June 18, 2008
Justice Kennedy: American Idle
Printer FriendlyBy: Ann Coulter
After reading Justice Anthony Kennedy's recent majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, I feel like I need to install a "1984"-style Big Brother camera in my home so Justice Kennedy can keep an eye on everything I do.
Until last week, the law had been that there were some places in the world where American courts had no jurisdiction. For example, U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over non-citizens who have never set foot in the United States.
But now, even aliens get special constitutional privileges merely for being caught on a battlefield trying to kill Americans. I think I prefer Canada's system of giving preference to non-citizens who have skills and assets.
If Justice Kennedy can review the procedures for detaining enemy combatants trying to kill Americans in the middle of a war, no place is safe. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court steps in to overrule Randy, Paula and Simon.
In the court's earlier attempts to stick its nose into such military operations as the detainment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo, the court dangled the possibility that it would eventually let go.
In its 2006 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court disallowed the Bush administration's combatant status review tribunals, but wrote: "Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority (for trial by military commission) he believes necessary."
So Bush returned to Congress and sought authority for the military commissions he deemed necessary -- just as the court had suggested -- and Congress passed the Military Commissions Act. But as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent in the Boumediene case last week: It turns out the justices "were just kidding." This was the legal equivalent of the Supreme Court playing "got your nose!" with the commander in chief.
The majority opinion by Justice Kennedy in Boumediene held that it would be very troubling from the standpoint of "separation of powers" for there to be someplace in the world in which the political branches could operate without oversight from Justice Kennedy, one of the four powers of our government (the other three being the executive, legislative and judicial branches).
So now even procedures written by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch have failed Kennedy's test. He says the law violates "separation of powers," which is true only if "separation of powers" means Justice Kennedy always gets final say.
Of course, before there is a "separation of powers" issue, there must be "power" to separate. As Justice Scalia points out, there is no general principle of separation of powers. There are a number of particular constitutional provisions that when added up are referred to, for short, as "separation of powers." But the general comes from the particular, not the other way around.
And the judiciary simply has no power over enemy combatants in wartime. Such power is committed to the executive as part of the commander in chief's power, and thus implicitly denied to the judiciary, just as is the power to declare war is unilaterally committed to Congress. As one law professor said to me, this is what happens when the swing justice is the dumb justice.
Kennedy's ruling thus effectively overturned the congressional declaration of war -- the use of force resolution voted for by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, 75 other senators as well as 296 congressmen. If there's no war, then there are no enemy combatants. This is the diabolical arrogance of Kennedy's opinion.
We've been through this before: Should the military run the war or should the courts run the war?
I think the evidence is in.
The patriotic party says we are at war, and the Guantanamo detainees are enemy combatants. Approximately 10,000 prisoners were taken on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Of those, only about 800 ended up in Guantanamo, where their cases have been reviewed by military tribunals and hundreds have been released.
The detainees are not held because they are guilty; they're held to prevent them from returning to the battlefield against the U.S. Since being released, at least 30 Guantanamo detainees have returned to the battlefield, despite their promise to try not to kill any more Americans. I guess you can't trust anybody these days.
The treason party says the detainees are mostly charity workers who happened to be distributing cheese to the poor in Afghanistan when the war broke out, and it was their bad luck to be caught near the fighting.
They consider it self-evident that enemy combatants should have access to the same U.S. courts that recently acquitted R. Kelly of statutory rape despite the existence of a videotape. Good plan, liberals.
The New York Times article on the decision in Boumediene notes that some people "have asserted that those held at Guantanamo have fewer rights than people accused of crimes under American civilian and military law."
In the universal language of children: Duh.
The logical result of Boumediene is for the U.S. military to exert itself a little less trying to take enemy combatants alive. The military also might consider not sending the little darlings to the Guantanamo Spa and Resort.
Instead of playing soccer, volleyball, cards and checkers in Guantanamo, before returning to their cells with arrows pointed toward Mecca for their daily prayers, which are announced five times a day over a camp loudspeaker, the enemy combatants can rot in Egyptian prisons.
That may be the only place left that is safe from Justice Kennedy.
Posted by redguy at June 18, 2008 08:10 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.redstatesusa.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/955
Comments
As someone who actually took prisoners, allbeit way back in 1950, I concur with Ann's assessment that taking prisoners under the new rule is too much trouble to be worth while.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis
at June 19, 2008 06:06 AM
The Supreme Court, at least five of the black robes, have decided to indeed make the Constitution a suicide pact. The checks and balances meant to reign in our Judicial branch have failed. Instead of interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court has decided to write a new one.
Posted by: Bernard
at June 19, 2008 08:55 AM
In "The Devil's Advocate," Satan (played by Michael Corleone--no, Scarface--no, Al Pacino) says vanity is his "favorite sin."
Justice Kennedy shows why. Even a Supreme Court Justice is vulnerable to the lure of the limelight. Kennedy's failure to remian jurisprudentially objective and instead give in to his desire to grandstand for the mob amounts to nothing more than aborted justice.
I supposed next the US soldiers on the field of battle will have to read POWs their Miranda rights before taking them "into custody."
Yes, and maybe we can all join hands and sing "Koom-bah-ya."
Posted by: Florida Cane
at June 19, 2008 09:08 AM
Dear Ann,
In speaking to my liberal minded daughter on this
subject, I mentioned, as you have here, that
detainees have been released from Gitmo and that
several have been captured a second time fighting
our forces. Unfortunately pointing to your essay
here will not help me dissuade her of her
skepticism of this factoid as she thinks you are
the Devil! Can you or someone out there point
me to where this point can be corroborated?
GW Bramhall
Vips85@aol.com
Posted by: GW Bramhall
at June 19, 2008 09:51 AM
The old saying, take no prisoners.
Posted by: llg1183
at June 19, 2008 08:01 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
