Mixed bag of Supreme Court decisions
Well, the decisions on what I consider three of the most important cases in this Supreme Court session came back, and I can't decide if I should throw a party or curl up in the corner and weep.
First, the case against Cheney (trying to force him to reveal info about his secret energy task force meetings). Cheney's opponents believe it is important to know how the government is making its decisions; more to the point, did Cheney's interaction with energy industry reps spawn improper recommendations and policies? I think you can probably come up with some good theories on your own as to what might happen in a secret meeting between the VP and the energy industry. The Supreme Court sent the case back to a lower court, saying the court's order to release informationw as too broad, and while the information request may not be proper under the specific law cited in the lawsuit, the court should consider other laws that might allow access to the information. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/scotus.cheney.taskforce.ap/index.html
In the long-awaited (by me) Ashcroft v. ACLU, the Court again delivered a mixed message- they said the Child Online Protection Act (making it illegal to put "inappropriate to minors" material online without making sure minors can't access it) was probably unconstitutional; but rather than outright delcaring that, they sent hte case back to a lower court to be re-argued. This will give the Bushies a chance to show why COPA is not unconstitutional, as well as a discussion of what other kind of methods are now available to prevent minors from accessing "inappropriate" material. I'm not going to go into my whole rant because I'm at work an I'm tired, but put simply- COPA and related legislation is a ridiculous farce; it forces rural Utah morals on the entire nation, preventing adults from exercising their free speechrights and blocking children from information that may be important (such as info on reproduction), all in the name of a right-wing minority's ideal of enforcing their puritan standards on the world.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/29/scotus.web.indecency/index.html
Finally, another subject close to my heart, the Padilla and detainee cases. The Padilla case was unfortunately ordered to be refiled, since Padilla improperly named Rumsfeld as the defendant in his suit (it should have been the guy more directly in charge of the place he's imprisoned). So that's a temporary reprieve for the Bushies but hopefully the court will come back with the right answer next time. For those who are unaware (shame!)- Padilla is the most profoundly disturbing constitutional case of all the terrorism cases, because Padilla is an American citizen who was arrested IN AMERICA. You can argu perhaps that f you catch an American fighting with an enemy army overseas it makes sense to consider him an enemy combatant (or if you aren't a dick) a prisoner of war. Maybe. But in the Padilla case the Bush administration is claiming they have the right to seize American citizens on American soil on mere suspician, hold them indefinitely with no lawyer, no day in court, no charges, and no rights of ANY kind. Hello, 1984!
The other cases helped somewhat but did not do the entire job of deflating Bush's apparent desire to be a military dictator. Hamdi, detained by the military in SC (like Padilla) is an American, but he was captured (as CNN says) "on the battlefield" in Afghanistan during the war. He was taken to Gauntanamo Bay but brought back to the US when they figured out his citizenship. Like Padilla, he's been held without any rights. The Court did not say the President has no right to hold Hamdi, but they did say he is entitled to an attorney and to challenge his detention in court.
A similar judgment was made for the Guantanamo Bay detainees- that they are entitled to challenge their detention in American courts. This may be the best decision in relative terms. But it's still weak- the court did not dispute the President's right to treat the detainees as enemy combatants and ignore Geneva.
Basically it seems to me (although I've yet to read the opinions) that the Court is treading water. They can't seem to make hard, yes/no decisions, so instead they waffle, waver, and send cases back to lower courts to buy themselves more time. Frankly if you're not going to issue a strong decision one way or the other I'm not sure why you bother to take the case at all. But while none of the decisions are as strong as I like, at least they aren't outright wins for Bush's administration. And the Hamdi and detainee decisions, while weak-kneed, at least cut the administration downa bit. (Since they did not get what they wanted, which is essentially free reign to ignore the constitution entirely and run the country as if the executive branch was the only one and the chief executive its reigning monarch. And if you think I am exaggerating then you ave not read these cases or the constitution lately.)
so...bleah. I encourage everyone to celebrate their temporarily upheld internet freedom by visiting www.eff.org and reading graphic internet smut.
