
In the case of Gitmo, the justices again got it wrong (5-4). During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in order to protect our nation's capital. In 1942, FDR also suspended habeas corpus after the Japanese attacks on our fleet at Pearl Harbor. These actions were taken to protect Americans in the interest of national security. After 9/11, Pres. Bush suspended due process for stateless enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
If any of these combatants were fighting for a particular state, and wore a military uniform, than they would have had the legal rights of due process under the Geneva Convention POW guidelines.
Almost two thirds of the original detainees at Gitmo have been released to their countries of origin, but even those nations don't want the fanatics back. Some combatants were less hardened, or were at the wrong place at the wrong time, and so they were released.
Some of the freed detainees returned to their old ways, and some were recaptured, or killed. So why should the president shut down Gitmo, and transfer about 270 radical Islamists to prisons on our shores, when the war that the militant Islamists started is still ongoing?
Why should our government grant habeas corpus rights to folks that make a mockery of the rule of law, and who are trained to lie about their treatment at Gitmo? When terrorists capture civilians, they don't bother at all with due process. They usually torture innocent victims, decapitate them, or shoot them. So why should we afford them any rights at all? These extremists have forfeited their rights due to their own actions.
Some justices, and many liberals would argue that all juman beings, no matter how barbaric, deserve due process under a democratic legal system. They think that we should only use mild interrogation techniques to elicit vital intelligence that could save lives. Many liberals forgot to read the memo that most terrorists only respect firmness and force. Liberal idealists argue that we must maintain the high moral ground, no matter what behaviors our enemies are engaged in.
However, what good will the high moral ground do us when fanatic Islamists continue to slaughter the innocent as they attempt to annihilate the foundations of civilization? How will the high moral ground benefit humanity when terrorist strikes accelerate and there are no more cheeks to turn?
As it stands now, detainees at Club Med Gitmo have it really good. They probably have it better than the soldiers who are guarding them. The few rights that these detainees enjoy are more than they deserve. Free societies must not give in to the demands of those who wish to undermine the rule of law.
Unfortunately, some justices just don't get it. Perhaps they think that when terrorists and tyrants observe our system of due process under the law, they will somehow convert and develop moral values and productive character traits. This might occur in a few cases, but those cases are likely few and far between. We live in the real world, a fact that 4-5 justices can't seem to wrap their heads around.
Justices on our highest court are supposed to uphold the rule of law and abide by the Constitution. Although each judge is independent, all nine justices should represent the liberties of law abiding citizens, and not just the hysteria of a vocal minority. When the Supreme Court fails to fulfill its duty in two out of three cases, it illustrates that the rule of law is weakened because lawless individuals are rewarded, while law abiding folks are punished. Recent decisions by the Court are anything but Supreme.
CATEGORY:
FEATURE
You'd be shocked (maybe not) to learn how many law students, attorneys, and the general public believe that Supreme Court justices are somehow vested with exceptional wisdom that qualifies them to be the final arbiters of economic and social policy.
In my Con Law class, I once took on and singlehandedly debated most of my class on this issue. Surprisingly, at the end of the hour, the rest of the class applauded me.
While I may have been able to influence a few, there are way too many folks who believe that the Supreme Court are The Wise rulers over our Living Constitution.