Scalia "Get Over It"

Hey Scalia try telling that to the families of all those who are dead as a result of this Bush Presidency. Imagine if it was your child killed in a war based on lies started by a moronic asshole that didn't even win the election. I bet you would think very differently but hey your kids would never be there. People like you make me sick.

High Court to Hear Terror Detainee Case

The Supreme Court said today that it would review the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their confinements in federal court, reversing a decision in April not to take up that issue.

The justices did not say what had changed their minds. The Bush administration had praised the court's earlier decision not to review the matter.

At the time, only three of four justices necessary to grant review--David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer--were willing to take the two cases involved, saying "these questions deserve this court's immediate attention.'' Two other justices, John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy, issued a statement saying they might want to hear the issue in the future.

The court consolidated two cases, Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S., and will hear them together sometime after its new term begins next October. In addition, the court said it would consult the findings of the D.C. circuit appeals court in two other pending cases in which detainees challenge the judgment of the military tribunals that determined them to be enemy combatants.

The court has considered the rights of detainees twice in the last three years, ruling both times against the administration.

This is good news from a Court that has recently turned far to the right with the addition of Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

The United States has always stood for freedom and equal justice under the law. How can we just hold people without charge for as long as we want? This sounds more like the tactics of a dictatorship than a democracy. Military tribunals without public oversight is not the image we want to present to the world. If the people being held are terrorists, prove it in a court of law. The first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 resulted in the arrest and convictions of those involved. If we do not return to our democratic roots than the terrorists have won by changing the very definition of what it means to be American. Free and open trials are the backbone of our democracy and if the detainees are truly terrorists then provide the evidence in open court.

Use of Race in School Placement Curbed

In a decision of sweeping importance to educators, parents and schoolchildren across the country, the Supreme Court today sharply limited the ability of school districts to manage the racial makeup of the student bodies in their schools.

The court voted, 5 to 4, to reject diversity plans from Seattle and Louisville, Ky., declaring that the districts had failed to meet “their heavy burden” of justifying “the extreme means they have chosen — discriminating among individual students based on race by relying upon racial classifications in making school assignments,” as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court.

This ruling can be seen as a direct assault on the Brown vs. Board of education decision in 1954. Is it possible that we will go back to the separate but equal school system that we had without ever having to state that publicly?

The rationale of the chief justice’s opinion relied in part on the historic 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education that outlawed segregation in public schools — a factor that the dissenters on the court found to be a cruel irony, and which they objected to in emotional terms.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

That is the most simplistic and idiotic explanation for a ruling that I have ever heard. In what world does Justice Roberts live? If stopping discrimination was that easy we would not have the racial prejudice that exists in this country today.

Will this ruling be used as the legal precedent to get rid of affirmative action? If you listen to Justice Roberts it would appear that is a strong possibility.

Mark Rahdert, a Temple Law School professor and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, said that today’s ruling means that “racial balance” will be “the new catchphrase conservatives will use to attempt to eradicate any form of affirmative action.”

As for Justice Kennedy’s “willingness to leave the door open to some forms of affirmative action,” it will be impossible as a practical matter, Mr. Rahdert said.

The National Urban League issued a statement asserting that today’s decision “could end up legalizing re-segregation nationwide by raising the bar for achieving racial diversity.”

Dissenting Justice Stephen Breyer said to an open court "It's not often that so few, have changed so much for so many."

Supreme Court Rulings Show New Courts Direction

The Supreme Court on Monday took a sharp turn away from campaign finance regulation, opening a wide exception to the advertising restrictions that it upheld when the McCain-Feingold law first came before it four years ago.

In a splintered 5-to-4 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that as interpreted broadly by federal regulators and the law’s supporters, the restrictions on television advertisements paid for from corporate or union treasuries in the weeks before an election amounted to censorship of core political speech unless those advertisements explicitly urge a vote for or against a particular candidate.

This is a huge loss for the American people. Once again issue advertisements will flood the airwaves. This is the result of the changed court under George W. Bush. Four years ago this law was upheld by a court that included Sandra Day O'Connor, this ruling opens up a huge loophole that will be abused by the special interest groups.

The decision was a reminder of the ways in which the justices appointed by President Bush are moving the court. While Chief Justice Roberts’s predecessor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, was a dissenter when the court upheld the law four years ago, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was in the 5-to-4 majority. Her successor, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., voted with Chief Justice Roberts on Monday, and in fact was the only justice to join his opinion fully.

Two other closely divided rulings announced on Monday also showed the influence of the new justices. The court limited student speech and ruled that taxpayers do not have standing to challenge the administration’s program of support for social service programs offered by religious institutions.

The next President will almost surely appoint at least one and possibly more justices. Who we elect as President could have far reaching consequences for a generation. The Supreme Court should be one of the major issues in the next campaign.

Justices Raise Doubts on Campaign Finance

It would appear that the Supreme Court is ready to open loopholes in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law:

At issue is a major provision of the five-year-old law that bars corporations and labor unions from paying for advertisements that mention the name of a candidate for federal office and that are broadcast 60 days before an election or 30 days before a primary. By a 5-to-4 vote in December 2003, the court held that the provision, on its face, passed First Amendment muster.

Since 2003 the court has taken a decidedly conservative turn. Campaign Finance reform remains one of the greatest challenges facing the middle class. How can we reasonably expect our elected officials to represent all of their constituents when only a small percentage has the financial ability to donate. Our campaigns have become all about money. If we as the Middle Class do not force a change, we will cease to exist. The time to stand up and demand change in the way we finance campaigns is long overdo.

Read the rest of this article here.