First, the case against Cheney (trying to force him to reveal info about his secret energy task force meetings). Cheney's opponents believe it is important to know how the government is making its decisions; more to the point, did Cheney's interaction with energy industry reps spawn improper recommendations and policies? I think you can probably come up with some good theories on your own as to what might happen in a secret meeting between the VP and the energy industry. The Supreme Court sent the case back to a lower court, saying the court's order to release informationw as too broad, and while the information request may not be proper under the specific law cited in the lawsuit, the court should consider other laws that might allow access to the information. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/scotus.cheney.taskforce.ap/index.html
In the long-awaited (by me) Ashcroft v. ACLU, the Court again delivered a mixed message- they said the Child Online Protection Act (making it illegal to put "inappropriate to minors" material online without making sure minors can't access it) was probably unconstitutional; but rather than outright delcaring that, they sent hte case back to a lower court to be re-argued. This will give the Bushies a chance to show why COPA is not unconstitutional, as well as a discussion of what other kind of methods are now available to prevent minors from accessing "inappropriate" material. I'm not going to go into my whole rant because I'm at work an I'm tired, but put simply- COPA and related legislation is a ridiculous farce; it forces rural Utah morals on the entire nation, preventing adults from exercising their free speechrights and blocking children from information that may be important (such as info on reproduction), all in the name of a right-wing minority's ideal of enforcing their puritan standards on the world.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/29/scotus.web.indecency/index.html
Finally, another subject close to my heart, the Padilla and detainee cases. The Padilla case was unfortunately ordered to be refiled, since Padilla improperly named Rumsfeld as the defendant in his suit (it should have been the guy more directly in charge of the place he's imprisoned). So that's a temporary reprieve for the Bushies but hopefully the court will come back with the right answer next time. For those who are unaware (shame!)- Padilla is the most profoundly disturbing constitutional case of all the terrorism cases, because Padilla is an American citizen who was arrested IN AMERICA. You can argu perhaps that f you catch an American fighting with an enemy army overseas it makes sense to consider him an enemy combatant (or if you aren't a dick) a prisoner of war. Maybe. But in the Padilla case the Bush administration is claiming they have the right to seize American citizens on American soil on mere suspician, hold them indefinitely with no lawyer, no day in court, no charges, and no rights of ANY kind. Hello, 1984!
The other cases helped somewhat but did not do the entire job of deflating Bush's apparent desire to be a military dictator. Hamdi, detained by the military in SC (like Padilla) is an American, but he was captured (as CNN says) "on the battlefield" in Afghanistan during the war. He was taken to Gauntanamo Bay but brought back to the US when they figured out his citizenship. Like Padilla, he's been held without any rights. The Court did not say the President has no right to hold Hamdi, but they did say he is entitled to an attorney and to challenge his detention in court.
A similar judgment was made for the Guantanamo Bay detainees- that they are entitled to challenge their detention in American courts. This may be the best decision in relative terms. But it's still weak- the court did not dispute the President's right to treat the detainees as enemy combatants and ignore Geneva.
Basically it seems to me (although I've yet to read the opinions) that the Court is treading water. They can't seem to make hard, yes/no decisions, so instead they waffle, waver, and send cases back to lower courts to buy themselves more time. Frankly if you're not going to issue a strong decision one way or the other I'm not sure why you bother to take the case at all. But while none of the decisions are as strong as I like, at least they aren't outright wins for Bush's administration. And the Hamdi and detainee decisions, while weak-kneed, at least cut the administration downa bit. (Since they did not get what they wanted, which is essentially free reign to ignore the constitution entirely and run the country as if the executive branch was the only one and the chief executive its reigning monarch. And if you think I am exaggerating then you ave not read these cases or the constitution lately.)
so...bleah. I encourage everyone to celebrate their temporarily upheld internet freedom by visiting www.eff.org and reading graphic internet smut.